Churchgoers Security Training
(AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)
Previous Post
Next Post

Last month, a US District Court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of New York’s newly-enacted ban on carrying firearms in houses of worship. As Judge John Sinatra, Jr. wrote at the time . . .

In Bruen, the Supreme Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulation in this area is permissible only if he government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. As set forth below, New York fails that test. The state’s conclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions, impermissibly infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. 

None of he state’s arguments since he issued the TRO have changed Judge Sinatra’s view of New York’s law. Last night, he issued a preliminary injunction, further ensuring that New Yorkers are free to carry firearms for self-defense in churches, synagogues, temples and mosques.

Justifying his issuance of the injunction, Judge Sinatra noted that . . .

A preliminary injunction would…serve the public interest of fostering self-defense at places of worship across the state. The public has a significant interest in the “strong sense of safety that a licensed concealed handgun regularly provides, or would provide, to the many law-abiding responsible citizens in the state too powerful to physically defend themselves in public without a handgun.” … Absent a preliminary injunction, the challenged law creates a vulnerable population of attendees at places of worship left to the whims of potential armed wrongdoers who are uninterested in following the law in any event. A preliminary injuction would, therefore, be in the public interest. 

Judge Sinatra also denied the state’s request that the injunction be stayed for three days pending appeal.

The Second Amendment Foundation issued this statement after the judge issued his order . . .

The Second Amendment Foundation has won a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a New York State ban on firearms in places of worship, with U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., declaring, “Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights are being violated…”

“We are gratified with the speed shown by the court in this matter,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It shows the court is taking this case very seriously.”

The case is known as Jimmie Hardaway, Jr. v. Steven A. Nigrelli, SAF and its fellow plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Nicolas J. Rotsko at Phillips Lytle LLP in Buffalo, NY, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John W. Tienken at Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C. Joining SAF in this case are the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Larry A. Boyd and Jimmie Hardaway, Jr.

In his 44-page ruling, Judge Sinatra noted New York’s new place of worship restriction is unconstitutional. The state has not demonstrated that the prohibition, under its newly enacted gun law, adopted in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, that the ban is “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations.”

“The State’s exclusion is, instead, inconsistent with the Nation’s historical traditions, impermissibly infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense,” Judge Sinatra wrote.

“Clearly,” Gottlieb observed, “the court is not allowing New York to dance around the intent or the spirit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bruen case, which is exactly what the state was trying to do with its new gun control law.“

Previous Post
Next Post


    • As long as Gun Control is perceived by the public to be something good it has standing. Until Gun Owners define Gun Control by its history confimed roots in racism and genocide the standing Gun Control receives is solely the fault of zip lip Gun Owners.

  1. Sinatra sings again. But this time the song is not “New York, New York” and I’ll bet Kathy Hochul is furious.

    • Suddaby will be the one to watch for the immediate future but unknown if last Tuesdays hearing will have a decision before the election. Still nice to be able to carry on some streets and church now.

        • I mean if the win is in favor of 2A and people being able to carry more places. The version of ‘sensitive places’ New York has going on is ridiculous, its pretty clear in Bruen what the context and intent was but New York used ‘sensitive places’ to mean places people would normally be over which the state can possibly exercise some form of control through law and that’s not what Bruen said at all. New York even dusted off their sleeping and specifically non-enforced provisions for private property places (e.g. apartment buildings) just to revive them specifically for keeping people from carrying on private property and then classed it under ‘sensitive places’. Take Times Square for example, that was specifically addressed during the Bruen case by the justices as not being a place for prohibiting carry but New York declared it a ‘sensitive place’ and started throwing up signs prohibiting firearms.

      • “Still nice to be able to carry on some streets and church now.”

        For the longest while, we just ignored the ban here in Florida. Since the church is on diocese property, we technically had permission from the property owner anyways. Roughly 1/3 of the congregation carries any given Sunday.

        Visitors are warmly greeted, with an eye on them until we get to know them better. I suspect that’s the way most houses of worship operate. We haven’t yet had anyone show up that really set off any alarm bells, anyways…

      • I hope it’s just a misquote. If he actually wrote that, it could be the technicality that gets his ruling – if not overturned – at least tangled in red tape for a long time.

  2. Is anyone still paying attention to the law? I carry everywhere I won’t have to submit to search or scan/metal detector regardless of law or policy.

    • After the “Summer of Love” shenanigans nobody should be wasting their time and worry over following arbitrary laws that are unequally enforced.

      This whole country has lost whatever credibility and authority it ever had. If you aren’t harming anyone just go on and live your life however you see fit and ignore the clowns in their little uniforms and the geriatric dementia patients screaming on the TV about “democracy.”

    • I hope you have the funds to defend yourself against an illegal gun charge. If anyone, even members of your immediate family, know you carry, one of them might thoughtlessly say the wrong thing at the wrong time and get you busted. Mad dog governors, like Hochul and Newsom, aren’t going to stop prosecuting carriers under their unconstitutional gun laws just because the Supreme Court has told them not to. They will have to be beaten down law by law. That will take time and money.

    • I got that too… it reads

      “ATF BAN TEMPORARILY REVERSED: The day we’ve all been waiting for has come earlier than expected! On November 3rd, the Federal District Court of Fort Worth released the Judge’s Court Order — which granted us our requested Preliminary Injunction!
      80 Percent Arms Receives Preliminary Injunction

      We will begin shipping out ALL orders that were previously held due to legal concerns from the ATF’s unlawful “frame or receiver” rule. All MOD1 frames, MOD1 jigs and Easy Jig® Gen 3’s are now back IN STOCK for purchase.”

      LoL … apparently they are shipping out (the ATF ‘newly forbidden’) stuff as quickly as they can under the temp injunction.

  3. FBI has issued a warning of a broad credible threat to sungogues in New Jersey and advised people to take all necessary precautions. I assume that’s everything except firearms.

  4. TOO CONFUSING FOR JUDGES? Left Pretends Not To Understand Bruen and 2A >

    “A federal judge in Mississippi claims that applying Bruen and the 2nd amendment is too difficult because he is not a historian…”

    The lefts anti-gun judges are engaging in a little civil disobedience with disingenuous claims.

    24/7 SECURITY? HA!! Paul Pelosi Attack PROVES You Are YOUR OWN First Responder >

    • By past decisions going to and from church is also covered, though at least one court imposed a “go to church, go directly to church, do not pass GO” limitation, meaning no stopping to grab a coffee, no picking up lunch from Burger King, just straight to church ad straight back.

  5. The whole historical thing bothers me because it isn’t that hard to dig up laws, especially from the South, that restrict carry of any kind except by a select few. I hope those will be ignored due to pretty much all of them being racially motivated, but their mere existence makes me concerned that some states and lower federal courts will use them to muddy the waters.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here