DOJ Just Slapped Virgin Islands With Another Complaint Over Semiauto Gun Ban

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint against the Virgin Islands Wednesday over gun laws the territory enacted in June, including bans on modern semiautomatic firearms and standard capacity magazines.

The Second Amendment Section of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ announced litigation against the Virgin Islands Police Department in December 2025, accusing the agency of imposing “unreasonable conditions” and using a “good cause” standard the Supreme Court invalidated in the June 2022 Bruen decision. The “First Supplemental and Amended Complaint” addressed legislation passed by the territory in June that included the semiauto and magazine bans in an effort to render the case moot.

“On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) enacted Act No. 9113, the ‘2026 Second Amendment Rights and Public Safety Act’ which amended USVI’s firearms statutes,” the amended complaint says. “Act No. 9113 imposes numerous restrictions and requirements on law-abiding gun owners, the enforcement of which, as described below, causes a pattern or practice of conduct by VIPD law enforcement officers that deprives law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights.”

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 June 28 motion to dismiss the lawsuit as moot. DOJ rejected the effort in a July 29 filing that listed nine provisions, including two separate carry bans and three separate bans on firearms and/or accessories among the provisions it said violated the Second Amendment.

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

The territory was rebuked by United States District Judge Evan Rikhye of the District of the Virgin Islands, a Trump appointee, multiple times in the case for failing to meet deadlines. On August 18, Rikhye rejected a “motion to strike” from the territorial government filed on July 22, the day the territory’s attorneys were supposed to file a brief regarding a newly-enacted gun-control law. In an opinion that came with the order, Rikhye tore into the territory’s attorneys for missing a filing deadline for the second time.

“The Defendant filed its Motion to Strike on July 22, 2026—the precise court-ordered deadline for Defendant to submit its brief regarding the newly enacted Virgin Islands statute, titled the ‘2026 Second Amendment Rights and Public Safety Act,’” Rikhye wrote in a footnote to the opinion. “Defendant failed to timely file that brief, yet somehow managed to file its Motion to Strike that same day. The following day, Defendant filed its brief one day late, without first seeking leave of Court. Only after submitting the untimely brief did Defendant retroactively seek leave for the late filing. The Court will address this procedural noncompliance under separate order.”

“The Court cautions Defendant that the people of the Virgin Islands would be far better served by the Office of the Virgin Islands Attorney General if counsel for that office focused attention upon the basic task of adhering to court-ordered deadlines, rather than filing extraneous motions that misapprehend the federal rules of civil procedure,” Rikhye continued.

In July, Rikhye chastised attorneys representing the territory for filing a response six days after the deadline in a previous pre-trial procedure.

“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 to deal with the matter.

“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.”