Judge blocks New York ban on guns in houses of worship

[Polybius]

Source: CNN

A federal judge temporarily struck down a provision of New York's gun law Thursday that makes it a felony for a person with a concealed-carry license to possess a firearm at "any place of worship or religious observation."

The ruling is the latest example of the far reaching impact of the Supreme Court's decision last term that changed the framework judges must use to evaluate gun regulations.

Justice Clarence Thomas penned the opinion and said that a gun regulation must be justified by demonstrating that the law is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Last week, a different judge, citing the case New York State Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen, struck down a provision of federal law that bars the obliteration of a serial number on a weapon holding that serial numbers didn't exist in the founding era.

Thursday, Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. wrote: "In Bruen, the Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulations in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations."

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/21/politics/new-york-guns-houses-of-worship/index.html

---

Trump judge

[Botany]

1. From wiki Appointed by Donald Trump

n/t

[dchill]

2. Apparently, "sufficiently analogous regulations" means NONE.

Trump asswipe.

[dchill]

3. "...serial numbers didn't exist in the founding era."

Neither did Clarence Thomas.

[azureblue]

10. neither did

nitro powder and clip type loaders. Or automatics. Taken Uncle Tom's frame, then all firearms that are not black powder, flintlock muzzle loaders should be banned

[dchill]

12. Point.

[MicaelS]

17. Then people can carry THEM anywhere.

Right?

[hlthe2b]

4. Well, I guess all those Christ on the Crucifix displays will soon be retrofitted with AR15s

Our country is so damned ugly in its attitude toward guns and turns away from tolerance. I can scarcely bear it. What the future generations will experience--if there even will be the US to experience-- is nothing less than a big?

[no_hypocrisy]

5. What could be incongruous than bringing

an instrument to kill inside a home of worship, humanity, fellowship, and Love?

[Mr. Sparkle]

6. "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." I dont remember that

in the 2nd amendment.

They are literally making this shit up as they go along, like conventionally forgetting "a well regulated militia" part in the amendment.

[azureblue]

11. which

means the National Guard or army, navy, AF, etc

[former9thward]

45. No, it doesn't.

The National Guard did not even exist. They did not come around for another 100 years after the Constitution went into effect. The same with the regular military. The colonists were opposed to a standing military. Which is why they passed the 3rd Amendment right after the 2nd. There were no bases and the military, such as it was, was disbanded right after the Revolution was won.

[CTyankee]

50. Wasn't it Trump who said the colonists "took over the airports" in the Revolutionary War?

Or was that Kelly Anne Conway with her "alternative facts."

[PlutosHeart]

35. That is why they pay the Federalist Society

the big money. To make shit up.

[Novara]

47. Fine, let's be originalists then.

"In Bruen, the Court made the Second Amendment test crystal clear: regulations in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations."

Well, then, this means muskets in a well-regulated militia. Ban handguns and AR-15s.

[cilla4progress]

7. Oh ffs...

commonsense much?!

[azureblue]

8. and all the while

ignoring the other part of the 2nd "Well Regulated militia". Just ask any gun carrier to show his membership in the National Guard.

[maxsolomon]

13. "Well-regulated" has been interpreted as "well-equipped",

and not, you know, actually regulated, or trained, or disciplined. That anachronistic term has been shunted aside.

If I had my way (I never will), firearm possession would be contingent on twice-yearly militia training. "Marching up and down the square", as the Monty Python skit goes.

[maxsolomon]

9. Soon, gun possession will achieve perfect freedom.

There will be no infringements left to fight in court. Full-automatic firearms will be open-carried into courtrooms, hospitals, daycares, Congress, presidential debates.

Only then will we be truly free in the way our slave-owning founders imagined. Civility will reign.

"What part of "no infringements" don't you understand?"

[slightlv]

14. oh, no... I beg to differ...

Notice how guns are permitted everywhere BUT state legislatures, Congress (at least they're not *suppose* to carry them on to the floor), courtrooms, etc.

IOW, these judges are making sure that THEIR branch of the government is completely protected. Why the hell we can't get the same type of protection... well, I guess that's just another aspect of the "Two Americas."

[maxsolomon]

33. You can carry guns in the Utah Capitol.

I saw it on Big Love!

