Whether a ban on commonly owned ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment and whether dispossessing citizens of lawfully acquired property without compensation violates the Takings Clause

This Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that stat es may not ban arms that “law-abiding citizens” “typica lly possess[] … for lawful purposes.” Id. at 625. And it reiterated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1 (2022), that “the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the time.’” Id. at 21 (quoting Heller , 554 U.S. at 627). California nonetheless persists in banning feeding devices capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, even though tens of millions of law-abiding Americans have long lawfully owned hundreds of millions of th ese devices as integral components of legal firearms. Adding insult to injury, California’s ban applies retrospectively, requiring citizens to dispossess themse lves of lawfully acquired property without any compensation from the state. This Court previously GVR’d in light of Bruen , but rather than follow this Court’s marching orders, a divided en banc panel once again upheld the ban. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit not only doubled down on its preBruen precedent, but reached the remarkable conclusion that California’s sweeping ban on common arms does not even implicate the Second Amendment. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment. 2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property th at they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause.