In a move that is both welcomed and unexpected, the U.S. Department of Justice has initiated another case related to firearms permitting delays, bringing enforcement under its Civil Rights Division against the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD).
The DOJ made the announcement on December 16 in an X post, where they published this statement by Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division:
“This Civil Rights Division will protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” said Dhillon, adding, “The newly-established Second Amendment Section filed this lawsuit to bring the Virgin Islands Police Department back into legal compliance by ensuring that applicants receive timely decisions without unconstitutional obstruction.”
Ms. Dhillon has been at the forefront of most of the DOJ’s pro-Second Amendment actions, and on December 8, she confirmed she is heading up the newly-created Second Amendment Rights Section, as we reported. This is the second DOJ affirmative lawsuit addressing permitting delays. On September 30, Ms. Dhillon led the DOJ in filing a lawsuit in support of gun owners against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD).
The 12-page complaint, known as United States of America v. Government of Virgin Islands, was filed in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas and St. John Division.
“The territory’s firearms licensing laws and practices are inconsistent with the Second Amendment,” said U.S. Attorney Adam Sleeper for the District of the U.S. Virgin Islands, in a statement on the DOJ website. “This lawsuit seeks to uphold the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”
Although numerous blue states have burdensome permitting schemes, like New Jersey, it’s not clear why the DOJ decided to initiate litigation against a territory rather than another U.S. state.
The complaint calls out the exceptionally onerous and illegal requirements of the Virgin Islands government as part of the permitting process:
VI Defendants require that applicants submit to intrusive and warrantless home searches as a condition of obtaining a gun permit. They demand that applicants unnecessarily spend money to install a safe and further require the safe to be bolted either to the floor or wall of applicant’s home as a condition of granting a permit, even though in Heller, the Supreme Court held that a similar requirement is unconstitutional.
A USVI license to possess or carry a firearm is valid for only three years from the date of issuance and each licensed gun must be inspected annually by the VIPD.
VI code includes numerous subjective requirements that have been deemed unconstitutional by Bruen, including an applicant’s “good moral character” and that a person has “established to the satisfaction of the Commissioner [of VIPD] that he has good reason to fear death or great injury to his person or property…” This must include an affidavit from two “credible persons.”
As part of the initial process, the VIPD must inspect each applicant’s home, absent any legal authority to do so. And if an individual refuses, VIPD denies the application, resulting in what the complaint calls “…a de facto denial.” The complaint notes that the VIPD “takes several months to a year to schedule and complete a home inspection.”
The Bondi DOJ has been largely criticized for actions that are anti-Second Amendment (see our complete tracker here), with the exception of the Civil Rights Division which to date has an unblemished track record under Ms. Dhillon for upholding Second Amendment rights pursuant to Supreme Court precedent.
