Like a lot of people, I have two kinds of ammo. I've got FMJ for range practice, but my go-to for self-defense is hollow points of some description and has been since I first started having guns for self-defense. My father, the cop, carried hollow points in his service weapon my entire life. 

The reason is pretty simple. I don't want a round over-penetrating and hitting something I don't intend to hit. In a self-defense situation, I may not be able to be that discriminating about my angles or whatever, so while I'd like to think it wouldn't be necessary, hedging my bets seems like a wise idea.

But folks in New Jersey don't have that choice. 

The state banned hollow point ammunition, at least for civilian use, and they'll throw the book at anyone who has them outside the home--yes, even if you're just driving through the state with them in your lawfully owned firearm.

Now, a trio of gun rights groups are challenging that ban.

From a press release sent by Gun Owners of America:

Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, alongside plaintiff Heidi Bergmann-Schoch, have filed a lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s unconstitutional ban on possessing hollow point ammunition for self-defense outside the home. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, argues that the state’s restrictions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing law-abiding citizens from possessing and carrying the most effective forms of self-defense ammunition. 

Despite being widely used by law enforcement and civilians across the country for personal protection, New Jersey’s draconian laws prohibit the possession of commonly used hollow point ammunition outside the home, leaving residents to carry substandard full metal jacket ammunition instead. The plaintiffs argue that there is no historical precedent for such a ban and cite Heller and Bruen as key Supreme Court decisions affirming their constitutional rights. 

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA, issued the following statement: 

"The government does not get to decide for Americans what kind of books they may read, what brands of firearms they may own, or what kind of ammunition they can use.  New Jersey’s unconstitutional ban on hollow points for self-defense outside the home is yet another example of anti-gun politicians disarming law-abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law. Self-defense is an enumerated right, and GOA will fight to ensure that New Jerseyans are no longer left vulnerable due to senseless restrictions." 

Sam Paredes, on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, issued the following statement: 

"This lawsuit is about holding New Jersey accountable for trampling on the Second Amendment. Hollow point ammunition is the gold standard for self-defense, and restricting it to usage only in the home does nothing to prevent crime—it only endangers law-abiding citizens. The state has no authority to pick and choose which tools Americans can use to protect themselves." 

I agree with everything Pratt said, of course, but Paredes's comments really echo my own thoughts on this.

Hollow points inside the home are fine and good, but these rounds are really great for outside of the house as well. While we'd all like to think we can be discerning about what's beyond the person trying to murder you, we may not have that opportunity. I'd really rather put as much energy from my rounds into the person I'm trying to stop and not into someone unfortunate enough to walk by at the wrong time.

That's part of why hollow points are preferred by police throughout the country and why they're kind of the go-to for self-defense throughout the nation.

The irony here is that the people who most benefit from a ban on hollow points outside of the home are the criminals who really don't care if they hurt some innocent soul.

Moreover, while I've heard the ban defended as a case of hollow points are just too destructive, the truth is that if you can use them inside of the home, then that argument doesn't hold water with me. Either they're too destructive to be used at all or they're not--and even if they were, that's a stupid argument to make when you're talking about something you're using for self-defense.

So, all in all, I sincerely hope this challenge is successful.

What's more, I kind of think it will be. I can't think of any real constitutional justification for this, especially under Bruen's history, text, and tradition standard.

It'll be nice to see such a stupid law be overturned as unconstitutional.