Thread by @mkolken

The Niagara County, New York District Attorney has conceded that @GovKathyHochul's new gun law prohibiting concealed carry in places of worship is unconstitutional, and his office should not be required to prosecute individuals who violate it. assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicy…

"As properly determined by the district court, New York’s new place of worship or
religious observation exclusion violates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms."

As noted by the district court, New York’s exclusion is valid only if the State ‘affirmatively prove[s]’ that the restriction is part of the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Despite this long-standing tradition, New York’s new exclusion is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen explaining that “confining the right to bear arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is the central component of the 2A right.

After all, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home” and at places of worship.

Consistent with Bruen, the Second Amendment presumptively guarantees plaintiffs-Appellees the right to “bear” arms in public for self-defense, including places of worship.

The decision and order extensively discusses the fact that there is no American tradition supporting the challenged law.

Nor is there a historical tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense.

The district court appropriately held that New York’s place of worship exclusion “violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”

Thus, as correctly confirmed by the district court, Plaintiffs-Appellees established that they remain likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim, and the court appropriately issued a preliminary injunction.

The district court properly held that absent a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs Appellees’ constitutional rights are being violated.

It is undisputed that the challenged restrictions, if enforced, will cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs-Appellees.

As properly found by the district court, law-abiding citizens, including the Plaintiffs-Appellees, are being forced to forego their Second Amendment rights to exercise their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, or vice versa.

The enactment and enforcement of the
challenged statute has resulted in being forced to sacrifice 2A rights by having to disarm before coming to church, being left to the hands of opportunistic, lawless individuals who have no concern about the place of worship exclusion.

Alternatively, these individuals are forced for their own safety to decline to exercise their right to worship, having been stripped of their ability to defend themselves and their congregations.