The bottom line
The DOJ’s brand-new Second Amendment Section just filed its first lawsuit against a jurisdiction so obviously in violation of Bruen that there is no plausible legal defense available. This is exactly how you build a winning track record, and it signals something bigger is coming for every anti-gun state that has been ignoring the Supreme Court for three years.
Attribution from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. Commentary, not legal advice.
What actually happened
On December 16, 2025, the Department of Justice filed suit against the Government of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Police Department, and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks in the District Court of the Virgin Islands. The complaint was filed by the newly formed Second Amendment Section inside the Civil Rights Division, which officially opened its doors on December 4. This is the first time in American history that a dedicated federal office has existed solely to investigate and litigate Second Amendment violations by state and local governments.
The Virgin Islands case is not a close call. VIPD has been running a concealed carry permitting system that violates the Constitution at virtually every step. Let me go through the specific violations the DOJ identified, because each one is worth understanding on its own.
First, the proper cause requirement. The Virgin Islands has been conditioning CCW permits on applicants demonstrating a “proper reason” for wanting to carry. Their language is, according to the DOJ complaint, “indistinguishable from the New York statute held unconstitutional in Bruen.” That case was decided in June 2022. The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that New York’s proper cause requirement violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because it conditioned a constitutional right on an applicant’s ability to prove a special need beyond ordinary self-defense. Self-defense is the core of the right. You cannot require someone to justify exercising a constitutional right, full stop. The Virgin Islands has known this for three years and done nothing. VIPD has been denying applicants who list self-defense as their reason while the Supreme Court has explicitly said that is unconstitutional.
Second, the mandatory gun safe requirement. VIPD requires applicants to install a gun safe bolted to the floor or wall of their home as a condition of receiving a permit. The DOJ brief correctly identifies this as unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller, in which Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that a requirement to keep firearms inaccessible in the home violated the Second Amendment’s core protection of the right to self-defense. The Virgin Islands applied this same logic to a precondition on carry permits. The safe has to be bolted to the floor. If you can’t afford that or don’t own your home, you’re denied before you even get started.
Third, and this is the one that genuinely shocked me when I first heard it: VIPD required applicants to consent to warrantless searches of their home as a condition of obtaining a permit. There is no universe in which that is constitutional. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. You cannot condition the exercise of one constitutional right on surrendering another. The DOJ notes that VIPD didn’t establish probable cause or any other legal basis for the searches. If you declined consent, your application was refused, which functioned as a de facto denial.
Fourth, the delay problem. VIPD was allowing applications to sit for months, in some cases years, without processing them in either direction. Applicants were never told where they stood. Many eventually withdrew their applications rather than wait indefinitely. There is established precedent that unreasonable permit delays violate the Second Amendment. When a right requires a permit, that permit process has to operate with reasonable speed. A system deliberately structured to outlast an applicant’s patience is not a permitting system. It is a prohibition with extra steps.
Why this was the right case to file first
I’ve been saying for a while that when this Second Amendment Section finally stood up, it needed to start with the clearest possible violations. Not the frontier legal questions. Not the hard cases where circuit courts are split and the outcome depends on which panel you draw. Start with the cases where there is no defense, build wins, build precedent, and then use that foundation to go after harder targets.
The Virgin Islands case is exactly that. This is not a situation where reasonable people disagree about what Bruen requires. The DOJ is not pushing a novel legal theory. Every one of the challenged practices was already clearly addressed by either Heller, Bruen, or established circuit precedent on permit processing timelines. The government’s attorneys filed this case knowing they will almost certainly win it. That’s not arrogance. That’s strategy.
Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general overseeing the Civil Rights Division, has said publicly that her office is starting with the low-hanging fruit and working outward. She has described the approach as systematic: identify clear violations, litigate them, win them, and use those wins to establish a record that makes harder cases easier. She has already pointed specifically to “multi-thousand-dollar costs for citizens to apply for concealed carry permits” as an enforcement priority, and the DOJ moved against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department earlier this year over its own CCW permit delay problem. LA had received 3,982 new applications between January 2024 and March 2025 and issued exactly two licenses. That case is also moving.
The bigger picture and what it means
There are hundreds of jurisdictions across the United States running permitting systems with unconstitutional elements. Some are obvious, like the Virgin Islands. Others are more subtle, like excessive fees or application requirements that function as soft denials for low-income applicants. The Second Amendment Section has the authority to investigate any of them and file suit when it finds violations.
The section is also not limited to permitting cases. Dhillon has been explicit that semi-automatic rifle bans are on the target list. She has said publicly that AR-15s are presumptively legal under the Constitution and that states banning them are wrong. The DOJ filed an amicus brief against Illinois’s assault weapons ban in Barnett v. Raoul before the Seventh Circuit, and Dhillon personally argued in court in Chicago. The department has also weighed in on Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Law,” which prohibits licensed carry on private property unless the owner posts explicit permission, functionally eliminating carry almost everywhere.
I know some people are going to read this and say it’s not enough. They want the NFA abolished. They want a single ruling that sweeps away every gun control law passed since 1968. I want those things too. But that is not how constitutional litigation works. You build doctrine incrementally. You stack wins until the harder cases become easier to argue. Every jurisdiction that gets hit with a DOJ lawsuit either changes its practices or loses in court and creates binding precedent that ties the hands of the next jurisdiction that tries something similar. The wall comes down one brick at a time.
What this administration has done differently is structural. For the first time, there is a permanent office inside the federal government whose entire function is to protect Second Amendment rights. That office can be funded, staffed, and expanded. It can develop institutional knowledge about which jurisdictions have problematic systems. It can file pattern-or-practice investigations. It is not a task force that gets stood up for a press release and then quietly disbanded. It is a section of the Civil Rights Division, which means it operates under the same framework that has been used for decades to enforce voting rights and employment discrimination law. The Second Amendment is finally being treated as a civil right under federal enforcement authority.
What this means for people in affected jurisdictions
For anyone in the Virgin Islands, the practical impact of this lawsuit is significant even before it concludes. Jurisdictions under DOJ litigation tend to modify their most indefensible practices during the litigation rather than wait for a judgment. VIPD is going to have a very hard time defending why it requires warrantless home searches in federal court. Applicants who have been waiting years for a decision should pay attention to how this case develops.
More broadly, if you live in a state or locality with a broken permitting system, an assault weapons ban, or carry restrictions that you believe violate post-Bruen standards, the answer right now is to document everything, support the gun rights organizations that are filing parallel challenges, and understand that the legal environment has fundamentally shifted in your favor. The DOJ that used to be your adversary is now filing the lawsuits you wanted filed.
That is not nothing. That is a historic change, and it started with one very well-chosen lawsuit against a territory that had three years to comply with the Supreme Court and decided it didn’t have to. They were wrong about that.
Attribution from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. Commentary, not legal advice.
Get the Weekly Briefing
New analysis delivered every week. Court decisions, case updates, and expert commentary.