Just for fun, let's extend the court's "logic". and let's guess how many years it will take the legislature to achieve the reductio ad absurdum: "To illustrate, a citizen who owns a gun, 30 rounds of ammunition, and two 15-round magazines prior to the (new law's) enactment will be permitted to retain his gun, ammunition, and thirty 1-round magazines." Makes perfect sense to me. I don't see any infringement there at all. Same gun, same number of "bullets"... it's exactly the same thing!
N.J.'s ban on large magazines is constitutional, court rules. Gun groups vow to appeal.https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/10/court_sides_with_nj_on_gun_control_measure_15-roun.htmlA federal court has dealt a blow to gun rights groups by ruling Gov. Phil Murphy's ban on 15-round magazines doesn't violate the Constitution.
The group that challenged the 10-round magazine limit on firearms in the state already filed their appeal Monday night and vowed to fight the law to the Supreme Court.
The state argued the new law could mitigate death tolls in mass shootings.
The U.S. District Court, in a ruling handed down late Friday, said New Jersey's law doesn't "prevent ownership of any type of gun and does not restrict the quantity of ammunition a gun owner may possess." Rather, it "merely restricts the quantity of bullets a magazine may hold."
The decision continues: "
To illustrate, a citizen who owns a gun, 30 rounds of ammunition, and two 15-round magazines prior to the (new law's) enactment will be permitted to retain his gun, ammunition, and three 10-round magazines."