New Jersey’s Hollow-Point Ban Is Getting Absolutely Torn Apart in Federal Court

Hollow-point ammunition is the most common self-defense ammunition on the market

One of the more overlooked but potentially massive Second Amendment lawsuits currently moving through the courts is Bergmann-Schoch v. Davenport. This is a case challenging New Jersey’s long-standing restrictions on hollow-point ammunition.

While AR-15 bans and carry permit fights tend to dominate headlines, this lawsuit cuts directly to another important constitutional issue. That is whether the government can ban Americans from possessing some of the safest and most commonly used self-defense ammunition in the country. Based on the latest legal filings, New Jersey is getting absolutely dismantled in court.

The lawsuit was brought by individual plaintiffs alongside the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Gun Owners of America (GOA), and Gun Owners Foundation. Recently, the plaintiffs filed a response brief opposing New Jersey’s motion to dismiss the case—and the filing is nothing short of brutal. The attorneys representing the plaintiffs did not hold back.

According to the filing, New Jersey’s arguments “range from the flatly incorrect, to self-contradictory, to histrionic.” That pretty much sets the tone for the entire document.

Honestly? They may have a point.

The Contradiction at the Center of New Jersey’s Argument

One of the most devastating points raised in the response brief exposes a contradiction that perfectly summarizes modern anti-gun legal arguments. New Jersey attempted to argue that hollow-point ammunition is not protected because of supposed military connections and historical limitations.

The problem? New Jersey simultaneously only allows civilians to use full metal jacket ammunition in many situations; the exact type of round traditionally associated with military use. The plaintiffs absolutely hammer this contradiction.

As the filing points out, New Jersey is effectively arguing that citizens do not have access to “military arms,” while simultaneously forcing lawful citizens to rely on military-style ball ammunition instead of modern defensive hollow-points. That argument completely falls apart under scrutiny. It also highlights how disconnected many firearm laws are from actual public safety realities.

Why Hollow-Points Actually Matter

Hollywood and anti-gun activists have spent years portraying hollow-point ammunition as somehow “more dangerous” because of the way the rounds expand on impact. In reality, hollow-points are widely considered safer for defensive use specifically because they reduce overpenetration.

That matters enormously in densely populated environments like apartments, townhomes, duplexes, and urban settings. Hollow-points are designed to transfer energy more efficiently and reduce the likelihood of rounds passing through walls, doors, or unintended targets.

Ironically, New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the country, is one of the places where defensive hollow-points arguably make the most sense from a safety standpoint. Instead, the state heavily restricts them.

The result is that lawful gun owners are often forced toward ammunition that has a greater likelihood of overpenetration, precisely the thing many anti-gun politicians claim they want to avoid. That contradiction has become impossible to ignore.

The Historical Argument Completely Backfired

The plaintiffs’ attorneys also took apart New Jersey’s attempt to justify the law through historical firearm regulations. New Jersey tried pointing to 1800s-era laws restricting certain types of pistol ammunition. But the response brief revealed something extremely important buried within those old statutes.

Several of those laws specifically exempted firearms “used in the army or navy.” That is where the filing becomes especially damaging. The attorneys point out these so-called “Army and Navy” laws were historically tied to post-Civil War efforts aimed at disarming newly freed slaves and poor citizens who could not afford expensive military-grade firearms.

In other words, many of these laws were rooted in racial discrimination and class-based suppression—not legitimate public safety concerns. That is a huge problem for New Jersey’s case. Under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, historical firearm laws only matter if they reflect legitimate historical traditions consistent with constitutional protections.

Courts are increasingly rejecting racist or discriminatory laws as valid constitutional analogues. The plaintiffs directly cite recent Supreme Court discussions where multiple justices openly rejected discriminatory historical gun laws as unconstitutional comparisons.

That matters because anti-gun states have increasingly relied on cherry-picked historical laws to defend modern restrictions after Bruen destroyed the old “interest balancing” approach many courts previously used.

The problem is that much of the historical gun control they are relying on has ugly origins. We are finally seeing courts starting to notice.

Why This Case Could Matter Nationally

At first glance, a lawsuit over hollow-point ammunition may not sound as groundbreaking as AR-15 bans or carry permit cases. But make no mistake—this case could have major national implications. If courts do ultimately rule that hollow-point ammunition is constitutionally protected because it is commonly owned and widely used for lawful self-defense. That could significantly limit states’ ability to regulate ammunition types moving forward.

More importantly, the case continues building on a larger legal principle emerging after Bruen: Commonly used arms and accessories cannot simply be banned because politicians dislike them. That principle does not stop at rifles. It applies to magazines, suppressors, ammunition, and other components of lawful firearm ownership as well.

This lawsuit also exposes another growing problem for anti-gun states. Many modern firearm laws are increasingly difficult to justify when courts actually examine the historical record honestly instead of emotionally. That appears to be exactly what is happening here.

A Sign of the Changing Legal Landscape

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this case is how aggressively Second Amendment attorneys are now fighting back after Bruen. For years, gun owners often felt like courts automatically deferred to states whenever “public safety” was invoked. But that legal landscape is changing rapidly.

Now states are being forced to prove their laws align with the actual historical tradition of firearm regulation—not simply modern political preferences. In cases like Bergmann-Schoch v. Davenport, states like New Jersey are struggling badly when subjected to that level of scrutiny. The days of courts rubber-stamping every gun control law may finally be coming to an end.

Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world.  As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.

Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.