Close this search box.

MAJOR SETBACK: New York Jewish Gun Club’s Lawsuit Against Ban On Guns In Shuls Thrown Out

U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick, an Obama appointee, has ruled that an outright ban on licensed gun carry in all places of worship is compatible with the Second Amendment, rebuffing a lawsuit filed by a Jewish gun lobby against the ban.

The ruling came as a response to the lawsuit challenging New York’s law that designates all houses of worship, including shuls, as “sensitive places,” where civilian gun possession is prohibited. Judge Broderick denied a request for a preliminary injunction, supporting the state’s ability to regulate firearms in houses of worship based on the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations.

In his written opinion on the case, Goldstein v. Hochul, Judge Broderick stated, “There is a sufficient historical record to support the finding that houses of worship are sensitive places, where it is constitutionally permissible for the state to regulate the carrying of firearms.” He pointed to both specific laws outlawing the carrying of weapons in churches and broader regulations from the founding era that limited the carrying of weapons in public, which includes places of worship.

In a statement, the New York Jewish Gun Club said: “Judge Broderick held that NYS did not violate the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments by banning firearms in places of worship and religious observation.

“This is clearly wrong to us, but also to NYS which rescinded this law in the 2023 budget. Even though NYS no longer has this law in place, Judge Broderick still defended it, holding it is constitutional. 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.”

The ruling is seen as a setback for gun-rights advocates as it validates the state’s argument that it possesses broad power to restrict the carrying of firearms in certain locations. However, there are still ongoing legal challenges to the same ban, and previous orders have blocked the provision from two federal judges, pending appeal. As a result of these challenges, New York made adjustments to the ban, adding an exception for church pastors and “persons responsible for security” to carry guns inside places of worship.

Rabbi Tzvi Hirsh Goldstein criticized the ruling and expressed plans to appeal it. “We don’t have a history of prohibiting guns in churches at the founding,” he argued to The Reload. Rabbi Goldstein, a member of the New York State Jewish Gun Club, which funded the lawsuit, believes the judge went to great lengths to find examples from the reconstruction period to define the Second Amendment right codified at the founding.

The plaintiffs, both Orthodox Jews, argued that the ban made them vulnerable to anti-Semitic attacks and hindered their ability to attend religious services. They cited pre-founding colonial statutes requiring churchgoers to be armed as evidence of the historical tradition of gun carry in places of worship, but Judge Broderick disagreed. He asserted that these laws were rooted in racism and aimed at preserving slavery, suggesting they should not carry significant weight in the analysis of the regulation of firearm carry by law-abiding citizens for self-defense.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)

4 Responses

  1. Nearly 40byears ago a judge in Silver Spring held similar negative feelings about Jews and their way of life. He had his opinion about guns then, I think, as well. He too was insensitive. His end came when his very own son mowed him, his wife down and then turned the gun onto himself. Justice Broderick, if people feel their lives are in danger, who are you to feel that they’re unreasonable! Who are you to say that they’re safe in the confines of their house of worship: far too many stories in these past 10 years show otherwise. Shame on you! President Obambam confirmed you to the bench because he comes from Chicago. He appreciates the wild west.

  2. “Jewish gun club”- Well I suppose it’s better than all the “Kiddush clubs” that the alcohol addicts attend. Maybe we can have a “Torah club” as well..?

  3. “He asserted that these laws were rooted in racism and aimed at preserving slavery, suggesting they should not carry significant weight in the analysis of the regulation of firearm carry by law-abiding citizens for self-defense.”

    That’s a legal analysis now? LAUGH. OUT. LOUD.

    Let no one tell you that far left ideology has no practical implications.

  4. I got to add to my previous comment. The judge literally threw out a law because he didn’t like it. This is even more extreme then the Israeli “reasonability” clause, and throws out the entire “checks and balances” aspect of US Constitution.

    Common law means that precedent and prior laws are the law, no matter your feeling about them. That’s what Rule of Law looks like. If a Judge can now disregard a law because of his moral feelings, then how is USA better than Putin’s Russia? What compels Jews to believe that Dina De Malchuta Dina, and obey the laws, if the law singlehandedly decided by activist judges based on no objective criteria?

Leave a Reply

Popular Posts