OPINION AND ORDER In December 2015, Plaintiff applied for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in New York State. After the License Division (the “License Division”) of the New York City Police Department (the “NYPD”) denied his application based on his failures (i) to complete part of the standard background questionnaire and (ii) to demonstrate eligibility for the permit, Plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the decision both within the NYPD and in state court. Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff now brings this action against the City of New York and Thomas M. Prasso, the Director of the License Division (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges, as he did in his state court proceedings, that both the requirements and the administration of the permit application process in New York, as circumscribed by New York State statutes and New York City rules, violate the Second Amendment. In addition, Plaintiff asserts violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, the Court grants Defendants’ motion.BACKGROUND1A. Factual Background1. New York’s Handgun Licensing SchemeNew York State regulates the possession of firearms through a licensing scheme, see New York Penal Law (“NYPL”) §400.00, and several criminal statutes, see id. §§265.01-265.04, 265.20(a)(3). New York City has also promulgated rules concerning the issuance of licenses and permits for the possession and use of handguns. See generally Rules of the City of New York (“RCNY”), tit. 38. As relevant to this litigation, without the relevant handgun permit from the NYPD, it is a crime to keep or carry a handgun anywhere in New York City. See generally NYPL Art. 265. An applicant may submit a permit for several types of handgun licenses, including a “premise license,” which authorizes the holder to possess a handgun in her home or place of business for purposes of self-defense. Id. §400.00(2)(a)-(b).While a “premise license” is not difficult to come by, see People v. Hughes, 22 N.Y.3d 44, 50 (2013), Plaintiff applied for a “business carry” license without any restrictions, more commonly referred to as a “concealed carry” permit (Compl.15). A “business carry” license allows the holder to carry a concealed handgun, on his person, in public places, whether for businesses or other purposes, “when proper cause exists for the issuance [of the license].” NYPL §400.00(2)(f).Regardless of the license applied for, “[e]very application triggers a local investigation by police into the applicant’s mental health history, criminal history, [and] moral character.” Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 2012). To be eligible for a permit, an applicant must, among other things, disclose certain personal background information, be at least 21 years old, “possess good moral character,” not have any serious criminal history, and not be “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” NYPL §400.00(1)(a-n).In addition to these general qualifications, individuals applying for a “business carry” license must also show that there is “proper cause” for the issuance of a permit. NYPL §400.00(2)(f). To establish “proper cause,” “an applicant must demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.” Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 86 (citation omitted). Upon completion of the licensing investigation, the results are reported to the licensing officer, NYPL §400.00(4), who has “has broad discretion to decide whether to issue a license,” Kaplan v. Bratton, 673 N.Y.S.2d 66, 68 (1st Dep’t 1998).2. Plaintiff’s Permit ApplicationAs noted, in December 2015, Plaintiff applied with the NYPD for a “business carry” license. (Compl.
15, 16). Plaintiff declined to answer three questions on the application. (Id. at29). Those questions, Questions 11, 12, and 13 (the “Application Questions”), asked whether Plaintiff had ever:11. Been discharged from employment?12. Used narcotics or tranquilizers? List doctor’s name, address, telephone number, in explanation.13. Been subpoenaed to, or testified at, a hearing or inquiry conducted by any executive, legislative or judicial body?(Id.).In lieu of checking either the “yes” or “no” boxes accompanying each question, Plaintiff attached an addendum, which provided the following explanation:I refuse to answer questions 11, 12, and 13 because they are entirely irrelevant as to whether I am qualified to carry a handgun. Additionally, I refuse to answer question 12 because a) nearly every adult in the U.S. has been prescribed, at some point, a narcotic pain reliever or tranquilizer, and therefore I believe this question is used as subterfuge to allow the NYPD to unlawfully deny licenses, and [b]) the NYPD does not have the qualifications, nor any appropriate procedure, to determine if the usage of such medication is an indicator that a license should be granted.(Compl.30).In addition, as required for “business carry” applicants, Plaintiff submitted a “Letter of Necessity.” (Compl.18). Plaintiff was required to provide “a detailed description of [his] employment and an explanation of why the employment requires the carrying of a concealed handgun.” (Lalic Decl., Ex. J). In response, Plaintiff wrote that he needs to carry a concealed handgun because he “conducts business as a civil rights advocate,” and “[i]n order to exercise his civil rights fully, he needs a carry license.” (Id.).On December 24, 2015, NYPD Officer Thomas Barberio contacted Plaintiff to request additional documents and to schedule an in-person interview, a mandatory part of the application review process. (Compl.20). During the interview on April 7, 2016, Officer Barberio informed Plaintiff that another officer would be taking over the resolution of Plaintiff’s application. (Id. at25). That officer, Officer Barberio advised, was unlikely to grant Plaintiff’s application because Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate “proper cause.” (Id.).On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff received a letter, signed by NYPD Deputy Inspector Michael Endall, informing Plaintiff that his application had been denied. (Compl.
