Judge Declines to Block NY Ban on Guns in Houses of Worship

By Reuvain Borchardt

NEW YORK — A judge has refused to block a New York law that bans guns in houses of worship, writing that the group of Orthodox Jewish challengers are unlikely to win their case.

The plaintiffs, two worshippers and a synagogue, had argued that the law infringes on their constitutional right to bear arms, exercise their religion freely, and enjoy the equal protection of the laws.

In declining to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the law, Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, disagreed.

“The Second Amendment does not completely preclude the state from establishing restrictions and regulations on who, how, and where firearms can be possessed and carried,” Broderick wrote.

This case is one several that have been filed against new laws passed in New York last year severely restricting the places in which even those with gun permits may carry their guns. The laws were passed in New York and other liberal states after the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), that New York’s requirement that those seeking a concealed-carry permit demonstrate a special need beyond an ordinary citizen’s desire for self-defense, violates the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The Bruen ruling ostensibly vastly expanded the number of New Yorkers who could obtain concealed-carry permits. In response, the state passed the restrictions on carrying guns in “sensitive places” — essentially swapping the restrictions on who may carry guns, for restrictions on where the guns may be carried. The list of “sensitive locations” includes medical facilities, libraries, parks, Times Square, public transit, schools — and houses of worship.

The plaintiffs in this case, Goldstein v. Hochul, wish to carry guns due to recent attacks on Jewish and other houses of worship. (The law, as amended this year, does allow “persons responsible for security at such place of worship” to carry guns, but, due to insurance requirements, this would only be permitted by those who have undergone rigorous training required to be licensed security guards.)

They argued that the law violates rights including their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, their Second Amendment right to bear arms, and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws. And they asked Broderick for a preliminary injunction blocking the law’s implementation — which would only be granted if the judge believed the plaintiffs were likely to win their case when it is heard.

But Broderick, an Obama appointee, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the landmark case that recognized an individual right to bear arms, specifically had stated that government could still restrict firearms “in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” and that in Bruen the Supreme Court had said lower courts could expand the list of similarly sensitive places.

Moreover, Broderick said that since carrying guns to religious services isn’t part of religious practice, and since the law applies equally to religious people and non-religious people, the law does not restrict the free exercise of religion or discriminate against religious people.

A preliminary injunction blocking a law’s implementation would only be granted when a judge believes the plaintiffs are likely to win their case when it is heard.

In a statement following Broderick’s ruling, the NYS Jewish Gun Club, a group of Orthodox Jewish gun-rights supporters bankrolling the lawsuit, said, “The effect of Judge Broderick’s ruling is that NYS can continue to discriminate against religion whenever it wants and disarm religious people when they need to be defended most.

“We will not allow NYS to violate the constitution or treat us differently because of our religion. We will not be disarmed in places of worship. We will not choose between self-defense and religious observation. We will hold NYS accountable by appealing this decision all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Goldstein is just one of several cases challenging various aspects of New York’s gun regulations enacted to counteract Bruen. In a number of the cases, the plaintiffs won preliminary injunctions, though the rulings were stayed by an appellate court.

“New York’s law was so overbroad, it actually made it more difficult for people with licenses to carry outside their homes,” George Mocsary, a firearms law professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law, and director of the school’s Firearms Research Center, told Hamodia. “A law that purports to follow Supreme Court precedent that is supposed to ensure the right of individuals to carry in public, but actually makes it markedly more difficult for them to do so, defies practical reason and should not be upheld.”

Mocsary says there’s a “good chance these cases in New York, New Jersey and other states that enacted similar laws following Bruen, will, in some consolidated form eventually make their way back to the Supreme Court.”

Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment scholar at UCLA Law School, told Hamodia that since Bruen, “We’ve seen more than 30 gun laws struck down in the past year by lower courts.”

The Supreme Court has on its docket for next term a case related to a federal law barring guns from those under domestic violence restraining orders.

“Sometimes the Supreme Court handles issues slowly, and allows lower courts to operate, so we don’t know if these New York cases in particular will make it to the Supreme Court,” he said. “The only thing certain is that whatever New York does in regard to guns is going to be challenged, because gun advocates are really inspired by Bruen to bring lawsuits.”

The ruling is available by clicking here

—

rborchardt@hamodia.com