Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has repeatedly underscored that “the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the time.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 21 (2022) (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008)). Nevertheless, the same week Bruen was decided, Rhode Island enacted a law prohibiting the possession of ammunition feeding devices capable of holding more than ten rounds, even though tens of millions of law-abiding Americans have long lawfully owned hundreds of millions of these devices as integral components of legal firearms. And Rhode Island did not stop at banning acquisition of these common arms_ prospectively. Its law applies retrospectively, dispossessing citizens of lawfully acquired and constitutionally protected property without any compensation from the state. The First Circuit admitted that “no directly on-point tradition” supports banning commonly owned arms and that Rhode Island’s law does not permit citizens to keep their lawfully acquired property. But rather than follow those admissions to their logical conclusions, the court—in a decision emblematic of a troubling trend of continuing to distort this Court’s precedents in cases involving firearms—blessed this incursion on fundamental rights. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment. 2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause.