Hate ads?! Subscribe for just $5 a month!

USVI Attorney Whines That DOJ’s Being Too Mean to Them in Gun Control Lawsuit

July 10, 2026
11:10 am

▶

Listen to Article

The U.S. Virgin Islands’ latest legal tantrum is a textbook example of how anti-gun jurisdictions treat the Second Amendment as a suggestion rather than settled law. After the DOJ stepped in to defend the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens against the territory’s restrictive carry regime, the USVI’s attorney is now complaining that federal lawyers are being “too aggressive” in court. That’s rich coming from a government that has spent years trying to keep its residents disarmed while ignoring the Supreme Court’s clear directives in Bruen and Heller. The real story isn’t DOJ overreach—it’s a local government that still believes it can carve out its own mini-California in the Caribbean and get away with it. What makes this case especially telling is how it exposes the broader strategy of lawfare that anti-gun officials have adopted since the Bruen decision. Rather than comply with the Court’s history-and-tradition test, they’re dragging their feet in litigation, hoping to run out the clock or force settlements that preserve as much of their old regime as possible. The USVI’s complaint about DOJ tactics is really just frustration that the feds are actually enforcing the Constitution instead of looking the other way. For the 2A community, this is a reminder that victories in Washington or at the Supreme Court mean little if local officials refuse to implement them—and that sustained pressure, including from federal enforcers, is often necessary to make rights real on the ground. The implications stretch far beyond one Caribbean territory. Every time a jurisdiction whines about being held to constitutional standards, it signals to other anti-gun states that the old tricks—delay, obfuscation, and emotional appeals—are losing their effectiveness. The 2A community should watch this case closely: a strong DOJ stance here could set precedent that makes it harder for places like New Jersey, California, or New York to keep playing the same games. In the end, the USVI attorney’s complaints aren’t about fairness in litigation; they’re about the growing realization that the days of treating the Second Amendment as optional are numbered.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

What makes this case especially telling is how it exposes the broader strategy of lawfare that anti-gun officials have adopted since the Bruen decision. Rather than comply with the Court’s history-and-tradition test, they’re dragging their feet in litigation, hoping to run out the clock or force settlements that preserve as much of their old regime as possible. The USVI’s complaint about DOJ tactics is really just frustration that the feds are actually enforcing the Constitution instead of looking the other way. For the 2A community, this is a reminder that victories in Washington or at the Supreme Court mean little if local officials refuse to implement them—and that sustained pressure, including from federal enforcers, is often necessary to make rights real on the ground.

The implications stretch far beyond one Caribbean territory. Every time a jurisdiction whines about being held to constitutional standards, it signals to other anti-gun states that the old tricks—delay, obfuscation, and emotional appeals—are losing their effectiveness. The 2A community should watch this case closely: a strong DOJ stance here could set precedent that makes it harder for places like New Jersey, California, or New York to keep playing the same games. In the end, the USVI attorney’s complaints aren’t about fairness in litigation; they’re about the growing realization that the days of treating the Second Amendment as optional are numbered.

Share this story