The issue of course is that 15 round AR-15 magazines are inherently not "common usage" and I don't want to be in violation of the law.
I wouldn't test a New Jersey police department's patience. You may be right, but being smug about it will only get you arrested and charged by a corrupt police power.
Actualy this is exactly the point of my first post in this thread, and why I consider it a loss.
Because larger magazines have in fact been restricted for some time now, and larger mags are not presently owned by most civilians, magazines larger than that are not in common use in that state.
What about the nation since it is a national law?
Well many states have capacity limits, in fact if you consider where most of the population resides and in what states, many are in places with AW(assault weapon) or capacity restrictions.
So arguably allowing larger magazines could be said to conflict with in 'common use'.
The way of course to fix most of that is to have police (civilians) held to the same standard as the rest of us. Suddenly 20-30 round magazines would definately be in 'common use', because it would have to be to allow them continued possession and use of them.
That is the problem with the "in common use" phrase in this decision.
It means if a restriction is put in place that removes something from common use, even gradualy, then it will eventualy not be in common use and at that point can be legaly banned altogether.
You could create something like the NFA to reduce how many of something is possessed or purchased, then ban it altogether down the road once it is no longer 'in common use'.
The combination of 'reasonable restrictions' and 'in common use' is one of the worst combinations the 2nd has ever seen.
Will I be getting my SBR in IL in a few years?
Are they in common use? No? Well then not protected sorry.