reloads and the law

[Massad Ayoob]

Serious question for Massad Ayoob: What, in your opinion (and for the courtroom purposes being discussed here) constitutes "factory ammo"? Specifically, what about smaller manufacturers such as MagSafe, Black Hills, etc.?

Do you think that the only (potential) problem is when the shooter HIMSELF loaded the ammo used in the shooting? As long as he got it from some entity that has a federal ammunition manufacturer's license, is this issue off the table?

The usual protocol is to determine the lot number of the ammo if possible, and if the lab doesn't have some in inventory, order it from the ammo maker. The major makers keep "exemplars" of every lot they produce. This is partly for quality control review, partly to cover their butts in case a customer says ammo from that lot blew up their gun and sues them, and partly in case of forensic requests such as we're talking about.

The customer needs to check with the small boutique makers to see if they're doing the same thing. If not, I'd shop elsewhere.

Over the years, the "common custom and practice" that has evolved is that the court assumes that ammo manufactured by a source uninvolved in the case is the same stuff. If the ammo was handloaded by the defendant, the problem is that as in the Bias case, opposing counsel can successfully argue that the defendant had the ability and the motive to "tweak" the ammunition to throw off investigators, and that his records and/or testimony as to what was in the loads cannot be trusted.

If the ammo was handloaded by a friend or brother in law, opposing counsel can argue that they're lying for the defendant.

Of course, none of that comes up if factory ammo exemplars are available for testing, and the same factory ammo was used in the shooting.

 

[P&R Fan]

Mas, I think most of us on here are only thinking about private citizens use of handloads. I recall a number of articles you've written over the years where you brought up cases where even LEOs have been excoriated for using them. If I recall you talked about it last March in Hiawatha Iowa at your MAG 20 class that I was honored to attend.
Mention some of those cases if you would.
Jim

 

[Massad Ayoob]

Jim, I may have mentioned NH v. James Kennedy. Jim was a police sergeant and firearms instructor charged criminally with agg. assault in the wake of an on-duty shooting. The prosecution made a huge deal about the fact that his duty weapon was loaded with .45 ACP handloads. "Why weren't regular bullets deadly enough for you," etc. His department at the time did not forbid handloads. Jim Cirillo testified brilliantly as an expert witness for him, and he was acquitted, though the case destroyed what had been a promising law enforcement career. The handloads, incidentally, were duplicates of the 200-grain Speer JHP police load, which was expensive and hard to get at the time...and which, IIRC, delivered less energy than the .357 Magnum carry loads of the detectives who investigated the shooting.

The "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for you" argument also comes up with hollow points. Both arguments can be defeated. I think factory hollow points give enough better performance than non-expanding bullets to make that argument worth fighting in court. Handloaded ones, not so much, since there are more arguments to fight and no provable performance gain over factory HP. But this argument does not concern me nearly as much as the inability to replicate ammo for GSR testing to show distance between the two parties, which often becomes an issue in court, and can be a cornerstone for determining who seems to be telling the truth, as it was in the Bias case.

 

[blujax01]

What I'm hearing is that we would be advised not use handloads for SD.
How often does this come up? How does the knowledge get revealed? I mean, there's what's left of several 158 grain pieces of lead in the BG and there's Federal or Winchester or whatever cases left in my revolver. Do the forensic guys in Columbus or Paducah or Omaha or wherever really look to see if the brand of lead matches the brand of case and that these match up to factory lab retains? In the above case, how did they know it wasn't Speer 200 JHP to begin with? I figure unless I say "Man oh man, that homebrew do some rightful damage, eh?" no one is the wiser.

 

[Massad Ayoob]

blujax, it's routine for Firearms & Toolmark Examiners to go over the gun and ammo with a fine-toothed comb after a shooting. It's part of the evidence, after all. As others have noted, incongruity between casing and primer or any of several other factors can tip off the evidence examiners.

In a self-defense shooting, which tends to be an affirmative defense, it's normally wise for the defendant to take the witness stand. (Who else can really tell the truth of what happened, or explain why you the shooter did what you did?) Expect the question of ammo to come up. You'll have to tell the truth: I'm sure John Ross in this thread (if he's the John Ross I think he is) or any of the several other attorneys who participate at S-W Forum will tell you that it's the kiss of death to lie on a witness stand.

Gunshot residue testing to determine distance is routine, and becomes an issue with a frequency that surprises some, because so many self-defense shootings are at literally "powder burning distance." It's logical to expect it to come up, and be prepared for it.

 

[blujax01]

I am not suggesting anyone lie. I was just curious how the issue would come up if the shooter didn't mention it. The answer I glean from your response is that under examination, one might be asked "where did the ammo come from?" in which case it is revealed that the ammunition is hand loaded. Thank you for lending your considerable expertise to this conversation.

 

[Jellybean]

It's funny, they make you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and then won't believe you if you tell them what you used for a handload. Even if your freedom, and maybe even life, depends on it.

Jellybean, I totally agree with you on one point, respectfully disagree on some others.

We agree that Bias had no motive to murder his wife. On the other hand, she had a history of attempting suicide and of mental illness.

