Firearms Ban in House of Worship

His Tabernacle Family Church (“the Church”) is a non-profit religious organization and a nondenominational Christian Church that was founded by Pastor Michael Spencer in 1998. Pastor Spencer has led its congregation forward in a number of ways and he continues to serve as the Church’s senior pastor. The Church ministers to over 1,100 people at three different locations—one in Horseheads, New York, a second in Ithaca, New York, and a third in Mansfield, Pennsylvania. The Church’s main location is Horseheads, New York where it operates a Christian house of worship.

Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, New York enacted Senate Bill S51001 on July 1st, 2022. Essentially, the State of New York required a person to show a special need for self-protection to receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged this law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications based on failure to show “proper cause.” Their claims were dismissed by a district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. Ultimately, the Court ruled that New York's law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.

S51001 enacts certain requirements to get a pistol license in new york, including live fire training, additional background checks, affidavits, and gun dealers maintaining an ammunition database. There is an extensive list of “sensitive locations” where firearms may not be carried. It specifically bans guns in houses of worship, despite the rising concerns about church security. Pastor Spencer owns several firearms, all of which are registered in accordance with New York law. As the Church’s pastor, he feels as though he has a moral and religious duty to take reasonable measures to protect the safety of his congregation. His Tabernacle Family Church, Inc. v. Nigrelli is the lawsuit filed by First Liberty Institute in the United States District Court which challenges the state’s newly enacted Senate Bill S51001 that prohibits carrying firearms in “sensitive locations.” The lawsuit claims that  S51001 substantially burdens

the Plaintiffs’ right to the free exercise of religion by forcing them to choose between complying with their religious beliefs or complying with New York law. Specifically, S51001 forbids Pastor Spencer and the Church’s members, under threat of criminal penalties, from exercising their religious conviction to carry firearms into the Church to protect themselves and other congregants. New York now imposes criminal liability on any person who carries a firearm into a place of worship, regardless of whether that person has a license to carry a firearm under New York law, and regardless of whether the religious community would prefer congregants to carry a firearm. In stark contrast, secular business owners are allowed to choose for themselves whether to allow firearms on their premises.

 

For the purpose of this blog post, I will primarily be addressing the Free Exercise aspect of this bill and how it lacks neutrality and general applicability— Does the aspect of legislation from Senate Bill S51001, that restricts the carrying of concealed weapons in “sensitive locations,” specifically noting houses of worship, violate the minister’s and church’s right to freely exercise their religion if the clause treats houses of worship and secular businesses differently? Preventing the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right in places of worship, while allowing private properties this right is discriminatory. When you deny religious leaders and congregants the right to carry a firearm in their Church, while private businesses have the right to establish those rules in their businesses, it is a clear demonstration of the state discriminating on the basis of religion. The law explicitly singles out houses of worship and treats secular organizations more favorably than religious ones. The Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses require government neutrality towards religion, however, subjecting houses of worship to the disfavored treatment of a total ban on firearms while allowing secular organizations to establish their own policies regarding the carrying of firearms on their premise, demonstrates a clear hostility towards religion. In the 1993 case, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the city put ordinances into place banning animal

sacrifice.  However, in a unanimous decision, the Court sided with the Church stating such a ban violated the Free Exercise Clause. By enacting ordinances that banned animal sacrifice, a ritual that was central to the practice of the Santeria religion, the City was passing laws that specifically oppressed a religion. As distasteful a practice as this is to many Americans, the Court found that the ordinances were specifically aimed at persecuting the practice of the Santeria religion. As such, they violated the Free Exercise Clause. Furthermore, S51001 runs into the Free Exercise Clause by interfering with core matters of internal church business. The state may have the power to dictate many things, but how worshippers should conduct themselves at worship services on church property is not one of them.

 

When analyzing this case, it is important to reflect on Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. The Governor of New York issued an executive order establishing a color-coded system imposing capacity restrictions at houses of worship across the state. In “red zones,” houses of worship were limited to a

maximum of 10 people at any given time; in “orange zones,” they were capped at 25. In either scenario, this limit applied no matter how large a religious community’s facility might be and no matter what precautions they had undertaken to assure congregant safety. Meanwhile, services deemed “essential” in the very same “zones” were exempted from capacity restrictions entirely. And while these “essential” services could range from liquor stores to bicycle shops to acupuncturists, New York State highlighted its position that religious worship is not “essential.” 

Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, and His Tabernacle Family Church, Inc. v. Nigrelli are all cases that involved imposed restrictions that violated a “minimum requirement of neutrality” by specifically naming religious entities for restrictions while giving secular businesses more latitude. I believe each of these cases clearly demonstrates an unconstitutional restriction of the Churches' free exercise rights.