The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 11, 2017, 04:17 PM   #26
hdwhit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
Paul B wrote:
Surely the NG in the VI have their issued M16 rifles, right? Why would they need any civilian firearms?
They don't necessarily need the civilian's firearms, but if they come to commandeer explosives or earth-moving equipment that you have and which they DO need, they may also need the legal authority to disarm you if you choose to not comply with the order.
hdwhit is offline  
Old September 11, 2017, 07:57 PM   #27
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
No. Not under the statute you cited. That statute derives its authority from the Second Amendment which does not exist in the Virgin Islands.
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 is offline  
Old September 12, 2017, 01:19 AM   #28
DaleA
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?
DaleA is offline  
Old September 12, 2017, 07:31 AM   #29
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Do they have to find someone who has had their firearm taken away?
Yes, if they intend to file a lawsuit. Just the order is probably not enough to grant standing if no actual firearms were commandeered.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 16, 2017, 08:27 PM   #30
TDL
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.
TDL is offline  
Old September 17, 2017, 11:52 AM   #31
Bartholomew Roberts
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07205 seconds with 8 queries