A Federal Judge Says New York's Ban on Guns in Church Is Unconstitutional
The state made it a felony to carry handguns for self-defense in "any place of worship or religious observation."

A federal judge yesterday issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against enforcement of New York's ban on firearms in "any place of worship or religious observation." U.S. District Judge John Sinatra Jr. concluded that the rule, part of a law that New York legislators passed after the Supreme Court overturned the state's "proper cause" requirement for concealed-carry permits, "impermissibly infring[es] on the right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense."
Sinatra's decision in Hardaway v. Nigrelli comes two weeks after U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby issued a broader TRO against New York's law in Antonyuk v. Hochul. The two rulings do not bode well for politicians who try to defy the Supreme Court's June 23 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen by imposing new restrictions on the right to bear arms.
The lead plaintiffs in Hardaway are the Rev. Jimmie Hardaway Jr., pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Niagara Falls, and Bishop Larry Boyd, pastor of Open Praise Full Gospel Baptist Church in Buffalo. They "wish to exercise their fundamental, individual right to bear arms in public for self-defense by carrying concealed firearms on church property in case of confrontation to both themselves and their congregants."
Hardaway and Boyd, whose lawsuit was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, are licensed to carry concealed handguns and had consistently done so on church grounds as a safeguard against violent intruders. But New York's law—which prohibits guns in myriad "sensitive locations," including churches—made that precaution a Class E felony, punishable by up to four years in prison.
Under Bruen, the state has the burden of showing that such location-specific gun bans are "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," which requires identifying analogous restrictions that have long been recognized as constitutional. "New York fails that test," Sinatra writes. "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."
In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court described "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" as "longstanding prohibitions." But in Bruen, the justices noted that "the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century 'sensitive places' where weapons were altogether prohibited." They included "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses."
New York argued that laws enacted by four states (Georgia, Texas, Virginia, and Missouri) and two territories (Arizona and Oklahoma) between 1870 and 1890 showed that its ban was consistent with the historical understanding of the right to bear arms:
• An 1870 Georgia law prohibited the carrying of pistols or revolvers in "any place of public worship."
• An 1870 Texas law made it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine, to bring firearms into "any church or religious assembly." That law did not apply to "any person or persons whose duty it is to bear arms on such occasions in discharge of duties imposed by law."
• An 1877 Virginia law prescribed a fine for bringing a "dangerous weapon" to "any place of worship" during services. It made an exception for anyone who "had good reason" to carry a weapon "in the necessary defense of his home, person or property." The same law made it illegal for someone to carry a weapon on Sunday "at any place other than his own premises" unless he had "good and sufficient cause therefor."
• An 1883 Missouri law said anyone convicted of carrying a firearm into "any church or place where people have assembled for religious worship" could be punished by a fine of $25 to $200 and/or five days to six months in jail.
• Under an 1889 Arizona law, someone who carried a firearm into "any church or religious assembly" would face a fine of $50 to $500, plus confiscation of the weapon.
• An 1890 Oklahoma law made it illegal to carry a weapon into "any church or religious assembly." It included an exception for anyone "whose duty it is" to "suppress breaches of the peace."
As Sinatra sees it, those examples do not meet the test established by Bruen. "Where a governmental practice has been open, widespread, and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic," the Supreme Court said in that case, "the practice should guide our interpretation of an ambiguous constitutional provision." But it added that "to the extent later history contradicts what the text says, the text controls," because "post-ratification adoption or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text obviously cannot overcome or alter that text."
The Court cautioned against giving evidence from the late 19th century too much weight: Since "post-Civil War discussions of the right to keep and bear arms 'took place 75 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, they do not provide as much insight into its original meaning as earlier sources.'" The justices also said territorial laws carry "little weight," because they "appear more as passing regulatory efforts by not-yet-mature jurisdictions on the way to statehood, rather than part of an enduring American tradition of state regulation."
Sinatra does not think the analogs cited by New York establish such a tradition. The state cites "a handful of enactments in an attempt to meet its 'burden' to demonstrate a tradition of accepted prohibitions of firearms in places of worship or religious observation," he writes. "The notion of a 'tradition' is the opposite of one-offs, outliers, or novel enactments. Rather, 'tradition' requires 'continuity.'"
