|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 11, 2017, 04:17 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 1,011
|
Quote:
|
|
September 11, 2017, 07:57 PM | #27 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
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. |
|
September 12, 2017, 01:19 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
|
Do they have to find someone who has had their firearm taken away?
Can't they just get a ruling about the order itself? |
September 12, 2017, 07:31 AM | #29 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
September 16, 2017, 08:27 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 317
|
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. |
September 17, 2017, 11:52 AM | #31 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|