By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and its co-plaintiffs in a case challenging New York’s gun ban in churches and places of worship—declaring them “sensitive places”—have filed a reply brief to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, telling the court there is “no historical evidence supporting a ban on firearms in places of worship at the Founding.”
This comes on the heels of a surprising brief submitted by one of the defendants in the case, known as Hardaway, Jr. v. Nigrelli, Niagara County District Attorney Brian D. Seaman, who supports SAF’s request for a preliminary injunction. Seaman’s brief, said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “reinforces plaintiffs’ assertion that the gun control law, which prohibits concealed carry in broadly-defined “sensitive places” including places of worship, is unconstitutional.”
SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, the Rev. Jimmie Hardaway, Jr., and Bishop Larry Boyd. They are represented by attorneys Nicolas J. Rotsko at Phillips Lytle in Buffalo, and by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf and John W. Tienken at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.
Defendants, in their official capacities, include Seaman, Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn and New York State Police Supt. Steven A. Nigrelli.
“After the Supreme Court struck down New York’s unconstitutional gun control law,” Gottlieb recalled, “the legislature replaced it with an even worse scheme which declares places of worship or religious gatherings as ‘sensitive places’ where carrying firearms for person protection is prohibited. The state is trying to get around the high court’s Bruen ruling, and the Constitution at the same time, and we cannot allow this to stand.”
Federal District Judge John L. Sinatra granted the preliminary injunction and the state appealed to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The state appealed, which now brings the case to the appeals court level. Seaman’s brief supporting the plaintiffs could add significant traction to their argument.
“While this is certainly an unusual development,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “we welcome the concurrence of District Attorney Seaman in our effort to secure the preliminary injunction. We believe New York’s gun control scheme is wholly unconstitutional. The New York Legislature apparently believes it is above the law and we are confident that the courts will rein in this blatant attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s directives in the Bruen ruling.”
Kraut, who is also a practicing attorney, said it is time for the federal court to “bring an end to this nonsense.”
Seaman’s brief states he supports the application for a preliminary injunction “for the purpose of furthering a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of New York Penal Law,” adding, “Therefore, the Court should affirm the Decision and Order of the district court granting the Plaintiffs-Appellees’ application for a preliminary injunction.”
