Whether California's rule that self-defense is not available when a person does not act out of fear alone impermissibly infringes on the right to self-defense?

QUESTION PRESENTED Self-defense is a fundamental right protected by the United States Constitution. McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 767, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010) (plur. opn., Alito, J.) [“Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day”]; Taylor v. Withrow, 288 F.3d 846, 853 (6th Cir. 2002) [finding a clearly-established constitutional right to an instruction on self-defense]. The common law rule is that a person who has no choice but to use deadly force to defend his or her own life may still claim selfdefense even if he or she was simultaneously harbored another motive to kill the assailant. Golden v. State, 25 Ga. 527, 1858 WL 1991, *5 (Ga. 1858) [this principle is “too plain to need amplification”]; accord. State v. Rapp (Mo. 1898) 142 Mo. 443, 44 S.W. 270, 271 (Mo. 1898); State v. Bowyer (W.Va. 1957) 143 W.Va. 302, 313 (W.Va. 1957). But in California, “self-defense is not available when a person does not act out of fear alone, but out of fear and a desire to harm the attacker.” People v. Nguyen 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1045 (Ca. 2015); Cal,. Pen. Code, § 198. The question for this Court is: Whether California’s rule that self-defense is not available when a person does not act out of fear alone impermissibly infringes on the right to self-defense? 1