DOJ Lists All The Ways They Claim Virgin Island’s Gun Law Violates Second Amendment

The Department of Justice (DOJ) told a federal judge that a recently-passed gun law should not end a case involving the Virgin Islands in court documents filed Wednesday, citing multiple provisions it said were unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon announced litigation against the Virgin Islands Police Department in December 2025, accusing the agency of imposing “unreasonable conditions” and using a “good cause” standard that the Supreme Court invalidated in the June 2022 Bruen decision. Democratic Virgin Islands Territorial Gov. Albert Bryan Jr. signed Act 9113, which banned the receipt, transfer and sale of modern semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines on June 24, which was cited by attorneys for the territory in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit as moot.

“The [government of the Virgin Islands] states that on June 24, 2026, the Governor of the Virgin Islands signed into law Act No. 9113, The 2026 Second Amendment Rights and Public Safety Act,” attorneys for the territory said. “This Act repeals and replaces former Title 23 VIC § 451, 452,453, 454, 454a,455, 456, 456a, 457,458, 458, 459a, 460, 466, 471, 471, 472, 473, 480, 483, 485 and 489a, many of which were challenged as unconstitutional in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1). The Virgin Islands new gun licensing scheme provides clear and objective criteria for the issuance of gun licenses.”

”The GVI advised the Plaintiff that the proposed bill would addresses all past patterns and practices challenged under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 and would ultimately moot this litigation. Based on the foregoing, the GVI requests denial of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and dismissal of this action,” the territory’s motion to dismiss added.

Virgin Islands Attorney General Gordon Campbell Rhea did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“This Court should deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss because: (1) Defendants cannot overcome a formidable burden to prove mootness; and (2) the United States’ action is not moot given Defendants’ admitted and ongoing pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct in VIPD’s implementation of unconstitutional restrictions on rights secured by the Second Amendment,” the DOJ said. “Defendants’ attempt to evade liability by an assertion that they will not continue to violate the Constitution is not an escape valve from the proper exercise of jurisdiction here.”

“Defendants presentation to this Court of Act 9113 to evidence mootness is self-defeating,” the DOJ added. “Implementation of each of these new provisions—along with the carry-over provisions of § 452(b)-(d) described above—evidence an ongoing pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct.”

The DOJ also accused the Virgin Islands of “stonewalling” on discovery during the case.

“Defendants assert that Commissioner Brooks stopped imposing the “proper reason” requirement two years ago. Defendants apparently expect the Court to believe that assertion on Commissioner Brooks’ mere say so. The United States has been trying to confirm the Commissioner’s assertion only to, again, be met with Defendants’ stonewalling,” the DOJ said. “The United States asked Defendants to provide details regarding the times Commissioner Brooks denied applications pursuant to the “proper reason” statute, and Defendants refused to answer.”

“In their requests for admission, Plaintiff asked Defendants in separate requests to admit that they denied applications under the “proper reason” statute in the years 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026,” DOJ continued. “These requests are all deemed admitted. But even if they were not, Defendants’ attempted responses are very telling. Again, they refused to answer.”

The territory’s attorneys have taken heat for their conduct and handling of the proceedings from United States District Judge Evan Rikhye of the District Court of the Virgin Islands. Rikhye, a Trump appointee, chastised attorneys representing the territory for filing a response six days after the deadline in a July 18 ruling, calling it an “inexcusable lapse.”

“The Court notes with disappointment Defense counsel’s glaring lack of attention to basic litigation procedures,” Rikhye wrote as he denied the territory’s request for additional time.

“This controversy does not merely involve individual litigants; it implicates the fundamental constitutional rights of the people of the Virgin Islands,” Rikhye added. “Accordingly, Defense counsel – appearing as a representative of this territory’s citizens – must treat this matter with the competence, care and professionalism expected of all litigants appearing before this Court.”