For Jews the world over, the number 18 has long enjoyed a special status. In Jewish liturgy, the prayer known as the Amidah is also called the “Shmoneh Esreh” (“the 18”), referring to the number of separate blessings that originally comprised the prayer. In the Jewish numerological tradition of gematria, the number 18 has long been viewed as corresponding to the Hebrew word “chai,” meaning “alive” (derived by adding the eighth and 10th letters of the Hebrew alphabet, chet and yud).
Help Us Fight New York State’s CCIA Laws NYS Governor Kathy Hochul signed new gun legislation in response to the Supreme Court ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen.This new CCIA law makes it illegal for licensed gun owners to carry their legal firearms into any “Sensitive Place”. This turns your...
Jews in NY are a politically favored group, so they have a higher chance of success in whatever they do, and they might actually prevail --- unless liberal Jewish groups that support gun control and other manifestations of communism in America step forward and directly contradict this Jewish gun owners' group.
Politics and tribalism aside, I don't think this lawsuit has much chance based on First Amendment / Free Exercise of Religion grounds.
Places of worship are not the target or focus of this law. They are just one kind of place on a huge long list of "sensitive" places. Therefore this law is one of general applicability and is facially neutral. That means unless the law's opponents can show that there was an actual anti-religious or anti-Jew bias in the legislature in their choice to pass this law, the courts will have to uphold it (at least if the only objection is based on the first amendment.)
See this article for background info on these legal principles.
But though Suddaby could have stopped there, he didn’t. While judges often rule as narrowly as possible and leave it at that, Suddaby included a section whose title, alluding to the plaintiffs' case, says it all: Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
In case the plaintiffs appeal and a higher court concludes they have standing to sue, he writes, “what follows would constitute the Court’s ruling.”
He then points out that the law is so poorly-written that it calls for granting a license to carry only to those of “good moral character” who will use the gun “only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”
Obviously, if you use a gun to protect yourself against a mugger, you’ve going to “endanger” your attacker. Suddaby bitingly notes that leaving out the phrase “other than in self-defense” means “the statute is conditioned on a logical impossibility” and thus would be “doomed.”
Similarly, he found the new “good moral character” requirement does not eliminate the subjectivity the Supreme Court condemned when it struck down New York’s previous law requiring an applicant to demonstrate “proper cause” to carry a gun for protection. When it comes to the Second Amendment right of self defense, he said, “licensing officials may not arbitrarily abridge it based on vague, subjective criteria.”
The judge also agreed with the plaintiff that having to let the state probe their social media accounts to see if they might be a threat violates their First Amendment speech rights, as well as their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. He noted that the Supreme Court has previously ruled it “intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”
And the law’s prohibitions on carrying firearms in “sensitive locations" – written so broadly as to cover practically any public place – is precisely the kind of language the Supreme Court “considered and rejected,” he pointed out. Similarly, barring guns in "restricted locations" – meaning private property – without the owner’s express consent usurps the rights of property owners to decide for themselves, Suddaby said . . .
Where was this judge when GCO was trying to get the church law tossed?