[dchill]

15. If gunz aren't allowed in the Supreme Court...

...they why "in heaven's name" would they be allowed in a church? Clarence Thomas and all these other right-wing asshole judges are facetious, flippant, frivolous mockingbirds infecting our courts.

[bluestarone]

16. EXACTLY!!

How in the hell can they not allow guns in courts but ok everywhere else?

[bucolic_frolic]

18. Whew! That's a relief.

If you can't blow away someone who threatens you in a Christian church, where CAN you do it?

[Warpy]

19. The founders didn't consider serial numbers

because Eli Whitney didn't come along for many years.

Federalist Society judges are fucking dangerous. This particular asshole needs to realize that a blunderbuss produced by a local gunsmith was the pinnacle of technology when that stupid amendment was added to placate southern land owners afraid of their slaves.

I hope this idiocy is overturned quickly.

[jmowreader]

34. That wasn't the only reason it was added

"What kind of army should we have?"
"I think we should have a standing army."
"Why a standing army?"
"Because then we save money on chairs!"

Seriously though, Thomas Jefferson had a distinct hatred of professional armies and didn't want the United States to have one. He felt that a militia consisting of part-time citizen soldiers led by anyone rich enough to afford a mess tent and uniforms for his troops would be plenty.

The fact that such a militia almost lost the Revolutionary War, and the only thing that saved the Republic was Washington letting Baron von Steuben turn that ragtag mob into a professional army, never occurred to Jefferson.

Anyway, Jefferson added the Second so we wouldn't need a real army. It SHOULD have been repealed after the Spanish-American War, when we almost lost thanks to our reliance on militias in that conflict.

[Warpy]

36. True enough, but they knew within a few years that local militias wouldn't work

as a defensive force because locals were using militia training as an excuse to carouse in town. The second amendment should have been modified a long time ago.

It was never going to go away completely, long guns are necessary within ten miles of where I live, this is bear and cougar country.

My complaint is with semi auto guns, they're weapons of war with no place among civilians.

[EX500rider]

53. If a 700lb Grizzly bear was charging me, I am pretty sure I would want a semi-auto..

...over a bolt action, vary likely to miss the first shot if surprised and they move up to 35mph.

Also the FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show that 57% of all murders were committed with hand- guns, 3% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, so everyone saying "you just need a shotgun" should realize they kill more people then long rifles already.

[Warpy]

56. We're tpo far south for grizzlies

but the smaller black bears can do some damage. A face full of buckshot will discourage both.

It's called "aiming," something semi auto gun fans have forgotten about, just spray bullets. One of them will hit somebody, usually an innocent bystander, but that bystander should have stayed home, right?

Most people I know outside town have the shotgun and the trusty 30.06.

[EX500rider]

57. Getting a kill shot with one bullet on a charging bear would be quite the accomplishment.

"usually an innocent bystander", a lot of those when in bear country are there? lol

[Warpy]

58. Yet that's how hunters have usually done it.

Go figure.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

59. Hunters usually aren't shooting at a charging bear, they usually stalk the bear

and then take it down with a well placed round, a hiker on the other hand is a different scenario where a semi auto might, notice I say might, be needed to stop that charging bear.

[EX500rider]

60. Not talking about hunting bears

Talking about being surprised and charged by one while not ready, a one shot weapon would be close to a death sentence IMO.

[old guy]

20. So then it's up to each church to ban them if they choose?

[oldsoftie]

28. Apparently, yes. So its much ado about nothing. Just post a sign if you don't want it.

If they violate that they would've violated the law anyway.

[Ford_Prefect]

21. So the judge wants to have dead citizens of various denominations in any house of worship?

The judge may wish to reconsider rather than be overturned, or meet with an angry mob of worshipers.

I am not the first to say but I suspect one of these days someone will come armed to one of the MAGA courtrooms and THAT will become a very different judicial lesson.

[anotherOKIE]

22. prohibited in the 1800's in some places

I know that carrying firearms was prohibited in some towns in the 1800's and if those towns who prohibited guns in their early founding were too outlaw them now, would that be struck down as not consistent with historical traditions? It is all so very much a case of cherry picking historical tradition isn't it.

The supreme court (federalists) are determined to remove any and all laws that have made the United States a nation of sensible regulation of any kind. That agenda paints a very dystopian picture of the future.

[Kaleva]

31. Churches can ban guns

[oldsoftie]

23. What if the church posts a "no weapons" sign? Don't they have that right too?

I'm in GA; and private establishments still have the right to have a "no weapons " sign & policy.

