Goldberger v. James: FPC’s Times Square Lawsuit, the Strategy Behind It, and What Has to Happen Next for NY Gun Rights

by NY Safe
on March 24, 2026






Goldberger v. James: FPC’s Times Square Lawsuit, the Strategy Behind It, and What Has to Happen Next for NY Gun Rights

By Peter Ticali  |  NRA & USCCA Certified Instructor  |  Licensed Firearms Instructor: NY, MD, DC, MA, UT  |  NY Pistol License Holder Since 1992  |  NRA Endowment Life Member  |  Published March 23, 2026

On March 20, 2026, the Firearms Policy Coalition filed Goldberger v. James — a direct constitutional challenge to New York’s Times Square gun ban. It is a well-crafted, strategically targeted lawsuit. It is also the beginning of a very long road. Here is what it is, what it is fighting, what it has to climb over, and what it will actually take to restore carry rights in New York.

Every time a new Second Amendment lawsuit is filed, two camps form almost instantly. One erupts in celebration — “This is the one!” The other responds with weary skepticism — “Another lawsuit that will settle nothing for years.” Both reactions miss the point.

The question that actually matters is not whether a lawsuit was filed. It is whether the people funding and filing it understand exactly what mountain they are climbing, what the path to the summit looks like, and whether the strategy is designed for a decisive outcome — or for a long, comfortable plateau of incremental partial wins.

Goldberger v. James gives us an unusually clear opportunity to examine that question — because this case is not generic. It is targeted at a specific place, filed by a specific plaintiff, against a specific precedent, by lawyers who have been doing this successfully for years. Understanding it well is not just useful for following this case. It is a masterclass in how Second Amendment litigation actually works.

The Case: What Was Filed, By Whom, and Why It Matters

Goldberger v. James, Case No. 7:2026cv02325, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 20, 2026. The case is brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and is being litigated by attorneys from Cooper & Kirk, PLLC — a Washington-based firm that has become one of the most consequential Second Amendment litigation practices in the country.

The plaintiff is Yehuda Goldberger, a resident of Hillburn, Rockland County, who holds valid concealed carry licenses issued by both New York City and Rockland County. He is not prohibited from possessing firearms under any state or federal law. He walks through Times Square multiple times a year for work and personal reasons. And because of NY Penal Law §265.01-e(2)(t) — enacted as part of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) — he cannot carry a loaded, operable handgun for self-defense in that area, despite being a vetted, licensed, law-abiding citizen.

The case makes a single constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983: that the Times Square sensitive-location designation violates Goldberger’s rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The relief requested is a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, plus permanent injunctive relief barring its enforcement.

One count. One target. One plaintiff. That is not an accident — it is a deliberate strategic choice, and we will come back to why.

The defendants are Letitia James (NY Attorney General), Jessica Tisch (NYPD Commissioner), and Alvin Bragg (Manhattan District Attorney), all sued in their official capacities. These are the three offices with actual enforcement authority over the Times Square ban. Clean standing. No diffuse injury problem. No procedural escape hatch.

What the Times Square Ban Actually Is — and What Violating It Costs You

Most people, including many gun owners, have a vague understanding that “Times Square is a gun-free zone.” They do not know the specifics. Those specifics matter enormously.

The designation is codified at NY Penal Law §265.01-e(2)(t), enacted July 1, 2022. New York City Administrative Code §10-315(a) defines the geographic boundary precisely: a multi-block section of Midtown Manhattan roughly bounded by West 40th and West 53rd Streets and Eighth and Ninth Avenues — including sidewalks and streets within that perimeter.

This is not a government building. It is not a courthouse. It is not a school. It is a designated section of ordinary public sidewalk in the heart of the most famous commercial district in the United States.

If you cross that boundary while lawfully carrying a loaded handgun — even with a valid NYPD carry license in your wallet — you have committed a class E felony under New York law. The potential sentence is up to four years in state prison. The collateral consequences include a permanent criminal record and, under federal law, the likely lifetime loss of your right to possess firearms at all.

