On July 22, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division asked a federal judge to block the U.S. Virgin Islands from enforcing Act 9113 — the territory's ban on modern semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines, signed by Governor Albert Bryan Jr. on June 24.
The timing was not accidental.
Five days earlier, the Third Circuit sitting en banc had struck down New Jersey's ban on the same class of firearms, ruling 10 to 5 in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, consolidated with Cheeseman. Judge Arianna Freeman wrote for the majority across roughly 192 pages.
It was the first time a federal appeals court sitting en banc struck down a state semiautomatic rifle ban. The Seventh Circuit had gone the other way eight days before, so there is now a live circuit split — and the Supreme Court already granted review on June 30 in Viramontes v. Cook County.
The Virgin Islands sits inside the Third Circuit. So does Delaware, whose ban is now on the same ledge.
What is already on the record
The July 22 filing is a second motion for preliminary injunction, not a new lawsuit. DOJ sued the territory in December.
The original complaint alleged an unconstitutional permitting scheme: unreasonable delays, bolted-in safe requirements, home inspections, and a discretionary proper-cause standard nearly identical to the one Bruen invalidated in New York.
DOJ limited its requested relief to magazines holding thirty or fewer rounds — a deliberate scoping choice worth noticing.
Two things are true
The first is that residents of the Virgin Islands are American citizens.
They cannot vote for president. They have one non-voting delegate in Congress. They are governed under a framework that has left territorial citizens in a constitutional half-light for more than a century.
Whatever else is true, a citizen in Christiansted should not hold fewer enumerated rights than a citizen in Camden. If the Second Amendment means something in Trenton, it means the same thing in St. Croix. And a legislature that answers a December lawsuit by passing a broader ban in June is doubling down rather than complying. Courts notice that.
The second thing, which is less comfortable
The Civil Rights Division has never before brought pattern-or-practice litigation to enforce the Second Amendment.
That authority was built for a different purpose and spent most of its life aimed at police departments and voting registrars. Harmeet Dhillon created a Second Amendment Section inside the division and pointed it at a territory, under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — whose own nomination to the permanent job is still pending.
I think the underlying legal claim is sound. I also think anyone applauding the mechanism should sit with a question.
This tool now exists, aimed at state and territorial governments, wielded by whoever holds the division four years from now. Precedent does not stay pointed where you aimed it. Every expansion of federal authority in American history was justified by an urgent case, and nearly all were later used for something the original advocates would not have chosen.
That does not mean do not do it. Rights that exist only where a legislature is agreeable are not rights, and warrantless home inspections as a condition of a permit should offend you regardless of where you stand on firearms.
But conservatives spent decades arguing federal power is dangerous in proportion to its usefulness.
That argument was correct. It stays correct when the power is being used for something we want.
Win the case. Then remember what you built.
Add your perspective
Left: a territory with its own elected legislature choosing stricter firearms rules is self-government, and DOJ is overriding the only vote those citizens actually have. Right: the Insular framework is the scandal, and full constitutional parity is overdue. Center if the pattern-or-practice question interests you more than the firearms question.
