Staff Reports
New Jersey’s defense of its oddball hollow-point ammunition ban may have tripped over its own talking points. In a reply brief filed in early May in Bergmann-Schoch v. Platkin, plaintiffs challenging the state law argued New Jersey contradicted itself — invoking international law and military practice to paint hollow-points as uniquely cruel while citing sources and testimony that show those same rounds are widely used by the military and by police, including, plaintiffs say, the New Jersey State Police.
The state’s legal stumble: arguing one thing, proving the opposite
The recent reply brief — filed by Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation and allied groups on behalf of plaintiff Heidi Bergmann-Schoch — says the state “hoist[s] itself with [its] own petard.” In plain English: New Jersey tried to claim hollow-point bullets are so dangerous they should be banned for civilians because they cause “unnecessary suffering” and are restricted by the law of war. But the plaintiffs pointed to the state’s own sources and witness testimony showing hollow-points were developed for hunting and are used by the U.S. military and many police forces.
Why this matters under the Second Amendment
This is not just a squabble about ballistics. The legal test comes from the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling, which says courts must look to the Constitution’s text and historical tradition to decide if a firearm rule fits American law. The plaintiffs argue New Jersey cannot point to a tradition from around the Founding era that supports barring common defensive ammunition. If the judge agrees, New Jersey’s unusual restriction on hollow-point carry could be struck down — a big deal for gun owners and for anyone who believes self-defense laws should be consistent.
The hypocrisy of exemptions and the practical point
What really sticks in the plaintiffs’ brief is the practical picture: New Jersey police are reported to use expanding or hollow-point rounds for safety and effectiveness. So the state’s argument amounts to saying these rounds are too dangerous for ordinary people, but fine for the people who are trusted to protect us. That is a tough case to sell to a judge, and it’s a tough sell to voters who understand common sense. Hollow-points reduce overpenetration and the risk to bystanders — which is why many citizens and police choose them for self-defense.
The case is still active in federal court, with summary-judgment briefing underway. Whatever the outcome, the reply brief forced New Jersey to explain why a rule that exempts police and certain uses should nonetheless stop law-abiding citizens from choosing safer, more effective self-defense ammunition. If New Jersey hopes to keep this law, it will need a cleaner argument than the one that just tripped over its own evidence — and fast. For now, the contradiction in the state’s defense is the story, and it’s a pretty telling one.
