All I could find.Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".
Looks like it depends on the nature of the relationship.
https://www.saf.org/federal-judge-rules-northern-mariana-islands-handgun-ban-violates-2a/
Gun grabbers gotta grab the guns when they can. Can't have folks defending themselves from looters...that's the governments job. Sure they might fail but how dare the citizenry take their jobs like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downes_v._Bidwell
Downes v. Bidwell, 182U.S.244 (1901), was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".
All I could find.
That is true, however I've found this as well. Unlike Puerto Rico, the USVI does not have its own constitution. As a result, its government structure is defined in Congress' Organic Acts for the USVI, which also defines the status of the territory's residents. In some other insular areas you may have US Nationals, but not US Citizens, such as American Samoa, or some of each, apparently by choice, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI). US Nationals do not have the full protections or privileges of the US Constitution, only some of them. They owe allegiance to the US and cannot be deported. Like Puerto Rico, the residents of the US Virgin Islands, other than legal immigrants (e.g. green card), are US Citizens, which makes a huge difference. Their citizenship is conferred by Title 8 U.S. Code § 1406 - Persons living in and born in the Virgin Islands.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1406
The USVI also has a Federal District Court of the Virgin Islands. It acts in the full capacity of a US District Court, except that it's an Article IV Court established under Congress' power to regulate Territories versus Article III Federal District Courts in the various states. The USVI District Court judge is appointed for a term of 10 years versus an Article III judge which is appointed for life. In all other respects, it's like any other Federal District Court. All appeals go to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. USVI also has a non-voting representative of the House. They are very similar to Puerto Rico except they have no territorial constitution. I've concluded from this, as citizens (versus nationals), they have all the protections of Federal Law and the US Constitution, except the right to vote in federal elections.
This really took some digging, but within the Organic Acts for the US Virgin Islands, they do enjoy full 2nd Amendment rights. The Organic Acts for USVI are contained in 48 U.S. Code Chapter 12 - VIRGIN ISLANDS [1954] (as amended). The Bill of Rights for USVI reads much like a mini version of the US constitution. It's contained in 48 U.S. Code § 1561 - Rights and prohibitions, a section under Chapter 12. You can read it here and you'll have to plow through the text until you get to the part that guarantees them full rights under Amendments 1-9.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/48/1561
In the "it seems to me" department, they have the same protection against weapons seizure that the residents of New Orleans did. The difference is they're not under the jurisdiction of that distict court, but the USVI district court. However, I believe an argument that the 2006 congressional act that prohibits seizing weapons from them is just as applicable would stick.
The Organic Acts for each of the territories (or group of them) establishes what constitutional rights they have. Just gotta know to look for a territory's Organic Acts. My challenge was finding the territorial Organic Acts in the US Code.
John
P.S.
Those with sharp eyes will note there is also a Chapter 7 covering the Virgin Islands. It dates to the Organic Act of 1936 and the bulk of it is repealed by Chapter 12 (1954 as amended), but not quite all of it.
The link you provided is about the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. The CNMI has a much different relationship with the US than the USVI. There is a covenant of union between the CNMI and the US that defines it. We gained the CNMI in 1947 after WWII. If I recall correctly, it was a Trusteeship along with other former Japanese islands that Japan had gained under the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI including Saipan (CNMI were formerly German territory). Guam, however, was US and remained US at that time. That Trusteeship evolved into the covenant approved by plebiscite in the CNMI, and became effective in the mid-1980's.
However, if a 2nd Amendment issue was upheld in the CNMI which doesn't have as firmly established Constitutional Rights as territories like the USVI, then I seriously doubt 2A is at any risk in the USVI . . . particularly when the Organic Acts relating to USVI guarantee them Amendments 1-9 from (plus some others, like 13, 14, etc).
John
Unless there's a departmental policy, or a local ordinance or state law to the contrary, law enforcement officers have no duty to protect anyone from anything. That the overwhelming majority choose to do so as a matter of practice is to their credit. This has been up the Federal Court chain several times to SCOTUS under slightly different circumstances with the same result each time. It is one of several reasons the Federal District Court for Eastern Louisiana declared the NOPD's Hurricane Katrina firearm confiscation order unconstitutional.
John
Good posts! What a tangled web, ugh.