Massad Ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 585
John, thanks for the correction.
appreciatively,
Mas
appreciatively,
Mas
reloads and the law
- Thread starter Cpo1944
- Start date
- Status
I know I said I was done on this one, but I thought of something that was discussed before, yes by me, in the other threads, just in case jack or anyone else that has followed this far really cares.
But first, Mas, I usually try to reserve uncivility to those that deserve it. Sometimes I can just ignore it but other times I will respond to an idiot with idiocy, that's the human nature thing again. It takes two to have a civil discussion so you get credit for that as well, but I knew from our other discussions there would be no problems.
A couple points about your last post.
The second point was about his wife wanting a loaded gun in the house. Having dealt with family members that had mental issues, you should always question their motive for anything that doesn't seem like a good idea.
Anyway, the point I wanted to add is that while the major ammunition companies can supply exemplar evidence and a company representative to say what was in a certain box with a certain lot number, once the ammunition leaves the factory they don't have a clue as to what has been done to it. Even the most basic reloading tools can make that factory round anything you want and it can be easily done so that not even the factory representative can tell the difference. If the police really knew what they were looking at, the presence of loading tools would throw a monkey wrench in any investigation, but very few police officers I've ever worked with had any knowledge of relaoding at all, in fact I can only recall one, maybe two.
But first, Mas, I usually try to reserve uncivility to those that deserve it. Sometimes I can just ignore it but other times I will respond to an idiot with idiocy, that's the human nature thing again. It takes two to have a civil discussion so you get credit for that as well, but I knew from our other discussions there would be no problems.
A couple points about your last post.
He gave an account of how the loaded rounds were supposed to have been loaded. If a representative number of them had been disassembled to see if he was telling the truth about it, the fired rounds could have been duplicated close enough to provide a sort of 'lab created' exemplar sample, or just to see if he was being honest about that story, then the rounds could have been reassembled. If the cartridge used in the killing was in any way similar to the ones in the box, that should have been enough to get the states testing questioned.
The second point was about his wife wanting a loaded gun in the house. Having dealt with family members that had mental issues, you should always question their motive for anything that doesn't seem like a good idea.
Anyway, the point I wanted to add is that while the major ammunition companies can supply exemplar evidence and a company representative to say what was in a certain box with a certain lot number, once the ammunition leaves the factory they don't have a clue as to what has been done to it. Even the most basic reloading tools can make that factory round anything you want and it can be easily done so that not even the factory representative can tell the difference. If the police really knew what they were looking at, the presence of loading tools would throw a monkey wrench in any investigation, but very few police officers I've ever worked with had any knowledge of relaoding at all, in fact I can only recall one, maybe two.
Massad Ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 184
- Reaction score
- 585
Jelly, I hear ya.
The problem is, asking the courts to take our word (or our reloading records) for something we can't back up through separate, independent testimony of others is like asking the jury, "Take my word for it: my diary that I wrote myself says I was in New York instead of East Oshkosh when the decedent was killed." With no independent verification to back it up, we can't expect the court to allow it in.
For good or ill, the "common custom and practice" that has evolved over the years is to assume that factory ammo in the gun is the same as all other factory ammo of the same lot, in terms of forensic evidence purposes. With handloads, as noted earlier, there's also that damning question the other side can ask, "Since he loaded each cartridge himself, how do we know the FATAL cartridge wasn't DIFFERENT, the SPECIAL cartridge he loaded to throw all us honest bloodhounds off the scent of the truth?" With factory ammo, you simply don't have that issue.
Jellybean, you ask a fascinating question that would make a great script for a "CSI" TV show: could the accused murderer have faked a factory cartridge? Given that the rounds are examined by highly trained Firearms and TOOLMARK examiners, I'd say it would be unlikely for that to go undiscovered. But in all these years (32 this year) doing the expert witness thing, I've never seen it come up. (I've also learned to "never say never," of course.) Fascinating as it is, this particular question still doesn't really impact the forensic evidence problems that can land on the shooter for using handloads.
Believe me, no one wanted the court to accept the shooter's handload data more than I did in the Bias case. It was not to be. In all the years since, NO ONE has found a case where a court DID accept it, and the reason for that is explained above. Whether or not we like the reality, as a wise defense lawyer named Jim Fleming once said, we have to accept the reality. I'm afraid brother Fleming was right on that. The rules of evidence are the rules of evidence, whether we're the aggrieved party or the accused, whether our theory of the case is murder or self-defense or something in between.
Cordially,
Mas
The problem is, asking the courts to take our word (or our reloading records) for something we can't back up through separate, independent testimony of others is like asking the jury, "Take my word for it: my diary that I wrote myself says I was in New York instead of East Oshkosh when the decedent was killed." With no independent verification to back it up, we can't expect the court to allow it in.
For good or ill, the "common custom and practice" that has evolved over the years is to assume that factory ammo in the gun is the same as all other factory ammo of the same lot, in terms of forensic evidence purposes. With handloads, as noted earlier, there's also that damning question the other side can ask, "Since he loaded each cartridge himself, how do we know the FATAL cartridge wasn't DIFFERENT, the SPECIAL cartridge he loaded to throw all us honest bloodhounds off the scent of the truth?" With factory ammo, you simply don't have that issue.
Jellybean, you ask a fascinating question that would make a great script for a "CSI" TV show: could the accused murderer have faked a factory cartridge? Given that the rounds are examined by highly trained Firearms and TOOLMARK examiners, I'd say it would be unlikely for that to go undiscovered. But in all these years (32 this year) doing the expert witness thing, I've never seen it come up. (I've also learned to "never say never," of course.) Fascinating as it is, this particular question still doesn't really impact the forensic evidence problems that can land on the shooter for using handloads.
Believe me, no one wanted the court to accept the shooter's handload data more than I did in the Bias case. It was not to be. In all the years since, NO ONE has found a case where a court DID accept it, and the reason for that is explained above. Whether or not we like the reality, as a wise defense lawyer named Jim Fleming once said, we have to accept the reality. I'm afraid brother Fleming was right on that. The rules of evidence are the rules of evidence, whether we're the aggrieved party or the accused, whether our theory of the case is murder or self-defense or something in between.
Cordially,
Mas
parabarbarian
Member
Well, it is possible to disassemble a factory round and reassemble it. Any moderately skilled handloader probably has all the tools necessary. I don't know for certain if it would be untraceable since the bullet would have to be reseated and crimped. However, it would only have to be the first bullet fired. All the rest could be stock ammo. The act of firing would destroy or obscure the new crimp and telltale markings from the seating die.
Maybe it is a good thing I am not criminally inclined.
Erich
Member
Wow, this is still going on? Talk about angels dancing on the heads of pins! 
What are the odds that proving your guilt or innocence would come down to your ability to get your reloading records admitted at court? (These are not automatically inadmissible, by the way: it would be left to the judge's discretion.) And, a person could testify as to what he loads were, have his own expert load identical rounds and perform the testing and give testimony as to how they worked - again, like all evidence, admission is subject to the judge's discretion.
As I've said before, I feel that there are much bigger things to worry about. If a person were to dwell on all of the horrific potential unjust outcomes that could arise from a righteous defensive shooting (or from someone unauthorized getting a hold of his guns), he would do well to sell his guns. All we can do is make responsible decisions based on likely outcomes.
I carry handloads. Not always, but I do. For the most part a good shoot is a good shoot (and an unintended shoot is always a bad shoot), and my rounds are designed to do exactly what I intend from my gun. No factory worker assembles ammo with the care that I do my handloads. I practice with what I carry, so I know how it works and I'm good with it.
But what advice would I give a client? What advice did I give my little brother when he started carrying? Bro. Mas' advice! I said, "It's unlikely to ever be an issue, but why risk it? Why add a variable to your hypothetical shooting that could in any way come back and bite you?"