The six laws "are of unknown duration," Sinatra writes, "and the State has not met [its] burden to show endurance over time." Hence "the Court is left with a handful of seemingly spasmodic enactments involving a small minority of jurisdictions governing a small minority of population" that "were passed nearly a century after the Second Amendment's ratification in 1791." Those "outlier enactments," Sinatra adds, "contrast with colonial-era enactments that, in fact, mandated such carry at places of worship." He concludes that the laws "are far too remote, far too anachronistic, and very much outliers," making them "insufficient" to establish "an American tradition."
Suddaby, who concluded that New York had failed to justify many of its location-specific gun bans, was more impressed than Sinatra by the historical evidence regarding firearms in church. "Based on the historical analogues," he wrote, "it is permissible for New York State to generally restrict concealed carry in 'any place of worship or religious observation.'" But he noted that three of the six laws cited by New York included "one or more of the following four exceptions: (1) for those bound by 'duty' to bear arms at the place of worship; (2) for those possessing 'good and sufficient cause' to carry a gun at the place of worship; (3) for those serving as 'peace officers' at the place of worship; and (4) for those for whom the place of worship is 'his own premises.'"
Taken together, Suddaby said, those provisions "suggest that there also exists a tradition of permitting an exception to this prohibition for those persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at the place of worship." He also noted that "the vast majority of the states in 1868 [when the 14th Amendment, which made the Second Amendment applicable to the states, was ratified] did not have this restriction at all." Suddaby concluded that "the Constitution demands that this provision contain an exception for those persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at the place of worship or religious observation."
That category presumably would include pastors such as Hardaway and Boyd as well as designated congregants. Their concerns cannot be lightly dismissed given horrifying crimes such as the massacres at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, and the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas.
The plaintiffs' motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction notes that "the recent history of violence in churches, particularly the murder of nine parishioners in Charleston's Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in 2015, has reaffirmed Reverend Hardaway's conviction to carry for self-defense and to keep the peace at his church." Since the Charleston shooting, it says, Hardaway "has almost always carried a firearm for self-defense on Sundays and at services until the effective date of the Place of Worship Ban."
New York says that is now a felony. "The Nation's history does not countenance such an incursion into the right to keep and bear arms across all places of worship across the state," Sinatra writes. "The Constitution requires that individuals be permitted to use handguns for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. And it protects that right outside the home and in public. Nothing in the Nation's history or traditions presumptively closes the door on that right across every place of worship or religious observation."
Although Sinatra's ruling is limited to this one provision of New York's law, he notes the perversity of the state's response to Bruen. "Eight days after the Supreme Court struck down New York's unconstitutional 'proper cause' requirement for conceal[ed]-carry licenses," he writes, "the State responded with even more restrictive legislation, barring all conceal[ed]-carry license holders from vast swaths of the State."
That regulatory strategy has not fared well in the courts so far, which has not stopped other states from copying it. New Jersey and California are both considering bills that would ban firearms from a long list of "sensitive" places, making it legally perilous even for someone with a carry permit to leave home with a gun.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Actually if there is any need for "good guys with guns" it is in the thousands of churches that dot flyover country and terrorize their victims.
Dearborn hardest hit.
Why are you still here after being banned for posting links to child pornography?
Gun owners are the most law abiding citizens.
How does any church terrorize anyone?
By demanding the burning of witches? (Older days). By demanding the "capital punishment" of abortion doctors? (Newer days).
By calling all non-"Team R" votes "fraudulent"? (Newer days according to Republican Church orthodoxy; REAL MULTIPARTY democracy is HERESY!!!).
A one-party DicktatorShit terrorizes the hell out of ME for one!!!
Duh Monty python bells skit
Church doesn't terrorize anyone, everyone goes their voluntarily.What we do know is the state of New York wants to see church goers murdered without being able to defend themselves.
Either there is a need - in which case they should be there.
Or there's no need - in which case their being there won't affect anything.
Amen brother!
As always, the question is who should decide if there is a “need.”
The common thread of all leftism is the idea that a self-anointed group (whether a majority or a minority) get to decide for everyone.
We shouldn’t need a Second Amendment to tell us that the voluntary members of a church should get to decide whether or not they want to exercise armed self-defense inside their home church. “My house - my rules - has a much longer pedigree that a couple of long forgotten state laws.
