oneounceload
Member
I never said I agreed at all. Spent several visits down there and I'll take St. John over St. Thomas......
Except the right to vote for President............
VIRGIN ISLAND vs GUNS
- Thread starter OLDNAVYMCPO
- Start date
I never said I agreed at all. Spent several visits down there and I'll take St. John over St. Thomas......
chaparrito
Member
Next!......................
Glad to hear this is fake news. When I read the OP's initial post, I thought, "Oh no! Shades of Katrina!" and was reminded of the quote attributed to George Santayana:
Again, glad to hear that it's a bunch of bunk!
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Again, glad to hear that it's a bunch of bunk!
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
Why am I not surprised, and why won't I be surprised tomorrow when a certain person at work brings it up and starts ranting?
Are you guys reading the same proclamation that I am? See above, post number 20, which is copied from the V.I. web page... There must be something here that I'm missing, I'm not sure how this is "fake news", when the Governor clearly authorizes and directs the Adjutant General to "seize arms, ammunition, explosives, incendiary material....." (paragraph 2, lines 10, 11, 12, 13).
I want to believe you, but please explain. And as I said, this is the actual document, simply linked to the V.I.s own web page, not from some radical news site.
Best Regards, Les
I want to believe you, but please explain. And as I said, this is the actual document, simply linked to the V.I.s own web page, not from some radical news site.
Best Regards, Les
Last edited:
How is it fake news?
Does the proclamation use the quoted language about guns, or does it not?
If it indeed does contain that language, then it is a true account, not fake.
It sounds like the Facebook post that tries to debunk the news is saying, "Oh,
it might contain that language, but no one is out there confiscating guns."
That might be the case, but if the proclamation contains that language, and every
account I have seen does, then the USVI Nat. Gd. Does indeed have the power
to confiscate guns.
Does the proclamation use the quoted language about guns, or does it not?
If it indeed does contain that language, then it is a true account, not fake.
It sounds like the Facebook post that tries to debunk the news is saying, "Oh,
it might contain that language, but no one is out there confiscating guns."
That might be the case, but if the proclamation contains that language, and every
account I have seen does, then the USVI Nat. Gd. Does indeed have the power
to confiscate guns.
This is quoted from the "Government House" FB post.
No, it is not Fake News. By law, the Governor's Proclamation gives the Guard the power to seize firearms.
"Please be advised that there is ABSOLUTELY NO effort to confiscate anyone's weapons. As a matter of law, when the National Guard is activated in an emgergency situation they are granted the power to seize weapons and other materials they deem necessary to carry out their mission. Such an order is executed EVERY TIME the V.I. National Guard is activated. Anyone that says otherwise is simply trying to create confusion during what is already a very stressful time for us all. Those with concerns about this provision of the VI Code should bring them to our law-making body following the storm."
No, it is not Fake News. By law, the Governor's Proclamation gives the Guard the power to seize firearms.
"Please be advised that there is ABSOLUTELY NO effort to confiscate anyone's weapons. As a matter of law, when the National Guard is activated in an emgergency situation they are granted the power to seize weapons and other materials they deem necessary to carry out their mission. Such an order is executed EVERY TIME the V.I. National Guard is activated. Anyone that says otherwise is simply trying to create confusion during what is already a very stressful time for us all. Those with concerns about this provision of the VI Code should bring them to our law-making body following the storm."
That's my whole point, redlevel...I copied that document from the VI's own web site. That language about "may be required...for the performance of...their duties" still leaves confiscation up to the military to decide.
The NRA is not interpreting it as "fake news", and has threatened action. There is, I believe, federal law specifically forbidding this sort of confiscation, and I also believe it applies to the V.I., as well as to the mainland U.S.
Edit...Sorry, redlevel, I was typing at the same time as you. I just read your post, and hope that I didn't offend...not my purpose.
Best Regards, Les
The NRA is not interpreting it as "fake news", and has threatened action. There is, I believe, federal law specifically forbidding this sort of confiscation, and I also believe it applies to the V.I., as well as to the mainland U.S.
Edit...Sorry, redlevel, I was typing at the same time as you. I just read your post, and hope that I didn't offend...not my purpose.
Best Regards, Les
Last edited:
jlrhiner
US Veteran
I'm confused. Are they talking about seizing privately owned weapons? Are they relying on individuals to provide the NG with guns, ammo, explosives etc.?
Or are they holding the weapons and other gear in an armory not under the Adj. Gen. control and are authorizing him to take possession of the arms necessary to perform their duty?
I can't see how planning to seize arms being a good plan for the arming of the National Guard.
Or are they holding the weapons and other gear in an armory not under the Adj. Gen. control and are authorizing him to take possession of the arms necessary to perform their duty?
I can't see how planning to seize arms being a good plan for the arming of the National Guard.
Last edited:
You have to understand the nuances in language differences in the islands ( all of them ).
The key word is " may ". In their context they're saying they may collect needed supplies, firearms etc. IF needed for their mission.
It's not saying to go out and confiscate and store anything now. Only if and when necessary.
When the document includes the phrase " I direct you to ", then it does.
I don't agree with it, but believe that's what is meant.
Thanks LesB for the copy of that document.
The key word is " may ". In their context they're saying they may collect needed supplies, firearms etc. IF needed for their mission.
It's not saying to go out and confiscate and store anything now. Only if and when necessary.
When the document includes the phrase " I direct you to ", then it does.
I don't agree with it, but believe that's what is meant.
Thanks LesB for the copy of that document.
Last edited:
Read up on it a little more, using something besides Wikipedia. As an example, why aren't they represented in Congress with a voting member? That's one protection not afforded. Whatever U.S. taxes they may or may not pay are enforced without representation . . .
Nope. It's never come to a vote in the U.S. They can't agree on one to send . . .
OP
OLDNAVYMCPO
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
The constitution approved by the Constitutional Convention of the Virgin Islands of 2009 was rejected by the US Congress in 2010.
Well, Congress actually said "Hey, try to work on this some more." They tried, but couldn't agree on anything to send back . . . .
Apparently the biggest issue is the Virgin Islands' refusal to accept U.S. sovereignty. Given that, I guess taking guns from the public is probably pretty easy there . . .
That sounds great but it looks like they are not afforded the full protection of the U.S. Constitution.
Arik
Member
They do not completely follow the US Constitution. Even though they are US citizens they cannot vote for the President unless they reside in the 50 states. Anyone moving to the Virgin islands cannot vote for the President unless they move back to one of 50 states. They can participate in the nominating process. They are not represented in Congress
They are lands under the sovereignty of the federal government (but not part of any state) that were given a measure of self rule by the Congress through an Organic Act subject to the Congress' plenary powers under the territorial clause of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Did anyone hear the conversation Tucker Carlson had with the Gov. of V.I. tonight? When Carlson pressed the Gov about it there was a lot of fumbling and stumbling in his response and he (Gov) finally said if the National Guard was short of ammo or guns they were authorized to go into retail stores and buy what they needed. Can anyone say Bravo Serra?
OP
OLDNAVYMCPO
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
That Governor had more dance steps than Fred Astaire. He quibbled and obfuscated the entire interview, never giving a straight answer even though Tucker had a copy of the order and read it verbatim.
