Whether the courts should take a narrow view in considering the disqualifying element of the justification defense, and only disqualify the defendant where their actions are the actual proximate cause of the immediate and imminent threat

QUESTION PRESENTED Federal courts have recognized the defense of justification as a common law affirmative defense to a violation of. A defendant bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion as to a justification defense. The justification defense is very narrowly construed and it is only in the rare case that it is applicable. There are four elements to the justification defense. The first three clements require the defendant to show that they faced an unlawful imminent and immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, that at that specific time they had no reasonable legal alternative to violating the law, and there was a direct causal relationship between the immediate threat and the criminal conduct. The fourth element of the justification defense is a disqualifying provision, which disallows the defense where a defendant negligently or recklessly places themselves in a situation where they would be forced to engage in criminal conduct. As to the first three elements, Federal courts have consistently focused on a defendant’s actions at the moment of the imminent threat; a temporal focus. The defendant may possess the firearm only so long as to meet the immediate and imminent threat; nothing more. ) : ii The question presented is whether the courts should also take a narrow view in considering the disqualifying element of the justification defense, and only disqualify the defendant where their actions are the actual proximate cause of the immediate and imminent threat.