A coalition of gun owners and Second Amendment advocacy organizations is asking a federal court to strike down New Jersey’s long-standing restriction on hollow point ammunition, arguing the law violates the Constitution and fails the historical test required by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is being brought by New Jersey gun owner Heidi Bergmann-Schoch along with the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Gun Owners of America (GOA), and Gun Owners Foundation. The plaintiffs are challenging New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(f)(1), which criminalizes possession of what the state calls “hollow nose or dum-dum” bullets in most public settings.
The plaintiffs recently filed a memorandum supporting summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the law is unconstitutional without requiring a full trial.
Live Inventory Price Checker
At the center of the dispute is a New Jersey law dating back to 1978 that bans ordinary citizens from carrying hollow point ammunition in public for self-defense. While residents may possess hollow points in limited circumstances, such as inside their homes or at shooting ranges, the state prohibits their use for everyday defensive carry.
The lawsuit argues that this restriction stands in direct conflict with modern Second Amendment precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This case involves a constitutional challenge to New Jersey’s atextual and ahistorical ban on the transportation and carrying of widely available and commonly owned hollow point self-defense ammunition,” the plaintiffs wrote in their filing.
New Jersey, often considered one of the most anti-gun states, is an outlier with their hollow point law. Banning hollow point ammunition is widely regarded as one of the most idiotic and draconian firearm regulations in the United States.
Under the statute, possession of hollow point ammunition outside a narrow set of exceptions can be charged as a fourth-degree crime. Conviction can carry penalties of up to 18 months in prison and fines reaching $10,000.
The law does include limited exceptions. Residents may keep hollow point ammunition in their homes, transport it from the place of purchase, or use it at shooting ranges and while hunting. But the law does not allow licensed handgun carriers to carry commonly used ammunition in public for self-defense.
According to the plaintiffs, that prohibition effectively forces New Jersey gun owners to carry less effective ball ammunition in their defensive firearms.
The lawsuit relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which dramatically reshaped how courts evaluate firearm regulations.
Under Bruen, governments must demonstrate that firearm laws are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. Modern policy arguments about public safety are no longer sufficient.
The brief argues that New Jersey cannot meet that burden.
“The Framers never restricted the types of ammunition people could carry,” the filing states. “The same is true of the Reconstruction generation, which saw the introduction of conical bullets, brass cartridges, and thereafter hollow point ammunition, but never banned any of it for public carry.”
According to the plaintiffs, there is no historical precedent for banning specific types of ammunition for defensive carry.
The document points out that hollow point bullets were introduced in the late 1800s, but were not banned in New Jersey until nearly a century later. That gap, they argue, undermines any claim that the restriction reflects a longstanding American tradition.
The lawsuit also addresses a question that has become increasingly important in Second Amendment litigation: whether ammunition is protected under the Constitution in the same way as firearms themselves.
The plaintiffs argue the answer is clearly yes.
Courts have repeatedly recognized that ammunition is protected by the Second Amendment. “Without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless,” the brief notes while citing prior court decisions recognizing the obvious link between firearms and ammunition.
The filing further argues that bullets themselves fall within the historical definition of “arms,” since they are the projectile used in defensive weapons.
“Hollow point bullets are quite literally the ‘thing … cast at [and which] strike another,’ being projectiles which are fired from firearms in self-defense,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Thus, just as previous generations understood ‘bows and arrows’ to be “Arms,” so too are ‘firearms and bullets’ today.”
Ammunition is necessary to make firearms functional. The lawsuit contends that restrictions on ammunition must be treated as restrictions on arms themselves.
Another central argument in the case is the Supreme Court’s “common use” standard established in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that ruling, the Court held that weapons commonly used by Americans for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense, are protected under the Second Amendment.
The plaintiffs argue that hollow point ammunition clearly meets that definition. Interestingly, the lawsuit uses the approximate number of 200,000 stun guns in Caetano and compares that to the widespread and much more common use of hollow point bullets by not only civilians but also government and state agencies. Clearly, if 200,000 stun guns fall under common use, then the same must apply to hollow point ammo.
“Hollow point bullets are the most common bullet for law enforcement and civilian self-defense,” the brief states, emphasizing that they are widely available and widely used across the United States.
Retailers and manufacturers routinely market hollow point ammunition specifically as defensive ammunition. According to the lawsuit, this reflects a nationwide consensus among gun owners and law enforcement agencies about the effectiveness of the design.
Hollow point bullets are designed to expand upon impact, reducing the risk of over-penetration and increasing the likelihood of stopping a threat quickly. For that reason, many police departments issue hollow point ammunition as standard equipment. Gun owners across the country prefer the use of hollow point ammunition for those same reasons.
The plaintiffs argue that banning such ammunition for civilians while allowing it for police undermines the right to armed self-defense.
The lawsuit includes both individual and organizational plaintiffs. Heidi Bergmann-Schoch, a New Jersey resident and firearms instructor, says she regularly carries a handgun for self-defense but avoids carrying hollow point ammunition due to the state law. According to the filing, she would immediately begin carrying hollow points if the law were struck down.
The advocacy organizations involved in the lawsuit say they represent thousands of members affected by the restriction across the state.
The plaintiffs are seeking summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the law violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and permanently block its enforcement. If the court agrees, the decision could invalidate one of New Jersey’s worst firearm restrictions.
The case also has the potential to influence other legal challenges involving ammunition regulations and the broader scope of the Second Amendment after Bruen.
As courts across the country continue to apply the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, we will continue to see an erosion of the years of bad laws that states, such as New Jersey, have passed. For now, the question before the federal court is straightforward: whether a state can prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying the most widely used self-defense ammunition in America.
New Court Split Could Force Supreme Court to Decide Magazine and AR-15 Ban Cases
