NRA sues over Virgin Island's seizure of guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw him on Tucker Carlson then saw Dana last night. Like Tucker and Dana I'm Leary of what the governor said and am glad the NRA is fighting for our rights. Situations like this storm are why many of us have arms and why we train to use them safely. Most of us hope and pray to never need them, but if we do we expect to not have some politician take our right to defend ourselves away.

So I hope the NRA wins. I hope the damage to the VI is minimal, and hope that the governors comments were right and no confiscation occurs. And if it does, I hope he and whoever carry it out are held responsible for any damages to any victims of those who can't defend themselves.
 
I read the actual order, it was posted here in another thread. It was basically a form type letter notifying both the NG and citizens that the NG had been called up and "IF NEEDED" personal property, including but not limited to firearms, COULD be taken by the NG for the purpose of carrying out their duties. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Irma passed over the Virgin Islands 3 days ago and there have been no reports of a single gun being taken.

The governor of every state has the authority to issue a similar order in the event of a disaster in their states as well.
 
Uh, no, the governor of States cannot just declare Martial Law and begin seizing property without cause and compensation. Well, not legally, anyway, and definitely not on a significant scale without violent resistance. This is why the NG behavior after Katrina was so unacceptable and was corrected so quickly. VG is not quite a state, but frankly it's a sad state of things if such a basic American/human civil liberty as RKBA is not found to exist there simply because they haven't received statehood.

The guv made this declaration in support of a *guarantee* of public safety (his word), which both we and every court that's ruled on it have found impossible and not the burden of duty that falls to public safety officials. Confiscation in pursuit of such a guarantee is an abuse of their authority any way you slice it. Was literally the breaking point that caused our rebellion from England.

It plainly violates mainland-amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, and possibly 7 if no jury recourse is given the expropriation. It's hard to imagine none of these protections applies in any way to the US Virgin Islands. Can they violate habeus corpus, as well?
 
jmr40 said:
I read the actual order, it was posted here in another thread. It was basically a form type letter notifying both the NG and citizens that the NG had been called up and "IF NEEDED" personal property, including but not limited to firearms, COULD be taken by the NG for the purpose of carrying out their duties. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Irma passed over the Virgin Islands 3 days ago and there have been no reports of a single gun being taken.

The governor of every state has the authority to issue a similar order in the event of a disaster in their states as well.
Click to expand...
Wrong
It is a big deal and the NRA is handling it correctly.

Attitudes like yours are why we have had our rights taken away a little at a time. With all that's going on with BLM and ANTIA attacking people, recent disasters like Katrina where people had their guns taken then were defenseless when law and order broke down, its more important than ever to fight any possible attack on our rights.

It's hurricanes this month, but what if it's martial law in November from rioting? Are you going to comply and give up your ability to defend yourself and your family?

So yea maybe the form is a standard form but it must change ASAP as it's wrong
 
barnbwt wrote:
VG is not quite a state,...
Click to expand...

I assume you mean VI and not VG.

The Virgin Islands are not only "not quite a state", they're nothing at all like a state. They are an organized, unincorporated territory. The United States Constitution does not apply there. An act of Congress (dating from about 1954) creates a government similar to - but not exactly like - that of the United States. The extends many - but not all - protections of the Bill of Rights to the Virgin Islands, but protections like we have under the Second Amendment are almost wholly absent from the act.

Over the last nearly 70 years, the people of the Virgin Islands have held no less than five Constitutional Conventions to try and come up with a Constitution the Virgin Islanders would ratify and which the U.S. Congress would approve and they have so far failed to do that. So, the Virgin Islanders have nobody to blame for the fact they don't have 2A protections but themselves.
 
I thought the US Constitution applies to all US Territories, including the USVI? I know it applies in Puerto Rico, another US Territory. In fact, PR's previous strict gun control laws were struck down as unconstitutional. Isn't the USVI just like PR, Guam and the other territories where they are US citizens subject to the draft (when we had one) and issued US passports? I think the main difference is that US citizens residing in US Territories pay no federal income tax and therefore can't vote in Presidential elections or for Congressional representation (no taxation without representation). Unless the USVI is a unique territory with a status different from that enjoyed by Puerto Rico, Guam, Marshall Island's, etc.?
 
Some important points to show how the Virgin Islands situation is different than the situation in New Orleans during Katrina:

The Virgin Islands is not a state. It is a foreign country associated with the US. This puts it in a legal limbo halfway between. The US Constitution does not directly apply.

The Governor's order is spectacularly ambiguous / poorly written. The key sentence is: "....The Adjutant General 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...."

This could be interpreted as an order to confiscate all civilian arms, and the NRA is correct in ensuring that that doesn't happen. However, it is also possible that the intent is to allow the military to use whatever they need (that may be required by the military forces for the performance of this emergency mission...) without having to go through procurement.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/NATL-GUARD.pdf
http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/NATL-GUARD.pdf
I'm sure someone will gently correct me if I'm mistaken, but AFAIK no civilian arms have been confiscated in the VI.
 
There has been no "seizure of guns", and at last report, the NRA has filed no law suits.
 
The order looked like authorization of commandeering but was vague and potentially subject to abuse. The NRA threatened to sue if it was abused and it was not so they didn't. Correct call.

Mike
 
jmr40 said:
I read the actual order, it was posted here in another thread. It was basically a form type letter notifying both the NG and citizens that the NG had been called up and "IF NEEDED" personal property, including but not limited to firearms, COULD be taken by the NG for the purpose of carrying out their duties. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Irma passed over the Virgin Islands 3 days ago and there have been no reports of a single gun being taken.

The governor of every state has the authority to issue a similar order in the event of a disaster in their states as well.
Click to expand...
I agree. If we are to maintain any credibility, we have to minimize these knee-jerk reactions. Otherwise, we are no better than our political opponents.

The order is intended so that the NG can resupply themselves without paperwork. So in an emergency, they can walk into Walmart and procure weapons and ammunition. Not so they can go door to door rounding up civilian arms and ammunition.
 
CraigC said:
I agree. If we are to maintain any credibility, we have to minimize these knee-jerk reactions. Otherwise, we are no better than our political opponents.

The order is intended so that the NG can resupply themselves without paperwork. So in an emergency, they can walk into Walmart and procure weapons and ammunition. Not so they can go door to door rounding up civilian arms and ammunition.
Click to expand...

exactly......in another forum I belong to, a member who actually owns property there essentially echoed what you and CraigC have posted.
 
CraigC said:
I agree. If we are to maintain any credibility, we have to minimize these knee-jerk reactions. Otherwise, we are no better than our political opponents.

The order is intended so that the NG can resupply themselves without paperwork. So in an emergency, they can walk into Walmart and procure weapons and ammunition. Not so they can go door to door rounding up civilian arms and ammunition.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first part. We need to avoid knee jerk reactions and overreacting.
I disagree with the second part. What politicians say and what they put in writing aren't the same at times. When that happens the written word is what we have to worry about.

I like Dana Loesch and Tucker don't believe the governor. I guess growing up in the D.C. Area, I've seen how badly politicians lie. And we need to fight their lies.
 
The statement made by Gov. Mapp in the Carlson interview is in conflict with the written order he issued. The written order specifically authorized "seizure" of firearms.

Two things : 1)The written order carries a whole lot more heft than words spoken in an interview.
2) A politician who controdicts himself when under pressure or scrutiny is not to be trusted.
 
"expropriate" would have been a better term, as "seizure" implies whole different bucket of worms.
Either way, this guy hadn't a clue as to what he actually signed (even Snopes says so)... and so
reveals himself to be far worse than simply untrustworthy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top