Key Takeaways
- The U.S. filed an amended complaint against the Virgin Islands Government and VIPD regarding firearms licensing practices and new laws.
- The revised suit challenges Act No. 9113, which includes bans on AR-15s, magazines, suppressors, and other restrictions on gun ownership.
- The original complaint highlighted unreasonable delays and invasive requirements in the licensing process, which still stand in the amended version.
- Key statute invoked is 34 U.S.C. § 12601, alleging a pattern of constitutional rights violations by the VIPD.
- The case will clarify the legality of the new gun laws and licensing practices as it progresses through court.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
CHARLOTTE AMALIE, VI — The United States filed a First Supplemental and Amended Complaint on September 2, 2026, in its Second Amendment lawsuit against the Government of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Police Department, and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks in his official capacity. The filing, docketed as Case No. 3:25-cv-00050 in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, expands a case the Justice Department opened on December 16, 2025, over how VIPD handles firearms licenses. It now takes direct aim at Act No. 9113, the territory’s “2026 Second Amendment Rights and Public Safety Act,” which the complaint says was enacted June 25, 2026.
The amended complaint adds claims against the territory’s AR-15, magazine, and suppressor bans, its public demonstration carry ban, its long gun carry ban, its gun storage law, and its gun registration law, according to the Firearms Policy Coalition, which posted the filing the day it hit the docket. The complaint’s own summary points the same direction. It says Act 9113 “imposes numerous restrictions and requirements on law-abiding gun owners,” and it alleges that enforcing those restrictions causes a pattern or practice of conduct by VIPD officers that deprives gun owners of their Second Amendment rights.
The DOJ has filed an amended complaint in its lawsuit against the US Virgin Islands’ gun permit scheme, which adds claims against the territory’s AR-15, magazine, and suppressor bans, public demonstration carry ban, long gun carry ban, gun storage law, and gun registration law:… pic.twitter.com/GxgqJS4aiE
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 2, 2026
The original complaint was about licensing. According to the filing, the Department alleged that VIPD imposed unreasonable delays in issuing firearms licenses, required applicants to install a home safe, required applicants to consent to warrantless searches of their homes, and required applicants to give a “proper reason” for wanting a license beyond a general need for self-defense. That last requirement hands an official the power to decide whose need to defend himself is good enough.
The amended complaint does not back off any of that. Paragraph three reads, in full, “The original complaint was correct.” The Department then alleges that in discovery responses and in Commissioner Brooks’s own declaration, the defendants admitted that VIPD engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated persons’ constitutional rights. That is DOJ’s characterization of the territory’s filings, and the territory will have its chance to dispute it, but if it holds up, it is an unusual thing to have in the record before trial.
The legal hook is 34 U.S.C. § 12601. As the complaint frames it, that statute makes it unlawful for law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their constitutional rights. Pattern or practice means the case is not about one bad decision on one application. It is about how the agency operates as a matter of routine. The complaint says that after the original filing, the Department uncovered additional constitutional violations, and it was filed under the court’s August 21, 2026 order allowing the amendment.
Everything in the amended complaint is an allegation. The court has not ruled on whether Act 9113 or the old licensing practices violate the Second Amendment.
More from USA Carry:
A jurisdiction got sued over how it hands out licenses, and while that case was pending it passed a broader law reaching the guns themselves, the magazines, the suppressors, where you can carry a long gun, how you store a firearm at home, and whether the government keeps a list of what you own. If DOJ’s reading of Section 12601 holds, each of those is now a separate claim in the same case. Part of a serious carry mindset is understanding that the rules governing your right can change overnight, and for gun owners in the Virgin Islands they changed in June in the direction of fewer legal firearms and fewer legal ways to carry them.
I will continue tracking United States v. Government of the Virgin Islands as it moves through the District Court of the Virgin Islands.