I don't give advice for free, though - so this post is not advice, it's me talking about me and what I do. You see, you'll be held accountable for your actions. The world has sharp edges, and deadly weapons are certainly tricky ground. Everything is a cost/benefit analysis. You're grown-ups - do whatever you decide makes the most sense for you.
I know a way that you can guarantee that your handloads don't come back to hurt you in court: don't carry them.
I also know a way that you can guarantee that you don't ever have to go to court on gun related issues: sell all your guns through a licensed dealer, and have him dispose of whatever ammo you have around the house.
Carrying handloads certainly adds another variable that could possibly come back at you. But I worry a whole lot more about not missing what I shoot at (there's something that comes up all the time in shootings) and about securing my guns so that no one takes one and hurts someone else or himself with it.
You folks be careful!
What are the odds that proving your guilt or innocence would come down to your ability to get your reloading records admitted at court? (These are not automatically inadmissible, by the way: it would be left to the judge's discretion.) And, a person could testify as to what he loads were, have his own expert load identical rounds and perform the testing and give testimony as to how they worked - again, like all evidence, admission is subject to the judge's discretion.
As I've said before, I feel that there are much bigger things to worry about. If a person were to dwell on all of the horrific potential unjust outcomes that could arise from a righteous defensive shooting (or from someone unauthorized getting a hold of his guns), he would do well to sell his guns. All we can do is make responsible decisions based on likely outcomes.
I carry handloads. Not always, but I do. For the most part a good shoot is a good shoot (and an unintended shoot is always a bad shoot), and my rounds are designed to do exactly what I intend from my gun. No factory worker assembles ammo with the care that I do my handloads. I practice with what I carry, so I know how it works and I'm good with it.
But what advice would I give a client? What advice did I give my little brother when he started carrying? Bro. Mas' advice! I said, "It's unlikely to ever be an issue, but why risk it? Why add a variable to your hypothetical shooting that could in any way come back and bite you?"
I don't give advice for free, though - so this post is not advice, it's me talking about me and what I do.
You see, you'll be held accountable for your actions. The world has sharp edges, and deadly weapons are certainly tricky ground. Everything is a cost/benefit analysis. You're grown-ups - do whatever you decide makes the most sense for you.I know a way that you can guarantee that your handloads don't come back to hurt you in court: don't carry them.
I also know a way that you can guarantee that you don't ever have to go to court on gun related issues: sell all your guns through a licensed dealer, and have him dispose of whatever ammo you have around the house. Carrying handloads certainly adds another variable that could possibly come back at you. But I worry a whole lot more about not missing what I shoot at (there's something that comes up all the time in shootings) and about securing my guns so that no one takes one and hurts someone else or himself with it.
You folks be careful!
Last edited:
acl864
Member
Wow, this is still going on? Talk about angels dancing on the heads of pins!
What are the odds that proving your guilt or innocence would come down to your ability to get your reloading records admitted at court? (These are not automatically inadmissible, by the way: it would be left to the judge's discretion.) And, a person could testify as to what he loads were, have his own expert load identical rounds and perform the testing and give testimony as to how they worked - again, like all evidence, admission is subject to the judge's discretion.
As I've said before, I feel that there are much bigger things to worry about. If a person were to dwell on all of the horrific potential unjust outcomes that could arise from a righteous defensive shooting (or from someone unauthorized getting a hold of his guns), he would do well to sell his guns. All we can do is make responsible decisions based on likely outcomes.
I carry handloads. Not always, but I do. For the most part a good shoot is a good shoot (and an unintended shoot is always a bad shoot), and my rounds are designed to do exactly what I intend from my gun. No factory worker assembles ammo with the care that I do my handloads. I practice with what I carry, so I know how it works and I'm good with it.
But what advice would I give a client? What advice did I give my little brother when he started carrying? Bro. Mas' advice! I said, "It's unlikely to ever be an issue, but why risk it? Why add a variable to your hypothetical shooting that could in any way come back and bite you?"
I don't give advice for free, though - so this post is not advice, it's me talking about me and what I do.
I know a way that you can guarantee that your handloads don't come back to hurt you in court: don't carry them.
Carrying handloads certainly adds another variable that could possibly come back at you. But I worry a whole lot more about not missing what I shoot at (there's something that comes up all the time in shootings) and about securing my guns so that no one takes one and hurts someone else or himself with it.
You folks be careful!
Well said.
Unfortunatly the debate will rage on, and the angels will continue to dance...
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Wow, this is still going on? Talk about angels dancing on the heads of pins!
What are the odds that proving your guilt or innocence would come down to your ability to get your reloading records admitted at court? (These are not automatically inadmissible, by the way: it would be left to the judge's discretion.) And, a person could testify as to what he loads were, have his own expert load identical rounds and perform the testing and give testimony as to how they worked - again, like all evidence, admission is subject to the judge's discretion.
As I've said before, I feel that there are much bigger things to worry about. If a person were to dwell on all of the horrific potential unjust outcomes that could arise from a righteous defensive shooting (or from someone unauthorized getting a hold of his guns), he would do well to sell his guns. All we can do is make responsible decisions based on likely outcomes.
I carry handloads. Not always, but I do. For the most part a good shoot is a good shoot (and an unintended shoot is always a bad shoot), and my rounds are designed to do exactly what I intend from my gun. No factory worker assembles ammo with the care that I do my handloads. I practice with what I carry, so I know how it works and I'm good with it.
But what advice would I give a client? What advice did I give my little brother when he started carrying? Bro. Mas' advice! I said, "It's unlikely to ever be an issue, but why risk it? Why add a variable to your hypothetical shooting that could in any way come back and bite you?"
I don't give advice for free, though - so this post is not advice, it's me talking about me and what I do.
I know a way that you can guarantee that your handloads don't come back to hurt you in court: don't carry them.
Carrying handloads certainly adds another variable that could possibly come back at you. But I worry a whole lot more about not missing what I shoot at (there's something that comes up all the time in shootings) and about securing my guns so that no one takes one and hurts someone else or himself with it.
You folks be careful!
Ah, like a breath of fresh air, common sense suggestions (careful not to call it advice since you don't give that for free) without all of the hype and fear thrown in.
Very, common (which is not near as common as it used to be, sense.
Trying to use old case information, posting and writing about it seems to this layman to be more like trying to perpetuate the situation rather than providing information about a potential issue. Almost like someone wants to make this an issue. Sure folks have questions, there is no doubt about that but, Erich's information seems to be much more in line with what I would expect from folks that don't live in a major metropolitan area.
I happen to believe that most, if not all of the folks in my state are a bit more level headed when it comes to gun issues than say, someone from NH or NJ or NY. Since we have a lifetime concealed carry permit here in the state of Indiana, and I live here, and if I have to shoot some bad guy here in my state, I feel that this isn't going to ever be an issue.
Now, I have lived in metropolitan areas before, LA and Detroit. That being said, 35 years ago, as a 20 year old newly discharged US Marine, I decided I kind of liked the rural, family, Church going, sensible political landscape here in North Central Indiana.
Personally, I believe the proper suggestion to be made about this issue is much more in line with Erich. While not a professional in the gun industry, nor in our legal system (which is no longer a justice system) and I am comfortable with carrying handloaded ammunition for self defense. I know exactly what I can do with the ammunition I carry. While I cannot guarantee anything about a shooting I may be involved in, if the need arises, I can put a bullet right where I want to, right or left eye, either one, should a bad guy have one of my daughters or wife in their grasp.
Have you ever made a "plan" should something like that happen? Explaining to your family what you will do, what you expect from them, should something happen and you have to draw your weapon? We have. Been through several scenarios, just in case and have some "key words" to be uttered if the need arises.
I have been involved in only one incident with the use of deadly force. When the muzzle of the 45 that I had was thrust under the nose of the violator, they decided that that was enough of their stupidity and ceased being a threat. (No, this was not in Indiana!
)In the Corps, we were taught that deadly force consisted of ANY action that could cause bodily injury or death in another. If I was to chase a bad guy and they ran into the path of an oncoming car and get hurt, by that definition I could be in trouble. Well, I guess I am willing to take that chance too.
FWIW
Thanks Erich.
"First, with handloads you don't have the benefit of a factory backing you with experts to testify about ammunition behavior and that leaves the door open for a prosecutor or an attorney in a civil case to portray you as some sort of vigilante cowboy who is acting recklessly and needlessly endangering the public."
Maybe I'm missing something here. I thought the use of deadly force was supposed to be . . . deadly. I never realized reloaded ammo killed anyone any deader than factory ammo.
Maybe I'm missing something here. I thought the use of deadly force was supposed to be . . . deadly. I never realized reloaded ammo killed anyone any deader than factory ammo.
I guess I shouldn't have looked in to see how this was going. I seem to have the "I'm talking and can't shut up" syndrome anyway.
Mas, my wife loves to watch those real life forensic shows, all the time. I can't believe how little some of the lab experts seem to know about ammunition, although the lack of knowledge by the police is about normal. While it is possible to alter factory ammo there is only so much you can do to them, and by the same token there is only so much you can do to any ammunition. In a case that is premeditated it would be easy to alter a certain number of cartridges and make sure you only fire those cartridges, and as parabarbarian said, the evidence of tampering would be lost when the round was fired.
But other than than throwing GSR testing for distance off a little it won't make much difference. In a questionable suicide case even a small charge of powder will give some GSR and the complete absence would raise a guestion as before. In a self defense situation there is no question of who shot the gun and distance won't really have that much bearing, to someone that knows what they are talking about. (There are many on this forum that feel that any shooting beyond 5 feet is not self defense.) As you said, never say never and I'm sure it's possible that distance may become a factor, but there are several circumstances that will affect the GSR results and they must be considered in the investigation. I do think that many investigations are poorly done simply because the investigating officers don't know what to look for.
I believe there are a lot of things that don't come up in courts about ammunition because there are so few that even think about them, while a lot of the things that do come up are not really an issue to anyone except someone that is ignorant of the facts.
I have always said that the only sure way to not get sued or drug through the legal mud is to get rid of your guns and hide in your closet for the rest of your life. But learning the right things to say in front of a jury, regardless of what you did, can help too.
I hope some of this makes sense, I have a bus to catch and don't have time to proof read it.
Mas, my wife loves to watch those real life forensic shows, all the time. I can't believe how little some of the lab experts seem to know about ammunition, although the lack of knowledge by the police is about normal. While it is possible to alter factory ammo there is only so much you can do to them, and by the same token there is only so much you can do to any ammunition. In a case that is premeditated it would be easy to alter a certain number of cartridges and make sure you only fire those cartridges, and as parabarbarian said, the evidence of tampering would be lost when the round was fired.
But other than than throwing GSR testing for distance off a little it won't make much difference. In a questionable suicide case even a small charge of powder will give some GSR and the complete absence would raise a guestion as before. In a self defense situation there is no question of who shot the gun and distance won't really have that much bearing, to someone that knows what they are talking about. (There are many on this forum that feel that any shooting beyond 5 feet is not self defense.) As you said, never say never and I'm sure it's possible that distance may become a factor, but there are several circumstances that will affect the GSR results and they must be considered in the investigation. I do think that many investigations are poorly done simply because the investigating officers don't know what to look for.
I believe there are a lot of things that don't come up in courts about ammunition because there are so few that even think about them, while a lot of the things that do come up are not really an issue to anyone except someone that is ignorant of the facts.
I have always said that the only sure way to not get sued or drug through the legal mud is to get rid of your guns and hide in your closet for the rest of your life. But learning the right things to say in front of a jury, regardless of what you did, can help too.
I hope some of this makes sense, I have a bus to catch and don't have time to proof read it.
parabarbarian
Member
What you say is true as far as it goes. AFAIK the legal system make no distinction between shooting to stop and shooting to kill. In the less oprahfied environment I grew up in the dictum was, "Do not shoot unless you have to but when you have to, shoot to kill."