You do not need to brandish the weapon. You do not need to threaten anyone. You do not need to be acting with criminal intent. The statute requires only that you “know or reasonably should know” you are in the designated area. Walk from 39th Street to 42nd Street with a lawfully licensed concealed handgun and you have committed a felony in New York.

That is the law this case is fighting.

The Precedent Standing in the Way: Frey v. City of New York

Here is the piece almost no coverage of Goldberger has adequately addressed — and it is the most important piece to understand if you want to know what this lawsuit is actually up against.

On September 19, 2025, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Frey v. City of New York. The Frey plaintiffs — Jason and Brianna Frey and William Sappe, all licensed New York State concealed carry holders — challenged the exact same Times Square designation, along with the subway ban and the NYPD city-specific permit requirement.

The Second Circuit upheld all of it. Judge Joseph Bianco, a Trump appointee, writing for the unanimous panel, found that the government had demonstrated “a historical tradition of regulating firearms in quintessentially crowded places” sufficient to justify the restrictions under Bruen’s history-and-tradition test.

The court’s reasoning on Times Square specifically is worth understanding directly. The panel wrote: “There is perhaps no public place more quintessentially crowded than Times Square” and described it as “our modern-day, electrified, supersized equivalent of fairs, markets, and town squares of old.” The historical analogues the State relied on included 19th-century laws from Montana, Georgia, and Idaho restricting firearms at “public gatherings” and “places where persons are assembled for amusement.”

The Goldberger complaint responds directly. It argues that Frey was wrongly decided — that the Second Circuit stretched thin, generalized historical analogues far beyond what Bruen permits, and that the “crowded place” rationale, taken to its logical conclusion, would allow New York to designate virtually any urban area a sensitive location.

That last point is not rhetorical. Read the Schoenthal reply brief carefully — I will discuss that case in a moment — and you will find this exact argument made to the Supreme Court: the “crowded places” doctrine, embraced by the Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, is “in irreconcilable conflict with Bruen’s statement that Manhattan could not be cast as a ‘sensitive place.'”

Bruen actually said that. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion specifically warned that the government cannot designate somewhere a sensitive place simply because “people typically congregate” there, because that rationale would “eviscerate” the general right to carry publicly that Bruen recognized. The lower courts have been treating that warning as a footnote. The Goldberger complaint treats it as the central legal argument.

So here is the honest picture: Goldberger is not just another lawsuit challenging a sensitive-place law generally. It is a direct challenge to a recent, specific Second Circuit precedent — filed in a district court that sits within the jurisdiction of that same Second Circuit. The district court will almost certainly follow Frey. An appeal will go back to the Second Circuit, which just decided Frey. The real destination is the Supreme Court. And that is exactly where FPC and Cooper & Kirk are aiming.

The Strategic Framework: Why This Case Is Built the Way It Is

Second Amendment litigation has a well-documented procedural graveyard. Cases get dismissed on standing. Cases get narrowed on ripeness. Cases get delayed for years while restrictions remain in force. Cases that should win on the merits never get there because procedural gatekeeping eliminates them first.

Goldberger is structured to avoid every one of those traps.

Standing is airtight. Yehuda Goldberger is not a hypothetical plaintiff. He has two valid carry licenses. He frequents Times Square for documented reasons. He has a concrete, ongoing injury: he cannot exercise his licensed carry rights in a place he regularly visits. No standing argument survives that.

The target is surgically narrow. The case challenges one statute: §265.01-e(2)(t). Not the entire CCIA. Not the entire sensitive-places framework. Not 17 different CCIA provisions at once. The focused target eliminates the scope-of-injury problems that have bedeviled broader challenges.

The legal question is clean and specific. Is Times Square — a geographically defined section of ordinary public sidewalk in a commercial district — a constitutionally valid “sensitive place” under Bruen? That is a crisp, answerable question. Courts cannot avoid it through procedural fog.

Cooper & Kirk is the right firm for this case. David Thompson and Peter Patterson at Cooper & Kirk have been litigating high-stakes constitutional cases for years. They are also the counsel of record in Schoenthal v. Raoul, the cert petition currently before the Supreme Court. The same firm is building cases at both ends of the pipeline — at the district court level to generate the record, and at the Supreme Court level to force the resolution. That is coordinated strategy, not coincidence.

Understanding this dual-track approach is essential for understanding what Goldberger is actually doing.

The Other Case You Need to Know: Schoenthal v. Raoul at the Supreme Court

While Goldberger was being filed in New York, a related FPC-backed case was sitting at the Supreme Court’s conference table.

Schoenthal v. Raoul (No. 25-541) challenges Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms on public transit — the CTA, Metra, and related systems — as a sensitive-place designation. The Seventh Circuit upheld the ban in September 2025, concluding that crowded transit spaces qualify as sensitive places where carry can be prohibited. FPC, also represented by Cooper & Kirk, petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.

The petition was distributed for conference on March 20, 2026 — the same day Goldberger was filed. Orders were expected March 23. As of this writing, the Court’s decision on whether to take Schoenthal is pending.

Why does Schoenthal matter for New Yorkers following Goldberger? Because the two cases ask essentially the same constitutional question from different directions:

  • Schoenthal asks: Can Illinois ban carry on public transit under a “crowded place” sensitive-place theory?
  • Goldberger asks: Can New York ban carry in Times Square under the same theory?

If the Supreme Court takes Schoenthal and rules that “crowded” is not a sufficient historical basis for sensitive-place designation, that ruling would devastate Frey — because Frey is built entirely on the crowded-places analogy. It would also change the legal landscape for Goldberger at every level of review.

If the Supreme Court denies certiorari in Schoenthal, it does not mean the question is settled — it means the Court is not yet ready to decide it, allowing cases like Goldberger to continue building the record and, potentially, the circuit conflict that makes the issue unavoidable.

Either way, the two cases are not independent. They are coordinated pieces of a multi-year constitutional strategy aimed at forcing the Supreme Court to define what “sensitive places” actually means — and whether that definition swallows the public carry right Bruen recognized.

The Core Constitutional Argument — and Why It Is Stronger Than It Looks

The Goldberger complaint’s constitutional theory is not simply “Times Square is not a sensitive place.” It is more precise and more devastating than that — and it builds directly on language the Supreme Court itself used in Bruen.

Argument 1: Bruen explicitly warned against this. The Bruen majority opinion stated that the government cannot designate sensitive places in locations “where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available” — because that would “eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.” Times Square meets that description perfectly. High foot traffic, constant police presence, abundant surveillance. Under Bruen’s own logic, those facts should cut against sensitive-place designation, not justify it. We applied this exact test — measuring every CCIA sensitive-place category against the 1791 historical record — in our piece Are Sensitive Places Constitutional? An AI Supreme Court Applies a Strict 1791 Test. The results were not favorable to Albany.

Argument 2: The historical analogues don’t hold. The Second Circuit in Frey relied on 19th-century laws restricting firearms at “public gatherings,” “fairs,” and “amusements.” The Goldberger complaint argues — consistent with scholarly analysis the brief cites — that historical restrictions applied to carry “with intent to terrify,” not peaceful carriage by law-abiding citizens. A 19th-century law restricting armed intimidation at a county fair is not an analogue for a 21st-century felony ban on a licensed carrier walking a midtown sidewalk.

Argument 3: Times Square is not a discrete location — it is a section of ordinary city street. The Second Circuit called Times Square the “modern-day equivalent of fairs, markets, and town squares of old.” But historical fairs and markets were temporary gatherings in defined places with specific, historically documented regulatory context. Times Square is a geographically defined perimeter of Manhattan sidewalks that are, as the complaint notes, “contiguous with the rest of Manhattan.” There is no principled line between Times Square and 54th Street. The state drew one with a statute — but a statute is not history.

Argument 4: The crime data undermines the safety rationale. Recent NYPD CompStat reports and documented incidents — including a fatal shooting near a Times Square 7-Eleven in February 2026 and three people wounded including a tourist in August 2025 — show that Times Square has crime at rates comparable to surrounding Midtown districts. The designation is not creating safety. It is disarming the people who follow the law while doing nothing to stop those who don’t. For a deeper look at what NYC crime data actually reveals about personal safety — and why gun-free zones don’t change criminal behavior — see our analysis: NYC Violence Interrupters, Crime Data, and Why You Need a Safety Plan.

This is not a weak constitutional case. It is a strong one built on the Supreme Court’s own language. The question is whether the lower courts will apply that language honestly.

The Honest Assessment: What This Case Will and Won’t Do

I want to give you an honest accounting of what Goldberger is likely to achieve — not because the case isn’t worth supporting, but because understanding the realistic path prevents both false hope and false despair.

What this case is designed to do:

  • Create a clean, procedurally solid record challenging the Times Square designation on constitutional grounds
  • Force the district court to directly engage with Bruen’s language — and with Frey’s interpretation of it
  • Generate an appellate record that makes the conflict between Bruen’s text and the Second Circuit’s approach explicit and unavoidable
  • Add to the body of cases building pressure for Supreme Court review of the sensitive-places doctrine
  • Lay the groundwork for injunctive relief if the legal landscape shifts — either through a district court win, a Schoenthal ruling, or a Wolford ruling with implications for sensitive places

What this case is unlikely to do in the near term:

  • Win at the district court level — the Southern District sits within the Second Circuit, which just decided Frey
  • Win at the Second Circuit level — for the same reason, absent a Supreme Court ruling that changes the standard
  • Immediately allow licensed carriers to enter Times Square — no injunction has been issued, and the law is currently enforceable
  • Dismantle the broader CCIA sensitive-places framework — it targets one provision, not the whole structure

This is the strategic reality of Second Amendment litigation in the Second Circuit right now. You can be frustrated by it and still support the work. The frustration is justified. The work is necessary.

Why We Are Litigating One Block at a Time — and What That Tells You

One of the most common complaints from gun owners watching this litigation unfold is the obvious one: if Times Square shouldn’t be a sensitive place, why should it take years of litigation to establish that? If the government can’t justify banning carry in one public location, why should it require separate lawsuits for every other location?

The honest answer is that it shouldn’t. If Times Square cannot be justified under Bruen, then neither can most of Manhattan. The Constitution does not require a separate lawsuit for every block in New York — but the current system is operating as if it does. Under a principled application of Bruen, a court that found the Times Square designation unconstitutional would be applying a standard that logically reaches the subway ban, the park ban, the transit ban, and half the CCIA’s sensitive-places list. The text of the Constitution doesn’t change block by block. The historical tradition doesn’t reset at 40th Street.

But the legal system does not operate on that logic right now — and the reason is important. The issue is not that the legal standard is unclear. It is that courts have been reluctant to apply it in a way that produces system-wide consequences. The Second Circuit has used the “crowded places” theory to create a flexible historical analogy that can be stretched to cover almost any location the State chooses to target. And until the Supreme Court says that doctrine is wrong — explicitly, on the merits — lower courts in this circuit will follow it.

This is not a failure of the Second Amendment. It is a failure of judicial application. The standard in Bruen is clear. The warning about over-designation is explicit. The problem is that the courts below have decided to minimize rather than enforce that language — and the only remedy is a Supreme Court that imposes accountability.

That is why cases like Goldberger matter even when they are expected to lose at the district and circuit levels. They are not just litigation for its own sake. They are building the case — factually, legally, and rhetorically — for the moment when the Supreme Court decides it can no longer avoid the question.

Stop Playing Checkers: What a Real Constitutional Strategy Actually Looks Like

Most commentary on Second Amendment litigation treats each case as a standalone event — filed, won or lost, then replaced by the next one. That framing misses everything that matters strategically.

