What is the proper level of scrutiny for the Second Amendment right to possess firearms in the home?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment right recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is applicable to the states and protects “the right to possess a handgun in the home for purpose of self-defense.” 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010). The Court has yet to provide the scrutiny level that applies to the Second Amendment, yet has confirmed that mere rational basis review is not enough to deny this fundamental, individual constitutional right. Heller at 628-629 (FN27). Pursuant to an “interest of public health, safety or welfare” test, the state of New Jersey denies people permits to purchase firearms for home possession. N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-3c(5). New Jersey also denies people the acquisition and possession of firearms if they have ever had a firearm seized pursuant to domestic violence that was not returned to them. N.J.S.A. § 2C:583c(8); N.JS.A. § 2C:39-7b(3). The Questions Presented are: 1. What is the scrutiny level afforded the Second Amendment right to possess firearms in the home? 2. Does a state’s denial of a person’s Second Amendment rights “in the interest of public health, safety or welfare” constitute: a. an unconstitutionally overbroad or vague standard, and/or li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued b. an unlawful balancing test in offense to Heller, and/or c. awrongful denial of Due Process notice? 3. May government deny a person’s Second Amendment rights in perpetuity merely because a firearm was seized from him “for safekeeping” and not returned? 4. Is a warrant issued to search and seize firearms from a home “for safekeeping” valid probable cause under the Fourth Amendment?