DOJ Says Virgin Islands Replaced One Unconstitutional Gun-Control Regime With Another

The U.S. Department of Justice says the Virgin Islands cannot escape a federal Second Amendment lawsuit by repealing one unconstitutional gun-control law and replacing it with another.

That argument comes in a July 29 opposition to the territory’s second motion to dismiss in United States v. Government of the Virgin Islands. The filing is the latest development in a fight AmmoLand has followed since the Justice Department first sued the Virgin Islands government, the Virgin Islands Police Department, and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks in December 2025 over excessive licensing delays, discretionary permitting, and firearm-license conditions imposed without statutory authority.

The DOJ’s original complaint accused VIPD of continuing to enforce a “proper reason” requirement after the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, while also demanding bolted-down gun safes and delaying some applications for months.

The dispute expanded after Virgin Islands lawmakers enacted Act 9113 in June. Rather than merely correcting the territory’s unconstitutional licensing system, the new law added restrictions on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, standard-capacity magazines, suppressors, firearm transportation, storage, and public carry.

On July 23, AmmoLand reported that DOJ had moved to block Act 9113’s rifle and magazine provisions after the en banc Third Circuit struck down New Jersey’s similar bans in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, formerly known as Cheeseman v. Platkin.

The July 29 opposition answers the territory’s attempt to end the entire case. Virgin Islands officials argue that Act 9113 repealed the old licensing system and gave DOJ the relief it originally sought, leaving nothing for the federal court to decide.

DOJ says that badly misstates the case. According to the federal government, the lawsuit was never limited to one unconstitutional sentence in the Virgin Islands Code. It targets what DOJ describes as a years-long “pattern or practice” of police misconduct that deprived residents of their Second Amendment rights.

“The new statute does not address—much less remedy—all of VIPD’s misconduct,” DOJ argued. “Moreover, the new statute creates additional constitutional violations that will be the subject of a supplemental complaint.”

Act 9113, in other words, did not end the confrontation. DOJ says it created the next phase of it.

Virgin Islands Admits Former Licensing Rule Was Unconstitutional

The most significant development in the July 29 filing is DOJ’s claim that the defendants now admit the Virgin Islands’ former “proper reason” requirement violated the Second Amendment under Bruen. According to DOJ, territorial officials also admit they knew the requirement was unconstitutional more than two years ago but did not amend the statute until the federal government sued. The filing goes further. DOJ says requests for admission are deemed admitted, showing that VIPD denied one or more firearm-license applications under the unconstitutional proper-reason requirement in every year from 2022 through 2026.

That adds an important new fact. The original lawsuit alleged that VIPD maintained an unconstitutional may-issue system after Bruen. The July 29 opposition now claims the litigation record establishes that VIPD continued denying applications under that standard year after year.

This was not simply an obsolete statute gathering dust in the territorial code. According to the DOJ, it was an unconstitutional restriction that police continued to use against citizens seeking to exercise a fundamental right.

DOJ Details a Broader Pattern of Police Misconduct

The federal lawsuit is not limited to the territory’s former may-issue language. DOJ brought the case under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, which allows the federal government to seek equitable relief when law-enforcement officers engage in a pattern or practice of depriving people of constitutional rights. The July 29 filing alleges that VIPD’s misconduct extended well beyond the proper-reason requirement.

Among other things, DOJ says VIPD required firearm-license applicants to have a safe bolted to their homes even though no Virgin Islands statute imposed such a requirement. VIPD also allegedly required applicants to consent to warrantless searches, inspections, or other intrusions into their homes as a condition of obtaining a firearm license.

A citizen should never be forced to surrender Fourth Amendment protection inside his own home as the price of exercising his Second Amendment rights. But that was the choice gun owners faced in the Virgin Islands.

The filing also says VIPD:

• Routinely failed to process firearm-license applications within 120 days.
• Imposed application requirements not authorized by territorial statute.
• Used a “good moral character” standard without objective criteria.
• Refused to approve certain firearm models or types without statutory authority.
• Stopped issuing licenses for more than five weeks in 2026 because of malfunctioning equipment.
• Restricted some licensees to possessing firearms for self-defense only inside their homes.
• Regularly added discretionary restrictions not found in territorial law.

Perhaps most strikingly, DOJ says VIPD prohibited dealers from selling or distributing magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds even though the department had no statutory authority to impose such a ban.

That allegation reveals the real danger of treating the right to keep and bear arms as a police-administered privilege. Once officials believe they possess open-ended discretion over the right, the written law becomes only the beginning. Bureaucrats begin inventing restrictions that lawmakers never enacted and the Constitution never permitted.

The New 30-Day Deadline Is the Same as the Old One

The Virgin Islands argues that Act 9113 solves the licensing-delay problem because it requires the police commissioner to issue a license or provide written notice of denial within 30 days. DOJ points out one obvious problem: the old law also imposed a 30-day deadline. VIPD allegedly ignored it.

According to the complaint, some applications remained unresolved for as long as a year. DOJ also says VIPD routinely failed to adjudicate applications within 120 days.

The territory’s supposed solution to a police department that ignored the old 30-day deadline is therefore another 30-day deadline.

A statutory deadline has little value when the agency responsible for obeying it has already demonstrated that it considers such limits optional. That is why DOJ argues the court cannot simply accept officials’ assurances that the misconduct will not happen again.

Under the voluntary-cessation doctrine, defendants generally cannot moot a lawsuit merely by stopping challenged conduct after being sued. They carry the “formidable burden” of showing that the violation cannot reasonably be expected to recur. DOJ says the Virgin Islands has not come close to meeting that burden.

Act 9113 Creates New Second Amendment Problems

Act 9113 did far more than replace the Virgin Islands’ former may-issue licensing system. The law also targeted semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than 15 rounds, creating an immediate conflict with the Third Circuit’s recent en banc decision striking down New Jersey’s comparable bans.

The July 29 opposition places that earlier challenge within a broader argument: Act 9113 cannot moot the lawsuit because the new law allegedly continues the same pattern of unconstitutional enforcement while directing VIPD to commit additional Second Amendment violations.

DOJ identifies provisions involving public carry, the transportation of long guns, firearm storage, license suspensions, suppressors, magazines, and restrictions on protected firearms. The government expects to add those issues to a supplemental complaint following an August 19 hearing.

The filing also relies on the Third Circuit’s decision in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey. AmmoLand has covered that ruling extensively because it struck down New Jersey’s bans on covered semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds.

That precedent is especially important here because the Virgin Islands is within the Third Circuit. The territory cannot dismiss Cheeseman/ANJRPC as the opinion of a distant court addressing an unrelated state law. It is the controlling appellate authority for the federal district court now considering Act 9113.

Virgin Islands Accused of Stonewalling Discovery

The federal government also accuses the defendants of refusing to provide information needed to determine the full extent of VIPD’s conduct.

DOJ says the Virgin Islands would not disclose how many applications were delayed beyond the statutory deadline, why those delays occurred, or how often the proper-reason standard was used to deny licenses. A motion to compel discovery is reportedly forthcoming.

That puts the territory in an awkward position. Officials are asking the court to trust their assurances that the unconstitutional behavior has ended while allegedly withholding evidence that could confirm or disprove those assurances.

The court should not dismiss a constitutional case based on promises from officials who have not fully disclosed what they did, how long they did it, or whether they are still doing it.

A New Chapter in the Same Constitutional Violation

DOJ offers a useful analogy in the filing. Suppose a police department faced a federal lawsuit because its officers routinely violated the Fourth Amendment by choking suspects. If the officers stopped choking people but began beating them with nightsticks, the department could not credibly argue that the case was moot because the original method of abuse had changed.

The same basic principle applies here. The alleged constitutional violation was not merely one sentence in the Virgin Islands Code. It was a governmental practice of treating the right to keep and bear arms as something police officials could delay, condition, restrict, or deny at their discretion.

Repealing the proper-reason requirement does not erase warrantless home-inspection demands, unauthorized firearm restrictions, police-created magazine bans, year-long delays, or continuing enforcement under Act 9113.

The federal government’s July 29 filing turns the Virgin Islands’ mootness argument on its head. Act 9113 is not necessarily proof that the territory corrected its conduct. It may instead become additional evidence that the same constitutional violations are continuing under a different statute.

The Second Amendment is not a licensing privilege bestowed by police. It is a fundamental right secured by the Constitution. The Virgin Islands cannot avoid judicial review by changing the label on its gun-control regime while continuing to burden the people “in the same fundamental way.”

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.