Whether a blanket, retrospective, and confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under recent amendments to New Jersey law, an ordinary law-abiding citizen is prohibited from possessing a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, even though such magazines are widely owned and come standard issue for handguns and long guns typically owned for selfdefense. New Jersey’s new law does not stop at banning the purchase of such magazines prospectively; it applies retrospectively to treat any non-compliant magazine as contraband no matter how long, lawfully, or safely it has been possessed. The law is thus unconstitutional twice over. This Court in District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” 554 U.S. 570, 625 (2008), which concededly describes the magazines here to a T. And dispossessing citizens of lawfully acquired property without just compensation effects an impermissible physical taking. A divided panel of the Third Circuit nevertheless upheld the law, in opinions that generated multiple dissents and escaped en banc review by a narrow 8-6 vote. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a_ blanket, retrospective, and confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment. 2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that was lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause.