CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules for 2013

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP Rules for 2013
From: Richard F DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:57:04 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On 1/8/2013 7:16 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
I guess with this thinking every Indian Reservation should be a multiplier too? National Parks? If I can drive up toe Rocky Mountain National Park and be a mult I am in.

Not really. With respect to Native American reservations, Public Law 280 grants the states authority to enforce laws within reservations that are located within their respective states. 18 U.S.C. § 1162 provided the authority for states like California to have criminal jurisdiction over crimes which involve Native Americans - on tribal soil or outside of tribal soil. There are also some civil jurisdictional grants, but they are more limited than criminal.

In other words, a reservation is quasi independent but still subject to laws of the state in which they are located.

Regardless of if a piece of property is in an indian reservation or on federal land (a park, a monument, an air force base), it is still within the physical boundaries of a state. That is, the ownership matter of property is totally distinct from its physical locality. Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego may be Federal property, but it is physically within the City of San Diego in the state of California.

What is the District of Columbia in? Is it in Maryland? No. Is it in Virginia? No. Is there private land in the District not owned by the Federal government. Yes.

73 Rich NN3W

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>