NRA threatens lawsuit after US Virgin Islands governor orders weapons seizure

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Yeah. Because...it's the Virgin Islands and stuff. That's where the revolution will start. Right?

Well, normally you make more sense to me than this comment. Do YOU know a way to make the bad people stand down so we can move on? If so then please do. Otherwise, we can't be constantly thinking the gun is the problem and be able to solve the real issues of the haters hating on most of us.

a reply to: diggindirt

The governor also didn't "order weapons seizure" either, but nobody seems to want to point that out.

He gave the NG the ability to do it, but if he's explicitly told them to go start doing it, I sure haven't seen it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Interestingly enough, at present, assuming I have correctly understood the situation, the Constitution of the United States, does not actually apply, in part or in full, except in spirit of course, to those on the US Virgin Islands. They are in the midst, and have been for some time, of convening yet another discussion on constructing a constitution to deal with this problem, however the last time they submitted a proposal to the US congress for ratification, it was sent back to them unratified on the grounds that the powers sought, were greater than they ought to have been, according to those who examined the proposal.

So legally speaking, I am not sure at all whether there are actually any constitutional blocks to doing what is being suggested. Furthermore, if guns were taken during Katrina, which they were, in a Constitutionally protected location like the mainland United States of America, then it is unlikely that overmuch dismay would result from removal of firearms by National Guard, in the event they found it necessary, with regard to the Virgin Islands.

That does not, of course, make it right. Just a possibility with significantly less ramifications than it might have elsewhere in the United States area of control.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Isn't the directive right there in the quote in the OP (I bolded it)?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

The order, obtained by The Daily Caller, states that Howell is “authorized and directed to seize arms, ammunition, explosives, incendiary material and any other property that may be required by the military forces for the performance of this emergency mission.”

Now, to be absolutely fair, it specifies that they are only directed to seize anything that they may need to use during their emergency mission, so they may need to seize nothing, or they may need to seize everything.

Regardless, though, it does seem that the order is a directive to actually start doing it. The inclusion of the phrase, "...that maybe be required," gives them the ability to take it all if they have the time and manpower. I'm pretty certain that they have other things to concern themselves with, though.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That's my take on the language. They're directed to take things if they need them.

That's not the same as "start going door to door and take people's guns from them." To me anyway.

The NRA needs to go back to Russia, since that's where the LIKE to party...

From Russia with love from the NRA

During the week of December 8–13, 2015, an NRA delegation traveled to Moscow to meet with Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of Russia’s defense industry. [During the same week, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was paid to appear at Russia Today’s 10th anniversary gala dinner in Moscow beside Vladimir Putin.]

a reply to: Krakatoa

Sh** but hooray. There's still bad blood and grinding poverty in those old sugar-producing colonies...where they'd work you to death when the slave-tradin' was cheap and station a machete-man right near the mouth to the windmill, in case your arms got caught in the cane, they'd hack your hands off lest the whole of you get pulped and juiced into a perfectly fine vat of fresh treakle and thus ruin the whole lot.

That's why they're confiscating weapons there, friends.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I haven't either. Don't like the fact that he ordered what he did, but the sky isn't falling either.

I think the NG is going to have other things on their minds--unfortunately. Things like a big honkin' and howlin' hurricane.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krakatoa

Shouldn't the ACLU be involved in this lawsuit as well? This is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

It is an American civil liberties issue, and they are the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU hates the Second Amendment and has never in the past made even a half-assed attempt to pretend otherwise. The only rights they stand up for are the ones they agree with.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: madmac5150

It's complicated. Are residents of the VI citizens? Can they vote?

Guantanamo is US territory. Right?

They are US citizen but because they don't live in a state they can not vote in presidential elections unless they move to a state.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

(limited)

That's the crux of the biscuit, ain't it.

Yup, bit I know of no primary right that they do not have, with the exception of voting rights. If you are a legal U.S. citizen (born in a U.S. State), why would your rights be removed by living there? If you were born in the territory, then you could be in that limited situation.

People born in the territory are 100% full US citizens. Anyone living in one is subject to the same rules. So if you moved to a US territory and are a US citizen that was born in a state you could not vote for the president.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

(limited)

That's the crux of the biscuit, ain't it.

Yup, bit I know of no primary right that they do not have, with the exception of voting rights. If you are a legal U.S. citizen (born in a U.S. State), why would your rights be removed by living there? If you were born in the territory, then you could be in that limited situation.

In the same way that they are limited when moving from one state to another. If I'm a citizen of Maine for example, I can walk into a gun shop, pass a NICS background check and then walk out the door 10 minutes later with a pistol. If I move to say NY, that same legal pistol in Maine, is now illegal in NY until I go through a whole bunch of legal hurdles like taking a course, gettin signed affidavits, getting the sherif to sign off on it and then a surrogate court judge has to approve it.

To go even further, the SCOTUS views how the Bill of Rights applies in US territories a bit differently than how SCOTUS interprets the BoR application in the Continental States, Alaska and Hawaii. The 2nd Amendment especially so. Because 2A is based on the principle of an armed militia, such as the one raised to fight the British, if that territory has no history of any type of militia then SCOTUS is less likely to apply similar 2A rights to that territory.

Just being US Citizens in a territory doesn't give us all blanket protection via the Constitution because it's how we grew up in Oklahoma or Alaska or California. Local traditions of the Territory in question will play a larger roll in both the laws passed and how SCOTUS interprets the laws as applied to the citizens of the territories in question.

a reply to: Shamrock6

LOL...typical NRA. Blow it out of proportion and make your fit public.

That said...shall not be infringed is much more clear to me than it has been to case law.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
My Air Force buddy there is laughing...

told me they can't do the logistics...too many homes

Not any more.

I heard and interview with this governor last night about this exact topic. His explanation of the "seize" word is that the order was meant to instruct the NG there to acquire whatever ammo, weapons, etc that is needed in the event of a shortage. He explained they have an armory fully stocked, and they are instructed to seize those stocks for this purpose. In the event those are damaged in the storm (or some other equivalent reason) then "seize" means the same as a govt property seizure with the same legal caveat of providing "just compensation" to the property owner, and not just taking guns from citizens. He did acknowledge he had no authority to give any such order to take citizens weapons, as that would be unconstitutional.

However, what is "just compensation" and who decides what is "just"?
Current market value?
Negotiation with the owner?
How much is protecting your family or your life in "just compensation" now that you have no weapon?



The govt is well known to low-ball people when deciding upon compensation.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

I sure hope this gets rescinded and those people are able to protect themselves, otherwise, we will be reading terrible stories there after this passes.

Aye, I hear Richard Bransons house in the British Virgin Islands was completely destroyed by the hurricane. If only he had had a few machine guns, though to protect it from the wind .......

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: Krakatoa

I sure hope this gets rescinded and those people are able to protect themselves, otherwise, we will be reading terrible stories there after this passes.

Aye, I hear Richard Bransons house in the British Virgin Islands was completely destroyed by the hurricane. If only he had had a few machine guns, though to protect it from the wind .......

Nice hyperbole. I guess if he was there and looters went in to the remains and threatened him or family, the wind would be the least of his worries. But then, he is rich and can easily live elsewhere and buy new stuff.

Not so much for the poorer class living there, huh?