The organizations doing serious work — FPC, Cooper & Kirk, SAF — are not playing checkers. They are playing chess. Each case is a move in a sequence designed to produce a specific outcome at a specific level of the judicial system. Understanding which piece is being moved, and why, is the difference between informed advocacy and disappointed speculation.

Here is what a real constitutional strategy looks like in practice:

Step 1 — Force a merits ruling. File a case with clean standing, a narrow target, and a specific constitutional question. Don’t give courts procedural exits. Make them rule on the substance. Goldberger is built for this.

Step 2 — Accept the circuit loss — and make it costly. Losing in a circuit that has already decided the question is not a failure. It is a necessary step. The district court loss, followed by the Second Circuit loss, creates the appellate record that documents exactly how the lower courts are misapplying Bruen. Every dismissal, every strained historical analogy, every opinion that reaches a conclusion the Supreme Court’s own language forecloses — it all goes into the record. The goal is not to win here. The goal is to make the misapplication of the law impossible to ignore.

Step 3 — Build the clean Supreme Court vehicle. For the Supreme Court to take a case, it needs a clear question, a solid record, and ideally a conflict between circuits or an explicit contradiction of its own prior ruling. Schoenthal is attempting to create that vehicle right now on the transit question. Goldberger is building it on the urban-geography question. Neither is guaranteed to become the vehicle. But the pipeline requires multiple candidates — because the Court picks its moment, and you have to be ready when it does.

This is the strategy. It is not fast. It is not emotionally satisfying in the short term. But it is the only path that produces durable, systemic change — rather than partial wins that Albany simply legislates around.

The honest way to summarize where Second Amendment litigation in New York stands right now: we are optimizing for cases that survive the system — not cases designed to force a decisive constitutional resolution. That is a deliberate, rational choice given the current procedural environment. It is also a tension worth naming openly, because the gap between “surviving the system” and “changing it” is exactly what the Supreme Court will eventually have to close.

The Broader Context: What Has to Happen for New York’s Laws to Change

I have been involved in firearms safety and Second Amendment education in New York since before the SAFE Act. I have watched cases come and go, watched rights expand and contract, and watched Albany respond to every constitutional defeat by immediately drafting its next workaround. Here is my honest read of the landscape.

The Second Circuit is not going to fix this. Frey was unanimous. It was written by a Trump appointee. That tells you the problem is not simply a matter of which judges are on the panel — it is a deeply embedded approach to constitutional analysis in this circuit. The Second Circuit has consistently found ways to uphold New York’s restrictions while paying lip service to Bruen. That will not change from within.

The Supreme Court is the only path to systemic change. For the CCIA’s sensitive-places framework to fall in a meaningful way, the Supreme Court needs to take a case — probably Schoenthal, Goldberger after it completes its circuit journey, or a case in the pipeline we haven’t seen yet — and issue a ruling that squarely addresses the “crowded places” doctrine and holds that it fails Bruen’s test.

Wolford v. Lopez matters here too. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez on January 20, 2026, in a challenge to Hawaii’s “vampire rule” requiring explicit opt-in permission for carry in private businesses open to the public. A decision is expected by late June 2026. Wolford primarily addresses the default rule for private property — not sensitive places directly. But if the Court issues a ruling that narrows how states can restrict public carry without robust historical support, that reasoning will reverberate into every sensitive-places challenge currently in the pipeline, including Goldberger.

Albany’s response matters too. New York has demonstrated, twice, that it will respond to constitutional defeats not with compliance but with legislative creativity. When the Supreme Court struck “proper cause,” Albany created the CCIA within weeks. When Antonyuk trimmed the private-property default rule, Albany didn’t retreat — it introduced a new 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition designed to raise the cost of the right it can no longer simply prohibit. The pattern is consistent and documented: restrict where you can carry, tax what you can buy, exempt the government class. If the Supreme Court narrows sensitive-places doctrine, expect Albany to redraw the lines — not eliminate them. The litigation will continue. The question is whether the Supreme Court will draw a clear enough line that Albany’s next attempt fails faster.

