{"id":110575,"date":"2025-02-26T05:40:46","date_gmt":"2025-02-26T05:40:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/business\/legal\/self-defense-is-your-right\/"},"modified":"2025-02-26T05:40:46","modified_gmt":"2025-02-26T05:40:46","slug":"self-defense-is-your-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=110575","title":{"rendered":"Self Defense is Your Right"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not \u201ca second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Right guarantees.\u201d\u00a0 McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion).\u00a0 The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need.\u00a0 The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different.\u00a0 New York\u2019s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.<\/em><\/p>\n

There are 43 States where the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria.\u00a0 In New York, on the other hand, the government requires a further condition of showing a special need to obtain a license to carry.\u00a0 New York requires applicants to show a \u201cproper cause\u201d for receiving a license to carry, which is a subjective standard left to the bureaucratic decision-making.<\/p>\n

Under New York law, an individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license carry a handgun in public if he can prove that \u201cproper cause exists\u201d for doing so.\u00a0 In order to meet the \u201cproper cause\u201d requirement, the applicant must \u201cdemonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable<\/strong> from that of the general community.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two residents in New York applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense.\u00a0 The State of New York denied their applications because a generalized interest in self-defense did not satisfy the \u201cproper cause\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n

The general process for applying for a license to carry in New York is that a bureaucrat in New York determines whether there is \u201cproper cause\u201d for an applicant to receive a license to carry a handgun outside of the home.\u00a0 And, essentially, the New York state courts rubber stamp the bureaucrat\u2019s decision.\u00a0 New York courts defer to the bureaucratic decision-making so long as there is a rational basis for the decision, or that it was not arbitrary and capricious.<\/p>\n

There are no New York statutes to define \u201cproper cause.\u201d\u00a0 New York courts had taken it upon themselves to define \u201cproper cause\u201d as \u201cdemonstrat[ing] a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.\u201d\u00a0 E.g.<\/em>, In re Klenosky<\/em>, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257 (1980).\u00a0 New York, generally, required evidence \u201cof particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety\u201d to satisfy the \u201cproper cause\u201d requirement.\u00a0 In re Martinek<\/em>, 294 App. Div. 2d 221, 222, 743 N. Y. S. 2d 80, 81 (2002).<\/p>\n

The Court ruled that the \u201cproper cause\u201d requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.<\/p>\n

This case is a natural extension of prior Supreme Court precedent.\u00a0 In District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago<\/em>, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Court recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense.\u00a0 Here, the Court extended the ruling outside of the home, ruling that \u201cordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Court focused on self-defense as a cornerstone to the Second Amendment and that the government bears the burden of proving their firearm regulation squares with history.\u00a0 The baseline is that citizens have a Second Amendment Right to self-defense, which includes owning and carrying a firearm inside and outside of the home.\u00a0 Where the government choses to regulate a citizen\u2019s right to self-defense by requiring the citizen to show a special need to own and carry a firearm, then the government must prove that such a regulation is consistent with historical tradition of firearm regulation. And \u201c[o]nly if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation\u2019s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual\u2019s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment\u2019s unqualified command.\u201d\u00a0 Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.<\/em>, 366 U.S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961) (quotation marks omitted).<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\tThis entry was posted on Friday, June 24th, 2022 at 1:46 pm and is filed under misc<\/a>.\t\t\t\t\tYou can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0<\/a> feed.
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBoth comments and pings are currently closed.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t<\/small>\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n