Wow! Justin Trudeau just tweeted this: “ People can no longer buy, sell, or transfer handguns within Canada – and they cannot bring newly acquired handguns into the country.”
I don’t follow Canadian politics much so I had no idea something so extreme was in the works.
https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1583502468839018496?s=21&t=O5jfEPV8Vs1nKQMugX0oFQ
This is old-ish news. I think this was announced like 4 months ago. But I'd have to go back and see.
as it was only just enacted - you can see why the previous commenter may have just noticed it...
3d printer go brrrr
Don't you always cry like a bitch when ML comments on American politics?
It changes nothing. Canadian whack jobs seem to prefer to run over people on sidewalks or stick them with knives. Disarming the sane does not sound like a good idea. Pity they don't have a Second Amendment.
lol let's play How Many Amendments Can You Get Wrong In One Law?
OK, it's unconstitutional. So what?
^ This is basically New York Cities opinion, in a nutshell.
What about just New York City's opinion?
This is why the Pace Picante Sauce commercial always gets a laugh:
https://youtu.be/DmhgtBA16aA
🙂
Oh, by the by, I caught a clip of the Darrell Brooks trial yesterday. I haven't really been following this one much, but holeeeee crap... the Judge in that case? Man alive, she can overrule my objection ANY time.
Link?
For your viewing pleasure.
Nice.
Huh, is that really her? She looks like the porn version of a judge in a porn parody of the judicial system. Probably called something like "Hard Justice" though that sounds more like a cop porn parody than a judge.
Granting Squirt? (Granting Cert - A Porn Parody?)
Yes, that’s really her. A clip of the trial came in to my feed last night and I started watching it. Then the camera cut to the judge and I did a triple-take at my monitor, followed by a spit-take.
I remember the Rekieta law commenters giving nicknames to various people in the Rittenhouse trial, and there was a particularly hot officer who testified who got nicknamed “Officer Bae”. I don’t know if Rekieta is following this one, but if he is, I suspect his commenters won’t disappoint.
Of course he's following it, he's just more reliably on Rumble these days since he was targetted for mass flagging on YouTube for his opinion on MAPS and those looking to transition children.
Granting Squirt? (Granting Cert – A Porn Parody?)
Pfbbbt. “Behind Closed Doors: Pleasing The Court”, “Behind Closed Doors 2: In Her Chambers”, “Behind Closed Doors 3: Held Without Bail”, “Behind Closed Doors 4: Prosecutorial Misconduct”, “Seeking Council”, “Oral Arguments”, “Judicial Indescretion”, and… “Juris Prudence (A Behind Closed Doors Story): A Young Jurist’s Erotic Journey From The Bar to The Bench”…
Freakin’ amateurs man.
I'd kill to visit her chambers.
Smart, powerful, coal black hair, and we can assume a nice body from the look of her face.
Definitely a thinking man’s hottie.
She can hold me in contempt, as long as she holds me.
I'd like her to put me in double jeopardy! 🙂
https://twitter.com/DefiantLs/status/1583599025453817856?t=U5RYVPD9i1TsGPK4Bnj_aQ&s=19
Hahaha you guys are killing me
"Sensitive places" is exactly where you need to be armed the most in the first place taking, that right away is just stupid think.
I'm absolurely shocked that the judge is a Trump apppointee.
Judge Sinatra. If he can issue TROs there he can issue TROs anywhere.
He doesn't just do it his way, he does it the *American* way.
Tune in when the judge of note takes the governor to task for such inane laws: “That’s why the lady is a tramp!”
"post-Civil War discussions of the right to keep and bear arms 'took place 75 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment"
They were also tainted by the desire of Southern Democrats to keep freed slaves and poor white trash from carrying.
It seems to me that prohibiting carrying specifically in a church, synagogue, mosque, or other religious meeting place is also a violation of the First Amendment Freedom of Religion.
Repeal all religion-based gun laws now!
Anyone carrying a gun in a house of worship is basically saying: "I don't trust in Divine Providence to protect anyone." If believers want to effectively say that, then who am I, as an Atheist, to object? 🙂
Just like the Salvation Army does not seem to trust in Divine Providence to feed the poor.
True, although H.L. Mencken pointed out, The Salvation Atmy, like FDR's New Deal, also liked running flop houses and disturbing the peace. 🙂
"Divine Provence" gave us guns to protect ourselves from evil.
No, That was the Chinese with gunpowder, Leonardo Da Vinci with a multiple-barreled cannon, Patrick Ferguson with a rifled musket, Samuel Colt with his “Great Equalizer,” Richard Gatling with the Gatling Gun/Vulcan Cannon, The Manhattan Project with the Atomic Bomb, and a long line of many other human inventors. No Supernatural boogums-in-the-closet is responsible for boom-sticks, M’Lady.
*Throws fedora in the air and ventilates it with a Colt Six-Shooter, then picks it up, puts it on, and tips it.*
ROFLMAO at an atheist refuting divine inspiration citing the Architonnerre and Richard Gatling in the same sentence.
The weapons of these men still came from them, not whatever chimera they may have worshipped. Do you think these men were Gods?
Do you think these men were Gods?
I'm not the one invoking them as proxies for such.
Well Liberty Lover was, so you two get a room.
Just because you don't have principles doesn't mean no one else does.
WTF did you get that?
Look, I'm defending the right to self-defense and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, including for believers, and you're saying I have no principles???
Look, I’m defending the right to self-defense and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, including for believers, and you’re saying I have no principles???
No you aren’t. You’re talking smack about a sketches, a good portion of which either by design or ignorance (being merely sketches) didn’t work, done before the steam engine and that weren’t discovered until after the invention of the revolver. Stupidity and language are every bit as much weapons of good and evil as guns and explosives. If you had principles and were the least bit self-aware, you’d have picked up on that in the last couple of years. But you’re too busy being a brilliant, noble, misunderstood atheist sent by, uh, your mom to, uh, illuminate the, well, A path to, uh, well somewhere for, uh, well, someone besides yourself, maybe. Don’t worry, I’m sure Da Vinci will save you in the ornithopter he never built, couldn’t work even if he did build it, and that really was just a less-successful continuation of the experiments that pre-dated him by 3 centuries.
Ackshuyally, the principle of using steam to produce motion in objects was invented nearly 2600 years ago by the Greek inventor Hero. Not that steam would be necessary for merely conceiving Da Vinci's inventions, only for their mass production.
And no Mom's are required to have ideas, only to exist to have ideas.
Anywho, all inventions are human in origin, not supernatural. As such, inventions are subject to error, but also subject to improvement and independently conceivable by multiple human minds. How 'bout them principles?
A terrible storm descents on a country town. Eventually the streets are flooded, and the water is rising fast. The town preacher is standing on the steps of the church, praying for deliverance, when a guy in a row boat comes by. “Better get in the boat, preacher! The water is rising fast!”
The preacher waves him away. “No. I have faith in the Lord. He will protect me.” And so the guy rows away.
The water keeps rising, and the preacher has to retreat to the bell tower. At this point, another guy comes by in a speed boat. “Get in, preacher! The dam is going to break, and we’ll all be washed away!”
Again, the preacher waves him away. “No. I have faith in the Lord. He will protect me.” And so the guy guns the engine and zooms away.
The flood waters keep rising, and the preacher is forced to climb to the very top of the steeple. About that time, a police helicopter flies overhead. The cops drop a ladder to the preacher and shout at him: “Grab the ladder, preacher! The dam has broken, and the water is coming this way fast!”
The preacher waves the chopper away. “No. I have faith in the Lord. He will protect me.”
Not long after the helicopter flies away, a huge wave of water comes rushing in, and the preacher drowns. He goes to heaven, and he is taken to see God. “My Lord! I had faith! I prayed to you! Why didn’t you save me?!”
And God says, “WHAT DID YOU WANT FROM ME? I SENT YOU TWO BOATS AND A HELICOPTER.”
Hearing that old chestnut again after a long time but now with an Atheist's perspective, I have to wonder: Is the joke just on the Preacher or is the joke on all who poo-poo human innovations and credit them to a God? 🙂
Sometimes a joke is just a joke.
Religion started a joke which started the whole world crying...
You know how much of a dent we could make in violence if we simply cut off everyone’s hands?
Castration would also help. There is a joke about handball in there somewhere.
