I realize that. The point I was making wasn't about being forced to use a particular ammo type, it was whether or not a particular contribution to safety would sway a court's opinion or not. Unless I misunderstood what Shark was saying, the brief was making the point that it was safer to have a person carry their own pistol to the range and remain accustomed to the same trigger characteristics than to have to rent a different gun at the range that might have a different response. I only brought up ammo differences to suggest an equal sort of argument might be made about ammo, though I don't imagine it would sway a court.It's different when the government does it to you. You have no second amendment rights against anybody but the government.
Honestly I don't think a higher court is going to be moved by something like trigger pull or ammo type. I'm not arguing the accuracy of the brief material content either, just doubtful it's strong enough to do what it hopes to do.