Whether a state law prohibiting possession of commonly used firearms magazines with more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms

No question identified. : 2. At issue in this case is a sweeping, criminal prohibition on long-lawful arms owned by tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. Since January 1, 2000, California has banned the manufacture, importation, sale, and transfer of “any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” with some exceptions not relevant here. Cal. Penal Code §§32310, 16740. The 2000 version of the law operated as a prospective ban on acquisition, but it did not prohibit possession. Accordingly, while individuals who did not already possess prohibited magazines could no longer legally obtain them, citizens who had obtained such magazines before the law took effect could continue to keep and bear them. 3. In July 2016, however, California amended the law to prohibit even the mere possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, with no grandfather clause, thus prohibiting continued possession by those who had lawfully obtained them. As a result, anyone in possession of such a magazine had to physically dispossess herself of her property by surrendering it to law enforcement for destruction, removing it from the state, or selling it to a licensed firearms dealer. Id. §32310(a), (d). Failure to do so is a crime punishable by up toa year in prison and/or fines. Id. §32310(c). 4. Fearing imprisonment for their once lawful conduct, Applicants—five individuals (Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell) and one association (California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.)—sued to enjoin enforcement of California’s restrictions. Both the individual Applicants and many members of associational Applicant California Rifle & Pistol Association had acquired now-banned magazines when it was lawful to do so and wished to continue to possess them or would acquire such magazines if the law did not prohibit them from doing so. 5. The case then went on a long, winding journey through the federal court system. In brief: The district court granted a limited preliminary injunction in 2017, ensuring that law-abiding citizens would not be dispossessed of their lawfully acquired property before their constitutional challenges could be resolved. Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F.Supp.3d 1106, 1139 (S.D. Cal. 2017). A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed that injunction. Duncan v. Becerra, 742 F.App’x 218, 220-22 (9th Cir. 2018). In the meantime, Applicants assembled a thorough record on the history and constitutional protection of the banned magazines; and after reviewing that voluminous record, the district court granted summary judgment to Applicants, holding that the ban violates both the Second Amendment and the Takings Clause. Duncan v. Becerra, 366 F.Supp.3d 1131 (S.D. Cal. 2019). The state appealed and asked the district court to grant a partial stay pending appeal that would leave the injunction in place (as it had been from the outset) as to the state’s effort to require individuals who lawfully obtained now-banned magazines to dispossess themselves of them. The district court agreed, Duncan v. Becerra, 2019 WL 1510340, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2019), and the case went back up to the Ninth Circuit. A divided panel once again affirmed, holding that California’s “near-categorical ban” on acquiring and possessing magazines in common use by lawabiding citizens for lawful purposes “strikes at the core ... right to armed self-defense” and violates the Second Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny. Duncan v. Becerra, 970 F.3d 1133, 1140, 1164-68 (9th Cir. 2020). A majority of active judges, however, voted to rehear the case en banc. Duncan v. Becerra, 988 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2021) (mem.). On November 30, 2021, a divided en banc panel reversed and remanded. Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc); see also id. at 1140 (Bumatay, J., joined by Ikuta and Nelson, dissenting); id. at 1159 (VanDyke, J., dissenting). On Applicants’ uno