jack oconner, I wasn't trying to be offensive in any way towards you. If it appeared that way I apologize.
Imagine having a discussion with your friend for about 20 pages on a forum.
If there are no laws forbidding the use of reloads in the shooting situation, the shooter can not be charged with anything pertaining to them. You must have violated a law or ordinance to be accused or charged.
There are some that will tell you that the use of reloads will cause unscrupulous prosecutors to call you all sorts of bad names, but that would be a big mistake if your attorney is worth a... as it would hurt them more than help them. The same goes for a civil trial.
The "famous law officer" Skip, (smith crazy), mentioned is a member here and had participated in one or two of the previous discussions. He said the real reason to not use reloads is because there is no "exemplar" evidence to back you up. (Most ammo factories keep very detailed records of their ammunition based on the lot numbers marked on the box. If they know the lot number on the ammunition you used in a shooting they can provide test samples or information pertaining to ballistics tests without destroying the ammunition in evidence.) The problem with his article on the subject was that in the case he used for an example the suspects "innocence" was highly questionable and his use of reloaded ammunition really didn't have anything to do with his being found guilty. It appeared as though his attorney was trying to get testimony introduced that would create enough reasonable doubt that the jury couldn't find him guilty. But for a person that really is innocent, the lack of exemplar evidence might be a good thing.
Imagine having a discussion with your friend for about 20 pages on a forum.
If there are no laws forbidding the use of reloads in the shooting situation, the shooter can not be charged with anything pertaining to them. You must have violated a law or ordinance to be accused or charged.
There are some that will tell you that the use of reloads will cause unscrupulous prosecutors to call you all sorts of bad names, but that would be a big mistake if your attorney is worth a... as it would hurt them more than help them. The same goes for a civil trial.
The "famous law officer" Skip, (smith crazy), mentioned is a member here and had participated in one or two of the previous discussions. He said the real reason to not use reloads is because there is no "exemplar" evidence to back you up. (Most ammo factories keep very detailed records of their ammunition based on the lot numbers marked on the box. If they know the lot number on the ammunition you used in a shooting they can provide test samples or information pertaining to ballistics tests without destroying the ammunition in evidence.) The problem with his article on the subject was that in the case he used for an example the suspects "innocence" was highly questionable and his use of reloaded ammunition really didn't have anything to do with his being found guilty. It appeared as though his attorney was trying to get testimony introduced that would create enough reasonable doubt that the jury couldn't find him guilty. But for a person that really is innocent, the lack of exemplar evidence might be a good thing.