To follow up, the US Constitution and its applicability in the USVI is something of a gray area. A series of SCOTUS decisions known as the Insular Cases will likely be used to defend the Governor's actions. It's not as clear-cut as the NRA case against New Orleans in 2006.
Hurricane Irma = Second Amendment appears to go out the window in US Virgin Islands?
- Thread starter TXAZ
- Start date
To follow up, the US Constitution and its applicability in the USVI is something of a gray area. A series of SCOTUS decisions known as the Insular Cases will likely be used to defend the Governor's actions. It's not as clear-cut as the NRA case against New Orleans in 2006.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well, they haven't identified any parties with standing yet. So that's a big hurdle.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
No. You are confusing the comments in the findings with the authority granted to the federal government to direct spending of federal money.
The statute derives it authority from Congress's power of the purse; and whatever arguments can be made that territories are not subject to the Constitution, you won't ever see any territory making an argument that would threaten federal funding.
And while the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the USVI is pretty sketchy as well, this statute doesn't rely on it to be effective.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Yes, if they intend to file a lawsuit. Just the order is probably not enough to grant standing if no actual firearms were commandeered.
There are federal limits and prohibitions on seizure or confiscation, by federal authorities. But looking at findlaw, some states have explicit laws against it and some do not.
Some temporary confiscation is allowed in some cases in almost all states (for example getting on an evacuation bus or using a emergency facility).
In terms of the US bill of rights and the USVI there seems to be case law going either way. But having some family with property and firearms there, there I know for a fact a) it is essentially "may issue" for any possession, ie the authorities make a determination if you cause need one even for your home b) in reality non residents with vacation property there have a fairly easy time getting both ownership and carry licenses, while native residents do not.
Some temporary confiscation is allowed in some cases in almost all states (for example getting on an evacuation bus or using a emergency facility).
In terms of the US bill of rights and the USVI there seems to be case law going either way. But having some family with property and firearms there, there I know for a fact a) it is essentially "may issue" for any possession, ie the authorities make a determination if you cause need one even for your home b) in reality non residents with vacation property there have a fairly easy time getting both ownership and carry licenses, while native residents do not.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
The Supreme Court has ruled the Bill of Rights are not fully incorporated to U.S. territories in the "Insular Acts" cases. These cases date back to the early 1900s when America had acquired numerous former Spanish territories in the Spanish-American War. The military governor of those territories was administering the new territories. The Supreme Court recognized that in this situation, a full-recognition of the Bill of Rights was going to be problematic (imagine, for example if SCOTUS had ruled the Bill of Rights applied in Iraq post-Saddam to get an idea of the problem).
This concept is still precedent and territories do not have full voting rights, etc. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the citizens of the territories still have "fundamental" rights. While the Supreme Court has never catalogued which rights are fundamental, both Heller and McDonald describe the right protected as fundamental.
The short version of that is anti-gunners won't be confiscating any guns in U.S. territories unless they are just monumentally stupid as they'll create low-hanging fruit to further expand Second Amendment jurisprudence.
This concept is still precedent and territories do not have full voting rights, etc. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the citizens of the territories still have "fundamental" rights. While the Supreme Court has never catalogued which rights are fundamental, both Heller and McDonald describe the right protected as fundamental.
The short version of that is anti-gunners won't be confiscating any guns in U.S. territories unless they are just monumentally stupid as they'll create low-hanging fruit to further expand Second Amendment jurisprudence.