A couple years ago, there was a radio personality in Phila., who happened to be Jewish, railing about the need to confiscate guns, yada yada.
A guy calls in the radio show and says that he attends the same synagogue as the personality, and assured the personality that there were several armed worshippers during every service and there was no way in hell that Jews were going to give up their right to self-defense.
Of all people alive today, Jews should be the most ardent advocates for keeping your guns.
Giving up their guns worked out so well for them in Germany though.
but jews vote democrat overwhelmingly, every time. amazing that a large group of people will vote against their own interests.
In other words - the 'Bruen test' is shite and exists only because yet another fucking judge punted.
'You need to find examples of existing long-standing restrictions - but they can't be from too late in history and they can't be too specific, and they can't have been struck down or removed later'.
While I *agree* with the outcome of Bruen, it looks more like a judge looking for justifications for a ruling he was going to hand down anyway than a ruling coming organically from the text.
it looks more like a judge looking for justifications for a ruling he was going to hand down anyway
That is essentially all jurisprudence
It seems to me that even if such a law (no guns in church) was constitutional it usurps the decision of the church governance (deacons, ministers, etc). Shouldn't the decision to prohibit guns be left to the individual church, much like individual businesses retain the right to prohibit guns?
Yes, it should be up to individual church governance. The NY law rendered it illegal regardless of what they want to do within their churches.
I understand the progressive confusion here, they worship the State and nobody is overly concerned that guns are banned at their places of worship.
It's quite obvious given SCOTUS's recent rulings that laws barring guns in courts are also unconstitutional.
Let Thomas reap the fruits of his illogic as he tries to play God-King in front of dozens of armed people.
The “God King” as you call him seems generally concerned about government violating the rights of citizens, as well as federal overreach of what should be the domain of individual States.
I suspect you, on the other hand, want a government that inflicts its authority on those with whom you disagree, or just do not like.
In this case, it is individual States, particularly States with Jim Crow laws at the time who made these laws. So where would Thomas stand then?
There are fundamental rights “endowed by their creator” upon which no entity, be it federal or state, may transgress. These are clearly delineated in the Constitution.
The Church of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch is hardest hit
Add another item to the list of "definitely not a threat to democracy":
Canadian PM Trudeau issues executive order prohibiting handgun sales:
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/21/1130608885/justin-trudeau-canada-handgun-sales-freeze
The handgun freeze is the latest in an ongoing battle among Canadian lawmakers over gun control measures. In parliament, legislators are still debating the passage of a bill, introduced in May, that would be one of the strongest pieces of gun control legislation in decades. The new handgun freeze is an "immediate action" the Trudeau administration said it is taking as conversation around the bill continues.
Well, as long as the legislature is talking about an issue, that means it's okay for the executive to just save everyone some time, right?
Oh lookie... Now the Nazi's are making RULES inside churches.
Why it's history repeating itself 101.
Ackshuyally, the rules preceded the Nazis in time, though the Nazis certainly would support similar such laws later, especially directed against Jews and other 'Non-Aryan people's.'
But don't tell Mad.Casual you said that or he'll accuse you of having no principles. 😉
Je je je... This oughtta give pause to Christian National Socialists eager to send men with guns out to enslave and bully girls. Already they are learning that two can play--since the 19th Amendment. Now the heat of the Second and Thirteenth can suddenly reach them in their lairs. Oh, the schadenfreude!
For the record, except for the rare wedding or funeral, I never brighten the doors of any hoise of worship, so I have both a measure of security against The Culture Wars...as well as an alibi. Jackboots of the Right and Birkenstocks of the Left will have to come to me and through multiple layers of security...and may be too late by the time they get to me.
At least some people have learned to appreciate Herschel Gryznszpan's understanding of what was going on around him.
Those 1877 Virginian lawmakers would fit right in at Mecca in November of 1979.
Hey Goldilicks GorillaShit, you EVIL follower of the Evil One!
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
Is more likely, since it's a good bet fucktard is still viewing cp, that it will end up doing time. So not a gun, and not a good guy. But a bit of prison rape, a beating and a shivving will do just well.
I hope the other inmates torture the shit out of him.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (ks-06) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
...
Just open the link——————–>>> http://Www.TopCityPay.Com