[onenote]

27. Yes. They have that right

[bluestarone]

41. What if congress were to pass a bill

Allowing guns in all Government buildings, and court house's including the SC?

[onenote]

42. It would be Constitutional.

[Karma13612]

24. JFC..

What could POSSIBLY go wrong??

[Traildogbob]

26. Go wrong?

Let’s make lemon aid. Throw in fire crackers, sit back and let em shoot the fuck out of each other.
Problem solved.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. F**k these crazy judges and 'historical tradition'. Where were the AR-15s in 1787?

[Kaleva]

30. Places of worship can ban the presence of guns on their premises

It just that the state can't do it.

[IbogaProject]

29. Wow most Federal Regulations are at risk

Here is an incomplete list of things that didn't exist at the time of the Constitution and Bill of Rights

Bullets
Smokeless Rifle Powder
TNT
Pharmaceutical approval and regulations
OSHA
Environmental protection
Unions and Labor Regulations
The Controlled Substance List
AntiTrust enforcement
The Federal Income Tax
The Federal Reserve
Any money that isn't precious metal coinage
Keeping a standing Army

At the least.

[sl8]

32. From last month: "Judge's Ruling Maps Strategy for N.Y. Concealed-Carry Gun Cases"

This refers to all the new NY gun laws that were recently passed, including today's "places of worship" case.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/judges-ruling-maps-strategy-for-n-y-concealed-carry-gun-cases

Judge’s Ruling Maps Strategy for N.Y. Concealed-Carry Gun Cases
BY KESHIA CLUKEY

DEEP DIVE
Sept. 9, 2022, 5:05 AM

Judge dismissed case, lays out why law is ‘unconstitutional’

Decision could provide arguments for pending gun cases

[...]

Among his reasons:

• The new law omitted the phrase “other than in self-defense,” which could create a Second Amendment problem;

• The state’s list of “sensitive places” is extensive, and automatically declaring private property a restricted location usurps private property rights;

• The law’s social media and character reference requirements grant too much discretion to licensing officers and risk punishment for political speech in violation of the First Amendment;

• Fifth Amendment concerns stem from an applicant having to incriminate themselves by providing all the information required for the permit.

[...]

[Initech]

37. What could possibly go wrong?

[demosincebirth]

38. What the hell is wrong with so many of these judges?

[dlk]

39. Sanctuary?

Apparently not.

[SouthernDem4ever]

40. Just another place for me not to go

although I wouldn't anyway, but now I"ll boycott weddings and other ceremonial celebrations to which I am invited. Thanks Judge for making the religious world suck even more.

[madville]

43. Most Churches are private property

It should be up to the property owner whether they allow firearms or not. Many churches provide their own security with members of the congregation having their own concealed firearms there, NY state isn’t gonna win this one.

[NickB79]

49. Yep. The judge ruled correctly here

The state was imposing regulations on private property it had no right to do. And as others have pointed out, this ruling doesn't forbid churches from putting up a sign on the door banning firearms if they choose, that has the same effect as this now-voided law did.

[paleotn]

44. Ignore the judge.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

55. So under that scenario,

the RW run states could ignore a judge's ruling?

Careful what you ask for.

[Rhiannon12866]

46. What??!

How many mass shootings have we heard about occurring in Houses of Worship?? Not to mention Dr. Tiller??

[Kaleva]

48. Do you honestly think that a law prohibiting guns...

from bring concealed carried in a place of worship has prevented a single mass shooting in a church?

If a mass shooter isn't concerned about murder being against the law, he isn't going to let a law declaring concealed carry in a place of worship deter him.

Places of worship, being private property, can prohibit the carrying off guns on that property.

[madville]

51. Mass shooters don't care about these laws

A law preventing licensed concealed carry in a specific location doesn’t have any influence on a mass shooter. In this case it could make the church more vulnerable since it’s potentially preventing their licensed members from providing a form of armed security.

[msfiddlestix]

52. Well then, maybe Thomas should move to block the ban on guns in The U.S. Supreme Court too.

Apply the same rational / legal theory. Be consistant.

[DVRacer]

54. The issue is larger than the 2A

What gives a state the right to deny a constitutional right on private property without consent of the property owner? Expand that thought out and you will see why this is absolutely the right decision.