Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

up  to  15  years  in  prison. 
70.00(2)(c) and (3)(b), 80.00(1)(a).

§§265.03(3)  (West  2017),

A  license  applicant  who  wants  to  possess  a  firearm  at 
home (or in his place of business) must convince a “licensing
officer”—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, 
among other things, he is of good moral character, has no
history of crime or mental illness, and that “no good cause 
exists  for  the  denial  of  the  license.”    §§400.00(1)(a)–(n) 
(West  Cum.  Supp.  2022).    If  he  wants  to  carry  a  firearm 
outside  his  home  or  place  of  business  for  self-defense,  the 
applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to “have and 
carry”  a  concealed  “pistol  or  revolver.”    §400.00(2)(f ).    To 
secure that license, the applicant must prove that “proper
cause exists” to issue it.  Ibid.  If an applicant cannot make
that showing, he can receive only a “restricted” license for 
public carry, which allows him to carry a firearm for a lim-
ited purpose, such as hunting, target shooting, or employ-
ment.  See, e.g., In re O’Brien, 87 N. Y. 2d 436, 438–439, 663 
N. E.  2d  316,  316–317 (1996);  Babernitz  v.  Police  Dept.  of 
City of New York, 65 App. Div. 2d 320, 324, 411 N. Y. S. 2d 
309, 311 (1978); In re O’Connor, 154 Misc. 2d 694, 696–698, 
585 N. Y. S. 2d 1000, 1003 (Westchester Cty. 1992). 

No  New  York  statute  defines  “proper  cause.”    But  New 
York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause 
only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection
distinguishable from that of the general community.”  E.g., 
In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257 
(1980).  This “special need” standard is demanding.  For ex-
ample, living or working in an area “ ‘noted for criminal ac-
tivity’ ”  does  not  suffice.  In re  Bernstein,  85  App.  Div.  2d 
574,  445  N. Y. S.  2d  716,  717  (1981).    Rather,  New  York 
courts generally require evidence “of particular threats, at-
tacks  or  other  extraordinary  danger  to  personal  safety.” 
In re Martinek, 294 App. Div. 2d 221, 222, 743 N. Y. S. 2d
80, 81 (2002); see also In re Kaplan, 249 App. Div. 2d 199,
201, 673 N. Y. S. 2d 66, 68 (1998) (approving the New York