Does 2A not apply in US territories (Virgin Islands)

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,718
    113
    Michiana
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downes_v._Bidwell

    Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".
    All I could find.
     

    Audie Murphy

    Master
    Rating - 95.2%
    59   3   0
    Sep 21, 2010
    2,102
    48
    Warsaw
    Wow, how does collecting arms and such is going to help them in their mission. Ridiculous. Guess what, they have a mandatory requirement on registration too .
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    That is true, however I've found this as well. Unlike Puerto Rico, the USVI does not have its own constitution. As a result, its government structure is defined in Congress' Organic Acts for the USVI, which also defines the status of the territory's residents. In some other insular areas you may have US Nationals, but not US Citizens, such as American Samoa, or some of each, apparently by choice, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI). US Nationals do not have the full protections or privileges of the US Constitution, only some of them. They owe allegiance to the US and cannot be deported. Like Puerto Rico, the residents of the US Virgin Islands, other than legal immigrants (e.g. green card), are US Citizens, which makes a huge difference. Their citizenship is conferred by Title 8 U.S. Code § 1406 - Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1406

    The USVI also has a Federal District Court of the Virgin Islands. It acts in the full capacity of a US District Court, except that it's an Article IV Court established under Congress' power to regulate Territories versus Article III Federal District Courts in the various states. The USVI District Court judge is appointed for a term of 10 years versus an Article III judge which is appointed for life. In all other respects, it's like any other Federal District Court. All appeals go to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. USVI also has a non-voting representative of the House. They are very similar to Puerto Rico except they have no territorial constitution. I've concluded from this, as citizens (versus nationals), they have all the protections of Federal Law and the US Constitution, except the right to vote in federal elections.

    This really took some digging, but within the Organic Acts for the US Virgin Islands, they do enjoy full 2nd Amendment rights. The Organic Acts for USVI are contained in 48 U.S. Code Chapter 12 - VIRGIN ISLANDS [1954] (as amended). The Bill of Rights for USVI reads much like a mini version of the US constitution. It's contained in 48 U.S. Code § 1561 - Rights and prohibitions, a section under Chapter 12. You can read it here and you'll have to plow through the text until you get to the part that guarantees them full rights under Amendments 1-9.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/48/1561

    In the "it seems to me" department, they have the same protection against weapons seizure that the residents of New Orleans did. The difference is they're not under the jurisdiction of that distict court, but the USVI district court. However, I believe an argument that the 2006 congressional act that prohibits seizing weapons from them is just as applicable would stick.

    The Organic Acts for each of the territories (or group of them) establishes what constitutional rights they have. Just gotta know to look for a territory's Organic Acts. My challenge was finding the territorial Organic Acts in the US Code. :)

    John

    P.S.
    Those with sharp eyes will note there is also a Chapter 7 covering the Virgin Islands. It dates to the Organic Act of 1936 and the bulk of it is repealed by Chapter 12 (1954 as amended), but not quite all of it.
     
    Last edited:

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana

    The link you provided is about the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. The CNMI has a much different relationship with the US than the USVI. There is a covenant of union between the CNMI and the US that defines it. We gained the CNMI in 1947 after WWII. If I recall correctly, it was a Trusteeship along with other former Japanese islands that Japan had gained under the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI including Saipan (CNMI were formerly German territory). Guam, however, was US and remained US at that time. That Trusteeship evolved into the covenant approved by plebiscite in the CNMI, and became effective in the mid-1980's.

    However, if a 2nd Amendment issue was upheld in the CNMI which doesn't have as firmly established Constitutional Rights as territories like the USVI, then I seriously doubt 2A is at any risk in the USVI . . . particularly when the Organic Acts relating to USVI guarantee them Amendments 1-9 from (plus some others, like 13, 14, etc).

    John
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana

    I had noted this on the NRA site earlier as I went there knowing they had filed the lawsuit with the NOPD in the Fed Dist Court of Eastern LA when the NOPD chief started seizing firearms. Was hoping they would have posted something about filing suit in the USVI District Court by now. Perhaps they need someone with standing before that court to represent. In any event, from what I discovered this evening about the USVI and the rights conferred under the Organic Acts applicable to them, this should be a slam dunk case with a summary judgment and injunction.

    John

    Edit Update:
    I didn't realize the hurricane was so imminent. No opportunity to file with the court with less than 48 hours prior to the hurricane. Hopefully the NRA et al. will take immediate legal action after the hurricane blows past and the Federal District Court of VI is up and running again.
     
    Last edited:

    Thor

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 18, 2014
    10,704
    113
    Could be anywhere
    Gun grabbers gotta grab the guns when they can. Can't have folks defending themselves from looters...that's the governments job. Sure they might fail but how dare the citizenry take their jobs like that.
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    Gun grabbers gotta grab the guns when they can. Can't have folks defending themselves from looters...that's the governments job. Sure they might fail but how dare the citizenry take their jobs like that.

    Unless there's a departmental policy, or a local ordinance or state law to the contrary, law enforcement officers have no duty to protect anyone from anything. That the overwhelming majority choose to do so as a matter of practice is to their credit. This has been up the Federal Court chain several times to SCOTUS under slightly different circumstances with the same result each time. It is one of several reasons the Federal District Court for Eastern Louisiana declared the NOPD's Hurricane Katrina firearm confiscation order unconstitutional.

    John
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    It is nearly impossible for a USVI resident to own a firearm in the first place. My BIL had to leave his here in the States when they moved. You need a permit to even own, and carrying by normal citizens is incredibly difficult. I'm surprised there was much to confiscate, but thanks to their registration, they would know exactly where to find them.
     

    AmmoManAaron

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Feb 20, 2015
    3,334
    83
    I-get-around
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downes_v._Bidwell

    Downes v. Bidwell, 182U.S.244 (1901), was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".

    All I could find.

    Interesting that some people think the Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to illegal immigrants and all people of the World, yet the Supreme Court has already held that it doesn't "necessarily" apply to people in U.S. Territories.
     

    AmmoManAaron

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    37   0   0
    Feb 20, 2015
    3,334
    83
    I-get-around
    That is true, however I've found this as well. Unlike Puerto Rico, the USVI does not have its own constitution. As a result, its government structure is defined in Congress' Organic Acts for the USVI, which also defines the status of the territory's residents. In some other insular areas you may have US Nationals, but not US Citizens, such as American Samoa, or some of each, apparently by choice, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI). US Nationals do not have the full protections or privileges of the US Constitution, only some of them. They owe allegiance to the US and cannot be deported. Like Puerto Rico, the residents of the US Virgin Islands, other than legal immigrants (e.g. green card), are US Citizens, which makes a huge difference. Their citizenship is conferred by Title 8 U.S. Code § 1406 - Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1406

    The USVI also has a Federal District Court of the Virgin Islands. It acts in the full capacity of a US District Court, except that it's an Article IV Court established under Congress' power to regulate Territories versus Article III Federal District Courts in the various states. The USVI District Court judge is appointed for a term of 10 years versus an Article III judge which is appointed for life. In all other respects, it's like any other Federal District Court. All appeals go to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. USVI also has a non-voting representative of the House. They are very similar to Puerto Rico except they have no territorial constitution. I've concluded from this, as citizens (versus nationals), they have all the protections of Federal Law and the US Constitution, except the right to vote in federal elections.

    This really took some digging, but within the Organic Acts for the US Virgin Islands, they do enjoy full 2nd Amendment rights. The Organic Acts for USVI are contained in 48 U.S. Code Chapter 12 - VIRGIN ISLANDS [1954] (as amended). The Bill of Rights for USVI reads much like a mini version of the US constitution. It's contained in 48 U.S. Code § 1561 - Rights and prohibitions, a section under Chapter 12. You can read it here and you'll have to plow through the text until you get to the part that guarantees them full rights under Amendments 1-9.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/48/1561

    In the "it seems to me" department, they have the same protection against weapons seizure that the residents of New Orleans did. The difference is they're not under the jurisdiction of that distict court, but the USVI district court. However, I believe an argument that the 2006 congressional act that prohibits seizing weapons from them is just as applicable would stick.

    The Organic Acts for each of the territories (or group of them) establishes what constitutional rights they have. Just gotta know to look for a territory's Organic Acts. My challenge was finding the territorial Organic Acts in the US Code. :)

    John

    P.S.
    Those with sharp eyes will note there is also a Chapter 7 covering the Virgin Islands. It dates to the Organic Act of 1936 and the bulk of it is repealed by Chapter 12 (1954 as amended), but not quite all of it.

    The link you provided is about the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. The CNMI has a much different relationship with the US than the USVI. There is a covenant of union between the CNMI and the US that defines it. We gained the CNMI in 1947 after WWII. If I recall correctly, it was a Trusteeship along with other former Japanese islands that Japan had gained under the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI including Saipan (CNMI were formerly German territory). Guam, however, was US and remained US at that time. That Trusteeship evolved into the covenant approved by plebiscite in the CNMI, and became effective in the mid-1980's.

    However, if a 2nd Amendment issue was upheld in the CNMI which doesn't have as firmly established Constitutional Rights as territories like the USVI, then I seriously doubt 2A is at any risk in the USVI . . . particularly when the Organic Acts relating to USVI guarantee them Amendments 1-9 from (plus some others, like 13, 14, etc).

    John

    Good posts! What a tangled web, ugh.
     

    Thor

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 18, 2014
    10,704
    113
    Could be anywhere
    Unless there's a departmental policy, or a local ordinance or state law to the contrary, law enforcement officers have no duty to protect anyone from anything. That the overwhelming majority choose to do so as a matter of practice is to their credit. This has been up the Federal Court chain several times to SCOTUS under slightly different circumstances with the same result each time. It is one of several reasons the Federal District Court for Eastern Louisiana declared the NOPD's Hurricane Katrina firearm confiscation order unconstitutional.

    John

    Just because it ain't so doesn't mean it's not an excuse to do as they please. Every emergency is an opportunity to push a politicians agenda.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    If only there was a federal statute that prevented the government from doing this. If only . . .

    Oh, wait, there is, however it was signed by George W. Bush, who, I learned on INGO, signed no pro-gun legislation. Thus, I know that there is no federal legislation.

    An overview of the non-existent federal legislation that George W. Bush did nothing about and I need a reason not to join the fight so I am going to complain about the lack of progress during Bush 2.0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Recovery_Personal_Protection_Act_of_2006

    Stop threatening and sue them already.
     
    Last edited:

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    Good posts! What a tangled web, ugh.

    Thanks. Regarding the territories, citizenship and constitutional protections are "tangled".

    If you go to Title 48 you can see each Chapter for each territory. There are still chapters for Alaska and Hawaii. I don't want to provide spoliers, but while nearly all of their content is repealed or otherwise omitted, there are still a couple statutes within them.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/48

    In addition, for the curious, you can see how citizenship was handled in the acquisition of Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Guam.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-III/part-I

    John
     

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    I have an idea. Grant full citizenship to all the folks in these places. Declare the Constitution supreme in these areas and let it go at that. It is long overdue.
     
    Top Bottom