Warrensburg sends mass gathering law back to the drawing board

WARRENSBURG – A proposed local law that would have required certain mass gatherings to obtain a permit will be reevaluated by the town board following pushback from the public.

“We’ve had a lot of good comments, I think some bear that we review them and maybe tweak what we currently have,” Town Supervisor Kevin Geraghty said during the board’s March 11 meeting.

The proposed law defines a mass gathering as any assemblage of 300 or more and requires organizers to obtain a permit issued by the town board. The application fee for a permit is set at $300; applicants would need to show proof of a comprehensive liability insurance policy in an amount to be determined by the town board, as well as details regarding food service, plans for parking, crowd control, traffic control, public safety, sanitation facilities, first aid facilities, fire protection, and removal of refuse. Permit applications would need to be submitted 30 days prior to the regular board meeting at which the application would be discussed.

However, the law exempts “operations, activities, or affairs of any duly established municipal, educational, historical, firefighting, religious organization or institution located in the Town of Warrensburg,” as well as family events and parades.

“It seems like every other event that the town has is being exempted except for the protest, which doesn’t look good,” Sheila Mender said of the proposal. “What I found is that most permits are only required when you’re actually shutting down a street, like when we have our parade.”

No one who spoke about the law that night was outright against the proposal; rather, they suggested that, as written, it may raise some constitutional questions.

“I’m concerned that the requirements in it are onerous and are going to trigger a lawsuit. Glens Falls tried to do this in 2019; they got sued,” Janet Tallman said, referring to a lawsuit filed by members of the conservative group, American Patriots Express, against the city of Glens Falls when it voted to adopt an ordinance regulating “pre-planned gatherings” of 25 or more, which argued the law violated the group’s First Amendment rights.

The new law in Warrensburg was proposed following a request from a town resident to host a gathering that might have brought 2,000 to 3,000 people to the town. Geraghty cited the “No Kings” rally in June 2025 as the impetus for the proposed law. The event brought nearly 1,000 individuals to the town and resulted in at least one reported altercation between a protester and a Trump supporter.

“You had a lot of people on both sides of the street, both groups, and then you had people riding up and down who were anti-protesters flashing the bird and stuff like that,” Geraghty said in a previous interview with The Post-Star. “The event would have been okay, but when somebody slugs somebody, that’s not good.”

Tallman is a member of Indivisible ADK/Saratoga, the group that organized the “No Kings” demonstration in June. She said she and fellow organizers were also surprised by the number of attendees but stated that steps were taken to keep the demonstration respectful and peaceful.

“We took many measures to make sure that it was a peaceful protest, that the people there had had de-escalation training,” she explained to the board. “We had rally marshals wearing vests and carrying pool noodles to keep the crowds off of the streets and out of the entryways to all the businesses.”

The altercation occurred as the crowds were dispersing from the event.

Tallman said that requiring an organization to “guesstimate” attendance 30 days prior to an event could make it difficult to comply with the permit application. She also addressed a constitutional concern over the cost of the permit application.

“Generally speaking, I don’t agree on charging fees for things that are in the Bill of Rights,” she said. “That goes First Amendment, that goes Second Amendment.”

In her statement, Mender also addressed the permit fee based on a cursory search of New York State laws.

“What you can charge is the cost to the municipality,” Mender added. “You can bill for the administrative fee of doing the permit, but if you're paying $300 to have a permit done, then someone is getting paid too much.”

Yvonne West cautioned the board that regulating free speech can be a tricky thing. For example, the First Amendment prohibits requiring advance notice to prevent rallies or demonstrations that are considered rapid responses to unforeseen or recent events.

“Governments generally cannot prohibit counter-protests or any protests entirely. But they can regulate time, place and manner to maintain safety and order,” she said. “There should be some ordinances put in place that keeps things from getting out of control and it maintains the peace and welfare of the citizens living in this town.”

West proposed an addition to the law to address the issue of counter-protester clashes.

West’s proposed amendment would make it unlawful for any person to counter-protest within the designated space of the permitted event without authorization; harass, threaten, or antagonize participants with the intent to disrupt the event; or engage in conduct intended to provoke disorder, violence, or unsafe conditions among participants.

West said the permitting process should also prohibit a counter-protest from obtaining a permit for the same time and location as a previously permitted event.

“Any group or organization seeking to conduct a counter demonstration must apply for a separate permit at a different time or location as the determine appropriate by the town,” she said.

After the public hearing, Geraghty opened the discussion up to the board.

Councilmember Bryan Rounds began by reading a quote attributed to the French philosopher Voltaire, “I may disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” He agreed that everyone should be welcome to protest in Warrensburg, but said that he is skeptical of the efficacy of such demonstrations.

“In the history of the world, protesting has probably changed zero minds,” Rounds said. “My main concern is to protect the taxpayers here, that we don’t end up with damage to our property or a lawsuit, either from somebody getting hurt or from parties suing because the law they feel is wrong.”

Councilmember Scott Combs echoed Rounds’ statement but added that more consideration must be paid to the altercation that occurred in June.

“Not pointing fingers, who started it, who didn’t start it, it happened,” he said. “One of our town residents was physically assaulted, and I believe, sought medical attention. That’s a big ‘no.’”

Following the meeting, Geraghty said he was pleased with how the evening’s discussion went.

“I heard what they were saying, I’m not a constitutional lawyer or anything like that. I think it was fair,” he said. “We listened and we’ll take appropriate action; that’s what we’re supposed to be doing. To me, this is government working.”

© 2026 The Post Star (Glens Falls, N.Y.). Visit www.poststar.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.