In a direct challenge to one of New York’s most visible gun-control measures, a licensed handgun carrier and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the state’s ban on firearms in Times Square violates the Second Amendment. The complaint, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses top state and city officials of enforcing an unconstitutional restriction that effectively creates a “Constitution-free zone” in one of the world’s most famous public spaces.
Plaintiff Yehuda Goldberger, a resident of Hillburn, Rockland County, holds valid concealed-carry licenses issued by both New York City and Rockland County. A law-abiding executive assistant who is not prohibited from owning firearms under state or federal law, Goldberger walks through Times Square several times a year for work and personal reasons. The ban forces him to disarm in the bustling district, leaving him unable to carry a loaded, operable handgun for immediate self-defense despite his desire and regular practice of doing so elsewhere in his daily life.
“He is subject to Defendants’ enforcement of the State’s restrictions on his right to bear arms in public,” the complaint states.
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
|
Glock 19 V 4.02" 9mm (3)10rd Pistol w/ FS, Black - PV1950201 | Palmetto State Armory | $ 599.99 $ 539.99 |
|
|
Glock 19 Gen5 FS 9mm Modular Optic System (MOS) 15rd Pistol | Bereli | $ 639.00 |
|
|
Glock 19 V 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black | MidwayUSA | $ 539.00 |
|
|
|
Glock 19 V 4.02" 9mm FS (3)15rd Pistol, Black - PV1950203 | Palmetto State Armory | $ 599.99 $ 539.99 |
|
Joining Goldberger is the Firearms Policy Coalition, a national nonprofit that advocates for Second Amendment rights. FPC claims representational standing on behalf of its New York members, including Goldberger, who are directly harmed by the ban. The organization argues it may also pursue equitable relief under Ex parte Young principles.
Defendants are New York Attorney General Letitia James, New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, all of whom are sued in their official capacities.
The suit targets New York Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(t), enacted July 1, 2022, as part of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That statute designates “the area commonly known as Times Square” a “sensitive location” where even licensed carriers may not possess a firearm if they know or reasonably should know they are in the restricted zone.
New York City Administrative Code § 10-315(a) defines the precise boundaries: a multi-block tract in Manhattan roughly bounded by West 40th and West 53rd Streets and Eighth and Ninth Avenues, including sidewalks and streets.
Violators face class E felony charges punishable by up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine, plus potential lifetime loss of firearm rights under state and federal law. “The Times Square Carry Ban unlawfully deprives individuals of the right to keep and bear arms in a public place where the need for self-defense may arise,” the complaint declares, arguing the restriction “nullif[ies] the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen.”
At the heart of the plaintiffs’ argument is Bruen’s core holding: the Second Amendment’s plain text “presumptively guarantees … a right to ‘bear’ arms in public for self-defense,” and any regulation must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The Supreme Court has explicitly warned States against defining “sensitive places” too broadly to include “places 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.”
The complaint contends Times Square, described as an arbitrary collection of city blocks contiguous with the rest of Manhattan, lacks any historical analogue for a total carry prohibition.
Founding-era “sensitive places” such as legislatures, courthouses, and polling sites typically featured actual government-provided armed security. Times Square has none: no metal detectors, no controlled entry points, just the ordinary police presence found throughout New York City.
The filing cites scholarly analyses concluding that historical tradition limited restrictions to carry “with intent to terrify,” not blanket bans on peaceable carriage in public squares.
Crime data further undermines safety justifications. Recent NYPD CompStat reports and news accounts document shootings, assaults, and larcenies in Times Square at rates comparable to nearby Midtown districts. A fatal shooting occurred near a 7-Eleven in February 2026; three people, including a tourist, were wounded in August 2025. The ban, plaintiffs argue, does nothing to reduce violence while disarming law-abiding citizens who need protection most.
The lawsuit directly asks the court to disagree with the Second Circuit’s 2025 decision in Frey v. City of New York, which upheld the Times Square and subway bans as consistent with historical regulations of crowded public venues. “Frey was wrongly decided,” the complaint asserts, urging a stricter application of Bruen’s history-and-tradition test.
FPC President Brandon Combs issued a blunt statement upon filing: “FPC filed this case to end New York’s Times Square gun ban and free New Yorkers from anti-rights tyrants like Letitia James. Times Square isn’t a Constitution-free zone, and the government can’t disarm peaceable people who carry for self-defense on public sidewalks and streets. This unconstitutional ban violates the rights of hundreds of thousands of people every day, so we will force the State to respect the Second Amendment—whether they like it or not.”
The single-count complaint invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of civil rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs demand:
- A declaratory judgment that the Times Square provision is unconstitutional on its face and as applied;
- Permanent injunctive relief barring enforcement by the defendants and their agents;
- Attorneys’ fees and costs under § 1988; and
- Any other relief the court deems just.
The case is being handled by attorneys from Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, a firm with a track record of successful Second Amendment litigation. It joins a growing wave of post-Bruen challenges targeting expansive “sensitive places” lists that critics say have turned much of urban America into carry-free zones.
New York officials had no immediate comment on the new filing, but the state has previously defended the CCIA as essential for public safety in densely populated areas. Gun-control advocates echoed that view after the Frey ruling, arguing most New Yorkers oppose armed strangers in tourist hubs like Times Square.
Legal observers say the suit tests how far lower courts will go in applying Bruen to modern urban environments. A victory for Goldberger and FPC could force New York to redraw its sensitive-locations map, potentially opening sidewalks in Times Square, the subway system, and other tourist districts to licensed carriers. A loss would reinforce the Second Circuit’s more deferential approach, likely prompting further Supreme Court review.
For Goldberger, the stakes are immediate and personal. “The right to bear arms is not limited to one’s home or rural areas but extends to public spaces where individuals may face threats,” the complaint emphasizes. As millions of tourists and workers continue to stream through Times Square each year, the lawsuit asks whether the Second Amendment still protects the right to self-defense where it may be needed most, on the sidewalks of America’s most iconic crossroads.
The defendants have 21 days to respond. Given the direct clash with circuit precedent and the high-profile location at issue, the case is widely expected to move quickly through preliminary motions and could ultimately test the outer limits of Bruen’s reach in America’s cities.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
