Fact check: Do native americans believe in the free speech and right to bear arms us constitution written by the founding fathers who claim they stole their land?

1. What people are actually claiming — a quick map of the core assertions that sparked the question

The original question bundles three claims: that Native Americans either accept or reject First and Second Amendment rights; that the Founding Fathers “stole” Indigenous land; and that belief in constitutional rights follows from that history. These are separate factual and normative assertions. Historical dispossession is documented in efforts like Onondaga Nation’s 1794 treaty challenge seeking 2.5 million acres, which frames land loss as an ongoing legal and moral injury influencing attitudes toward U.S. institutions ^[1]. Scholarship arguing the Constitution facilitated conquest directly links constitutional history to Native skepticism about American legal claims ^[2].

2. How the legal picture actually works on tribal lands — not a single rule but overlapping authorities

Federal, state, and tribal jurisdictions intersect in complex ways. Tribes exercise sovereignty to enact and enforce their own laws, including speech and weapons rules, while federal law still affects many aspects of life on reservations. Court cases addressing tribal jurisdiction show the U.S. legal system continues to negotiate boundaries between tribal self-government and federal authority ^[4]. That legal mosaic means constitutional protections as applied on tribal lands are not identical to how they operate off-reservation; tribal codes and treaties materially shape rights in practice.

3. What activists and scholars say — two competing narratives that both matter

One narrative emphasizes incorporation: many Native individuals and leaders rely on the First Amendment and Second Amendment protections when interacting with federal and state systems, or when asserting civil liberties in public life. Another narrative, advanced by scholars and movements like Land Back, argues the Constitution is implicated in dispossession and thus cannot be the sole moral or legal arbiter for Indigenous rights. This critique frames constitutional law as complicit in conquest, shaping why some Indigenous advocates seek remedies outside conventional constitutional reliance ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Recent legal actions that illuminate practical attitudes toward the Constitution

The Onondaga Nation’s 2024-2025 treaty litigation shows tribes are using U.S. courts to seek land redress while simultaneously asserting sovereignty—an approach that treats the federal legal system as a venue for remedy rather than an unquestioned source of legitimacy ^[1]. Meanwhile, cases like Cherokee Nation v. Department of the Interior demonstrate continued litigation over federal-tribal relationships and jurisdictional boundaries, reflecting practical engagement with U.S. law even as historical grievances remain unresolved ^[4].

5. How land-restoration politics reshapes views on rights and governance

The Land Back movement reframes property and governance: reclaiming land is framed as a precondition for meaningful self-determination, which in turn affects how communities prioritize rights protections. Where tribes succeed in reacquiring land or strengthening sovereignty, they may emphasize tribal constitutions and laws over reliance on federal constitutional guarantees; where legal avenues remain the most viable route to remedy, federal rights are pressed as instruments for protection ^{[3] [1]}.

6. What this means for free speech and firearms specifically in practice

Practically, free speech and firearms rules vary by tribal community: tribes may adopt different speech protections and firearms regulations reflecting local priorities, safety concerns, and cultural norms. Because tribal sovereignty allows distinct regulatory choices, Native Americans cannot be uniformly said to “believe” or “disbelieve” in the U.S. Constitution’s First or Second Amendments; many navigate both tribal and federal regimes depending on context ^{[4] [3]}.

7. Watch for agendas — why sources diverge and what they emphasize

Sources advocating land return or constitutional critiques often foreground historical injustice and system-level reform; legal bulletins and tribal filings emphasize procedural remedies and jurisdictional nuance. Both perspectives are factual but serve different strategic goals: scholarly critiques push systemic rethinking, while litigation and policy work seek concrete remedies within existing legal frameworks ^{[2] [5] [1]}.

8. Bottom line: a nuanced, evidence-based conclusion for the original question

There is no single Native American position on the U.S. Constitution’s free speech and gun rights; attitudes are shaped by historical dispossession, active land-reclamation efforts, tribal sovereignty, and pragmatic legal engagement. Some Indigenous people rely on and invoke constitutional protections, others prioritize tribal legal frameworks or critique the Constitution’s role in conquest, and many balance those approaches simultaneously in pursuit of rights and restoration ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.