Federal Lawsuit Challenges New Jersey Hollow Point Ban as Plaintiffs Seek Court Ruling to Strike Down Ammunition Restriction

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CAMDEN, NJ – A coalition of gun rights organizations and a New Jersey firearm owner have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in federal court seeking to overturn New Jersey’s restriction on hollow point ammunition.

The motion was filed March 12, 2026, in the case Bergmann-Schoch v. Platkin, currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs in the case include the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners (CNJFO), Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation, and New Jersey gun owner and firearm instructor Heidi Bergmann-Schoch.

The lawsuit challenges New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(f)(1), which restricts the transportation and public carry of hollow point ammunition. The plaintiffs argue that the law violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

According to the memorandum filed with the court, hollow point ammunition is widely owned and commonly used for self-defense throughout the United States. The filing states that New Jersey’s restriction is an extreme outlier compared to the laws of other states.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that no other state currently prohibits citizens from transporting or carrying hollow point ammunition in the same manner as New Jersey.

The court filing also states that hollow point ammunition is considered by many firearm instructors and law enforcement agencies to be effective for self-defense because it expands on impact and reduces the risk of over-penetration compared to full metal jacket ammunition.

Under the New Jersey statute being challenged, possession of hollow point ammunition outside certain limited exceptions can result in criminal penalties. The law allows possession in specific circumstances such as in a person’s home, while hunting, or when traveling to and from certain activities like target practice.

However, the plaintiffs argue that the statute does not allow the public carry of hollow point ammunition for lawful self-defense.

The motion asks the court to declare the statute unconstitutional and permanently block its enforcement.

In the filing, the plaintiffs rely heavily on recent Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Second Amendment, including District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The plaintiffs argue that those decisions establish that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense and that commonly used arms and related equipment cannot be banned.

More from USA Carry:

They also argue that ammunition is a necessary component of firearm use and therefore falls under the protection of the Second Amendment.

The motion further claims that there is no historical tradition in the United States of banning specific types of ammunition used for self-defense.

According to the filing, hollow point ammunition first appeared in the late 1800s, while New Jersey’s restriction was enacted in 1978. The plaintiffs argue that the absence of earlier restrictions shows that such a ban is inconsistent with the historical tradition referenced in the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions.

Heidi Bergmann-Schoch, a New Jersey firearm owner and certified firearms instructor, is listed as the individual plaintiff in the case. According to the court filings, she currently holds a valid New Jersey permit to carry a handgun but does not carry hollow point ammunition in public due to the state law.

The lawsuit states that she and other members of the organizations involved would carry hollow point ammunition for self-defense if the restriction were removed.

Under the current court schedule, the State of New Jersey must file its response to the motion by April 9, 2026. Plaintiffs will then have an opportunity to respond to the state’s arguments before the court considers the issue.

A status conference in the case is currently scheduled for August 6, 2026.

The outcome of the case could have significant implications for how ammunition regulations are treated under the Second Amendment.

For many gun owners, the case highlights a broader constitutional question. The right to keep and bear arms is widely understood to include the practical ability to use those arms for lawful self-defense. Restrictions that prevent citizens from using commonly owned defensive equipment raise serious constitutional concerns and are likely to continue facing scrutiny in federal courts.