For New York carry permit holders right now: the law is what it is. Times Square is a gun-free zone. The subway is a gun-free zone. Public parks within New York City are gun-free zones. Most of the CCIA’s sensitive-places designations are currently in full effect. Until a court issues injunctive relief or the Supreme Court changes the standard, those restrictions apply to you. Know them. Carry accordingly.

For a complete current map of where you can and cannot legally carry in New York, see our NY Sensitive Locations Law 2026: Complete Legal Status Report.

How to Support This Work — and Why It Matters

Litigation costs money. Serious litigation — the kind that reaches the Supreme Court, that retains top constitutional firms, that builds the record over years — costs enormous amounts of money. That money comes from members and donors of organizations like FPC, SAF, and NYSRPA.

There is also a practical dimension worth understanding. Following recent Supreme Court decisions on universal injunctions and organizational standing, FPC membership may carry direct legal significance — not just symbolic support. FPC has stated explicitly that membership may entitle individuals to protection under certain court injunctions as cases progress, citing this in connection with the USPS carry ban injunction. If you want to follow FPC’s current guidance on this, check directly at firearmspolicy.org.

Beyond financial support, there are things every New Yorker who cares about this issue can do:

  • Know the law accurately. The CCIA’s sensitive-places map is complex and frequently misunderstood. Carry with knowledge, not assumptions. Our NY CCW Sensitive Locations Quick-Reference Guide is a good starting point.
  • Get trained and licensed. An unlicensed gun owner is not a plaintiff — they are a defendant. The foundation of Second Amendment advocacy is lawful, competent exercise of the right. Our 18-hour NY CCW class prepares you for both the license and the responsibility.
  • Speak accurately about the litigation. When you understand what cases like Goldberger are actually doing and why, you can explain it to others without overpromising outcomes or dismissing the work. Accurate advocacy is more powerful than hype.
  • Contact your legislators. Courts change laws slowly. Legislatures can change them faster. The CCIA is a state law. State legislators passed it. They can amend it. Let them know you are paying attention.
  • Support the organizations doing the work. FPC, SAF, NYSRPA, and GOA are all active in New York Second Amendment litigation. Pick the ones whose strategy you believe in and fund them consistently.

What to Watch For Next

Here is a brief forward-looking checklist of the developments that will tell us how the landscape is shifting:

  • Schoenthal v. Raoul (SCOTUS): Did the Court grant, deny, or relist the petition? A grant changes everything. A denial does not end it — but it tells us the Court isn’t ready yet. Watch for the order. The SCOTUS 2A Case Tracker is the best real-time resource for cert decisions and case status.
  • Wolford v. Lopez (SCOTUS, decision by late June 2026): How broadly does the Court define the historical standard for restricting public carry? The wider the ruling, the more it implicates sensitive places. We will publish analysis immediately when the decision drops.
  • Goldberger district court: Will there be a motion for preliminary injunction? How does the Southern District engage with Frey? The district court ruling — even if it’s a loss — shapes the appellate record.
  • NSSF v. James (SCOTUS petition): New York’s gun-industry liability law is also before the Court on petition. This is a separate front — but part of the same broader constitutional conflict. See our Legal Domino Effect analysis for how these cases interlock.

We will track all of these on NY Safe and provide analysis as they develop.

The Real Question Goldberger Forces

Goldberger v. James will not, by itself, determine the future of New York carry law. No single district court case ever does. But it is asking the question that has to be answered before New York’s framework can change:

Does the Second Amendment protect the right to carry a firearm in ordinary public spaces in New York — or did the state successfully use the “sensitive places” doctrine to recreate the geographic carry ban the Supreme Court struck down in 2022?

The Supreme Court answered the general question in Bruen. The Second Circuit answered the New York-specific question in Antonyuk and Frey — and the answer it gave is that New York’s framework survives. FPC is building the case that those decisions misapplied the standard. The Supreme Court will eventually have to decide who is right.

Goldberger is one step toward that moment. It is not the last step. But it is the right step, built correctly, by people who know what they are doing.

Goldberger v. James is not just about Times Square. It is about whether the Second Amendment applies the same way in New York as it does everywhere else in this country — or whether the State can redraw the map of the Constitution one block at a time. Support it. Understand it. And don’t mistake the length of the road for the absence of progress.

In a legal environment that is still actively being shaped, understanding where you can and cannot carry is not optional — it is essential. That is what we are here for.



Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly is Goldberger v. James?

Goldberger v. James, Case No. 7:2026cv02325, is a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition on March 20, 2026 in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is Yehuda Goldberger, a licensed carry permit holder from Rockland County. The lawsuit challenges NY Penal Law §265.01-e(2)(t) — the CCIA provision designating Times Square a sensitive location where even licensed carriers cannot possess firearms — as unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

What is the exact geographic boundary of the Times Square gun ban?

New York City Administrative Code §10-315(a) defines the boundary as roughly the blocks bounded by West 40th and West 53rd Streets and Eighth and Ninth Avenues in Midtown Manhattan, including sidewalks and streets within that perimeter. Violation — even inadvertent crossing of the line while lawfully carrying — is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

What is Frey v. City of New York and why does it matter?

Frey v. City of New York is a September 2025 Second Circuit decision that upheld the Times Square gun ban, subway ban, and NYPD city-specific permit requirement. It is the directly controlling precedent in the Second Circuit on these exact issues. The Goldberger complaint explicitly challenges Frey as wrongly decided, arguing the court misapplied Bruen’s history-and-tradition test by accepting thin historical analogies that don’t support a modern felony ban on licensed carriers in ordinary public spaces.

What does Bruen actually require courts to do?

Under NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), the government must justify any firearms restriction by showing it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation at or near the time of the Founding. Modern policy rationales and public safety interests are not sufficient. Critically, Bruen specifically warned that the government cannot designate a location a sensitive place merely because “people typically congregate” there — because that reasoning would eliminate the public carry right the Court was recognizing.

What is Schoenthal v. Raoul and how does it connect to this case?

Schoenthal v. Raoul (No. 25-541) is an FPC-backed Supreme Court cert petition challenging Illinois’s public transit carry ban under the same “sensitive places” theory. Also litigated by Cooper & Kirk, it asks whether “crowded” is a sufficient historical basis for sensitive-place designation — the same core question in Goldberger. If the Supreme Court takes Schoenthal and rules against the crowded-places doctrine, it would undermine the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Frey and reshape the legal landscape for Goldberger.

Can I carry in Times Square right now with a valid NY permit?

No. The Times Square sensitive-location designation is fully in effect. No court has issued an injunction in Goldberger. The Frey decision upholding the ban is controlling law in the Second Circuit. Until the law changes or a court issues injunctive relief, licensed carriers are prohibited from possessing firearms within the defined Times Square perimeter. Violation is a class E felony. NY Safe Inc. is a training organization, not a law firm. This is general information only — consult a qualified Second Amendment attorney for legal advice specific to your situation.

What would a win in Goldberger actually mean for NY gun owners?

A district court win would likely trigger a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Times Square ban — but would almost certainly be appealed to the Second Circuit immediately. Given Frey, the Second Circuit would likely stay any injunction pending appeal. The real strategic impact of Goldberger is the record it builds for Supreme Court review — either on its own after exhausting circuit review, or as supporting litigation alongside Schoenthal or a future case that forces the Court to address the sensitive-places doctrine directly.



Related Reading on NY Safe Inc.



Legal Disclaimer: NY Safe Inc. is a firearms safety training organization, not a law firm. Peter Ticali is not an attorney. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. The litigation landscape described here is current as of March 23, 2026, and may change. If you have questions about your specific legal rights or obligations under New York firearms law, consult a qualified Second Amendment attorney before taking any legally consequential action.

author avatar
NY Safe
See Full Bio

Categories:

Concealed Carry Knowledge BaseIn The NewsNY CCW

Tags:

No Tag

No responses yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *