GOA Goes On The Attack Against New Jersey’s Hollow Point Ban

New Jersey has enforced a near-total ban on hollow point ammunition since 1978, restricting one of the most effective self-defense tools available to civilians. Now, Gun Owners of America (GOA), alongside the Gun Owners Foundation, is challenging the state’s restrictions in court. According to Phil Reboli, host of Law & Ammo for GOA, the lawsuit (GOA v. Platkin) aims to strike down what gun rights advocates see as an unconstitutional limitation on the right to bear arms.

An Absurd Law

Meanwhile, Troy, host of 2A News Now, highlights the absurdity of the law, which allows New Jersey residents to use hollow points inside their homes but forbids them from carrying the same ammunition outside, even with a concealed carry permit. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, argues that this restriction directly violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Hollow Points: The Gold Standard for Self-Defense

Unlike full metal jacket (FMJ) rounds, which are primarily designed for target shooting, hollow points expand upon impact, creating larger wound channels and reducing the risk of over-penetration. Reboli notes that hollow points are widely used by both law enforcement and civilians because of their effectiveness in stopping threats without putting bystanders at unnecessary risk.

Troy explains that most law-abiding gun owners follow the same basic practice – FMJ rounds for the range and hollow points for self-defense. The idea that someone could be charged with a crime for using the safest and most effective ammunition available simply because they stepped outside their front door is baffling to many Second Amendment advocates.

The Only State With This Restriction

New Jersey’s ban is unique. Even states known for their strict gun control policies – such as California, New York, and Illinois – do not prohibit civilians from carrying hollow point ammunition. Reboli stresses that no other state has deemed hollow points dangerous enough to warrant a ban, which makes New Jersey’s position even more legally questionable.

Troy reinforces this point, calling New Jersey “the state of confusion” when it comes to gun laws. The restriction makes little sense, especially considering that law enforcement officers in the state carry hollow points due to their effectiveness in stopping threats. If the ammunition is safe enough for police, why is it deemed too dangerous for civilians exercising their right to self-defense?

GOA’s Legal Argument: A Direct Violation of Supreme Court Precedents

GOA’s lawsuit is built on recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). In Heller, the Court made it clear that firearms and their accessories – including ammunition – fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

According to Reboli, GOA argues that bullets and firearm ammunition are “unquestionably arms” under the Second Amendment’s plain text. He cites Heller, which defined “arms” as anything a person uses for self-defense, including objects that can be held or worn. Hollow points, being a widely used form of ammunition, meet this definition perfectly.

Common Use: A Crucial Factor in the Case

Another critical aspect of GOA’s case is the “common use” standard set forth in Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that firearms and accessories in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment. Hollow point ammunition is not just common – it is the preferred choice for self-defense across the country.

Troy emphasizes that hollow points are carried by law enforcement agencies nationwide and are a standard choice for civilian concealed carriers. The fact that New Jersey prohibits them outside the home flies in the face of this common-use principle. GOA argues that by banning hollow points, the state is restricting access to an essential self-defense tool, violating Supreme Court precedent.

The Fourteenth Amendment Argument: Equal Protection and Due Process

GOA isn’t just invoking the Second Amendment in its lawsuit – it is also citing the Fourteenth Amendment. Reboli explains that New Jersey’s law disproportionately impacts law-abiding gun owners while exempting law enforcement, creating an unequal application of the law.

Troy adds that there is no historical basis for a law like this, which makes it particularly vulnerable under the Bruen decision. The Supreme Court ruled in Bruen that for a gun law to be constitutional, it must have historical precedent in American law. Since no other state has ever implemented such a restriction, GOA argues that New Jersey’s ban is indefensible under this standard.

Statements from Gun Rights Leaders

Several gun rights advocates have spoken out against New Jersey’s hollow point ban. Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA, issued a statement declaring that the government has no authority to dictate what kind of ammunition Americans can use. He compared the restriction to limiting what books people can read or what brands of firearms they can own – an obvious overreach of government power.

Meanwhile, Sam Paredes of the Gun Owners Foundation stated that the law does nothing to prevent crime and only puts law-abiding citizens at greater risk. He described hollow points as “the gold standard for self-defense” and emphasized that restricting them outside the home is a policy that only serves to protect criminals, not the public.

The Real-World Impact on Gun Owners

The most glaring issue with New Jersey’s law is that it leaves legal gun owners at a disadvantage in real-life self-defense situations. Troy points out that criminals, who do not follow gun laws to begin with, will use whatever ammunition they choose. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens are forced to rely on inferior rounds, making them less capable of defending themselves in life-threatening situations.

New Jersey lawmakers claim that banning hollow points prevents “excessive damage” in shootings, but gun rights advocates argue the opposite. Reboli notes that hollow points actually improve public safety by reducing the risk of over-penetration, which can send bullets through walls and endanger innocent bystanders.

What’s Next for the Lawsuit?

While the legal battle is just beginning, GOA remains confident in its case. Reboli explains that the lawsuit seeks two primary remedies:

1. A declaration that New Jersey’s hollow point ban is unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. A permanent injunction preventing the state from enforcing the ban.

Troy suggests that if the case follows the pattern of other recent Second Amendment victories, the courts will likely strike down the law. Given that both Heller and Bruen emphasized the right to carry commonly used self-defense tools, it seems unlikely that New Jersey’s restrictions will hold up under scrutiny.

Will This Set a National Precedent?

If GOA succeeds in overturning New Jersey’s hollow point ban, it could set a powerful precedent against similar restrictions in other states. While no other state currently bans hollow points, anti-gun lawmakers have frequently attempted to restrict certain types of ammunition in the past. A victory in this case would further cement the principle that self-defense tools cannot be arbitrarily banned by the government.

Troy notes that while New Jersey lawmakers will likely resist any effort to overturn the law, the writing may already be on the wall. If the courts rule in favor of GOA, it will send a clear message that ammunition bans violate constitutional protections.

A Fight for Fundamental Rights

GOA’s lawsuit against New Jersey represents a crucial battle in the broader fight for Second Amendment rights. Reboli and Troy both emphasize that the hollow point ban is not just an inconvenience – it is a direct infringement on the right to self-defense.

As the case unfolds, gun rights advocates across the country will be watching closely. If GOA is successful, it will be yet another victory for the Second Amendment, reinforcing the idea that states cannot arbitrarily restrict law-abiding citizens’ access to effective self-defense tools.