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:58-3c(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

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?

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