NJ law sez you can only have hollow point at home (ostensibly for self defense). Where you can have ammo is strictly regulated and subjective to location.
The above indicates the state of NJ does not want hollow point bullets on the streets. At one time it was to make shooting a cop with hollowpoints a death penalty offense. These days dems cheer when cops get shot. But that’s a different story.
So, if a certain type of ammo can be possessed based on location, home (your domain) and the range, why not argue that we should be allowed 30 rd mags AT HOME and on the range, just the same as hollow points.
All things being equal, if hollowpoint is allowed for self defense, why can’t we also have 30 rd mags at home for self defense.
It’s not like can hang a sign on my door “Attn home invaders, I am only equipped to handle two home invaders, please choose two and the rest stay outside”
The average invasion team is 3 to 5 very probably armed intruders. Cops eventually switched to auto-loading handguns because they were outgunned.
Think about it tho… Five people break into your house at zero dark thirty, three of them are armed with autoloaders holding 30 rds each. NJ expects citizens to go up against 90 9mm boolits with 10 rounds…
You’re making the very common mistake of thinking there is a firearms related reason for any of NJ’s gun laws. You will only give yourself a headache trying to find one.
NJ gun laws are designed to scare the uninformed public into thinking that every gun is bad and that any of these laws will save them from a criminal who ignores all laws. It is a logical fallacy. It is proven by the police being exempt from all the laws. If guns are so dangerous, why are cops trusted to be safe with them after a only couple of weeks training at the academy?
NJ politicians rely on the lack of knowledge in the public to present scary things and then promise to save the public by passing more laws.
Duh, anyway… I think this is a good argument. NJ probably couldn’t entirely ban hollow point ammo so they made it as restrictive as possible. You can’t deny one the right to self defense in their own home.
That same argument can be made for magazines. The state is willfully putting it’s citizens at a disadvantage and more likely to get killed.
They’ll go right back to the argument they made in the current mag ban case - in “rigorous study” of self defense situation where shots are fired, on average only ~2.2 shots are fired, so 10 rounds is plenty.
Of course, that’s equivalent to saying “Average home fire extinguisher use is only 2 ounces of extinguishing material, so nobody needs an extinguisher with more than 10 ounces”.
They don’t care about the possibility of “outlier” events. They’d really prefer to limit you to a 0 round magazine, but apparently that’s a bridge too far, so the “average 2.2 but you can have 10” argument makes them think they’re being magnanimous.
Frankly, the better argument is that magazines count as arms and arms can’t be banned outright. Let’s go Ocean State Tactical at SCOTUS!
The average number of rounds fired in defense is nonsense.
When NYPD cops carried revolvers, the average number of shots fired at a bad guy was just under 6. When they switched to Glock 17s, that average strangely jumped to just under 18. I can’t imagine why.
5 people break into your home at zero dark thirty carrying guns, your probably being raided by the ATF for the containers of 5000 BB’s you didnt report to the state police.