The issue here is whether the use of handloaded ammunition can be used against you in a criminal or civil action and I think the argument that it can is a good one. If the legal system was ever driven by ideals like "truth, justice and the American way" it is not any longer. From my point of view as an outsider it is almost a textbook example of the "rational-legal authority" described by Max Weber: It is a driven by administratively and judicially applied rules. Because I view the legal system as simply an aspect of the bureaucracy, Mr. Ayoobs's argument makes perfect sense.
Self defense is a mind set that, when stripped of any quasi-religious baggage, enables the individual to anticipate and respond to threats. That includes the ones the system may pose to you.
BigBill
Absent Comrade
The law here today worries about what bullets we used to defend ourselves. Yet across the pond in the war were shooting the bad guys with 50cal 700gr FMJ bullets? And the lawyers here are defending the victums shot with reloads. Are there rules or no set rules. I'm confused on this one. Bill
chingachkook
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah but, Bill our military is using "Green" bullets in the sandbox or at least so the news media says... After all we wouldn't want those that terrorize, torture, and/or behead us Americans to contract lead poisoning... Heck, if we didn't have those people to send all the borrowed aid money to our Congress, as Jelly said would just squander it on golf, whiskey, and hookers...
acl864
Member
Actually, no. There is no law about what bullets or cartridges you can use to defend yourself. The whole premise of the argument is that you should not use handloads to defend yourself because it "may" cause legal issues after a justified self-defense shooting. To my knowledge, no documentation or evidence has been presented of a private citizen being charged or found libel for damages after a self-defense shooting because of the ammo that was used. Yet the argument remains... such is the power and glory of the internet.
Welcome to page 12!
Erich
Member
What kind of a lawyer am I anyway? I haven't played golf in years!
acl864
Member
What kind of a lawyer am I anyway? I haven't played golf in years!
In your case we'll make an exception.
... sqaunder it on GUNS, whiskey and hookers.
chingachkook
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 0
What kind of a lawyer am I anyway? I haven't played golf in years!
Erich, I said Congress not lawyer out of respect for you, but should you decide to run for office you would definately get my vote...
John Ross
Absent Comrade
In your case we'll make an exception.
... squander it on GUNS, whiskey and hookers.
...and the rest of the money, you'll probably waste...
Erich
Member
Aw, shucks!
Time to get that exploratory committee rolling . . .BigBill
Absent Comrade
I guess all the soup bowel sized hollow points i'm purchasing are for nothing because we can't carry them.
I think it was around the 80's or early 90's when the hollow points were filled with mercury and had that little post sticking out of them. These would explode on impact. While in the gun shop at the time the leo's were buying them like crazy. When my brother passed away ten years ago i inherited these bullets from his misses with all his guns.
Lately the LEO craze here is the larger capacity mags for there pistols. I've seen the leo's grabbing these too. These are the mags that are twice the length of the orginal mags. I can't blame the leo's either way with the larger mags or the exploding bullets after all there live is on the line everyday 24/7. Bill
BTW; The way the lawyers and courts are going we'll be fighting PETA next in court for what hunting bullets were using too.
I think it was around the 80's or early 90's when the hollow points were filled with mercury and had that little post sticking out of them. These would explode on impact. While in the gun shop at the time the leo's were buying them like crazy. When my brother passed away ten years ago i inherited these bullets from his misses with all his guns.
Lately the LEO craze here is the larger capacity mags for there pistols. I've seen the leo's grabbing these too. These are the mags that are twice the length of the orginal mags. I can't blame the leo's either way with the larger mags or the exploding bullets after all there live is on the line everyday 24/7. Bill
BTW; The way the lawyers and courts are going we'll be fighting PETA next in court for what hunting bullets were using too.
Last edited:
one eye joe
US Veteran
That may prove to be a wise decision......
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Colt King Cobra Target .22 .....
- Latest: Thaddeus Beauregard
-
-
1949 Winchester Model 70 Super Grade- Latest: The Norseman
-
-