The reason the single argument of the GSR carried so much weight is that juries have always tended to see forensic evidence as hard science that is more reliable than testimony. With no testing in to show that Bias' loads would not have left GSR at the distance in question, they apparently believed that the crime lab (which tested with much more powerful ammo) had proven him a liar. Bias' loads were so weak that the death bullet barely made it into her brain, not something an experienced shooter/reloader would use on someone he INTENDED to kill.

Between the first trial and the third, the prosecution did in fact make a huge sea change, from a theory of cold-blooded murder to a theory of accidental discharge. You said, "The only thing that changed was intent." Malicious intent is a key ingredient in a murder charge.

Finally, while you may be right in some cases about three stories in the courtroom (the prosecution's, the defense's,and the truth), the fact is that in a huge number of cases, the prosecution DOES have the truth and ends up convicting a guilty person who deserves it. This was one of the rare but real cases, in my opinion, where it was the defendant who was telling the truth...but because his handloads weren't allowed as evidence, couldn't prove it.

On the other hand, I've seen lots of cases where GSR testing of factory ammo proved in court the good guy was telling the truth about the shooting and the bad guy was lying. That's something I want to have on my side, and it's why I use factory ammo for defensive purposes.

Mas, I don't know what motive Bias would have had, if any, as my source of information is quite lacking, but that's the internet for you.

The information I had says that the only difference between the first two and third trials was his culpability, which sounds like everything was exactly the same except that maybe when he pointed the pistol at her and pulled the trigger instead of intending to shoot her he was only intending to scare her or maybe even, since it was at the back of her head he was only acting out what he wanted to do and really believed that the pistol was empty or that the hammer would fall on an empty chamber.

Even if the prosecution did make a big change in their "story" there could have been a reason for it, such as new evidence that was uncovered between trials, looking at the old evidence in a different manner while examining new motives, or just trying to keep the defense from arguing double jeopardy. While some evidence may be unwavering others may be quite vague and not so easy to put in rigid terms. But even though all the words in their story may have changed, the elements could still be satisfied with the same answers.

From all of our previous discussions of this case, and the information from you alone, it seems he could have been found guilty of premeditated murder just by placing a loaded firearm by her bedside, after two previous suicide attempts, and loading it with special ammunition to help her with her sensitivity to recoil.

But even with the given facts that the state had absolutely no evidence except the lack of GSR on the deceased, and then they wouldn't allow any evidence that could possibly show the accused was innocent, if it existed, his conviction should have been overturned on appeal. Also, while the ammunition he loaded would be destroyed if shot for testing, it could be completely disassembled, examined and put right back together as if nothing had ever happened to it. I can see such incompetence and ignorance happening in one court, but two is pretty rare. And if that was the case, then my opinion of selecting the proper attorney is more important then choosing factory ammo sounds more reasonable.

Besides, most people that handload ammunition for self defense load it pretty close to factory specs so I believe if it was claimed by the state to be some factory round it won't make a lot of difference. Different types of powder do give varying results, but there are factors that can affect GSR "distance" results and they are usually given as estimates instead of written in stone figures. Also, labs do examine ammunition used in shootings very closely if there is any suspicion and if they find the ammunition used wasn't the ammunition tested and lie about it, they are in just as much trouble as the defendant, and may suffer more serious consequences.

This has been a nice diversion from beating the horses from the other same old questions to death, but we're pretty much back at the same old place we've always ended. Like many theories, (such as evolution), this one will probably never be proven and will only lead to an endless debate, but at least jack won't have to learn how to do a search just yet.

 

[Massad Ayoob]

It's funny, they make you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth and then won't believe you if you tell them what you used for a handload. Even if your freedom, and maybe even life, depends on it.



Mas, I don't know what motive Bias would have had, if any, as my source of information is quite lacking, but that's the internet for you.

The information I had says that the only difference between the first two and third trials was his culpability, which sounds like everything was exactly the same except that maybe when he pointed the pistol at her and pulled the trigger instead of intending to shoot her he was only intending to scare her or maybe even, since it was at the back of her head he was only acting out what he wanted to do and really believed that the pistol was empty or that the hammer would fall on an empty chamber.

Even if the prosecution did make a big change in their "story" there could have been a reason for it, such as new evidence that was uncovered between trials, looking at the old evidence in a different manner while examining new motives, or just trying to keep the defense from arguing double jeopardy. While some evidence may be unwavering others may be quite vague and not so easy to put in rigid terms. But even though all the words in their story may have changed, the elements could still be satisfied with the same answers.

From all of our previous discussions of this case, and the information from you alone, it seems he could have been found guilty of premeditated murder just by placing a loaded firearm by her bedside, after two previous suicide attempts, and loading it with special ammunition to help her with her sensitivity to recoil.

But even with the given facts that the state had absolutely no evidence except the lack of GSR on the deceased, and then they wouldn't allow any evidence that could possibly show the accused was innocent, if it existed, his conviction should have been overturned on appeal. Also, while the ammunition he loaded would be destroyed if shot for testing, it could be completely disassembled, examined and put right back together as if nothing had ever happened to it. I can see such incompetence and ignorance happening in one court, but two is pretty rare. And if that was the case, then my opinion of selecting the proper attorney is more important then choosing factory ammo sounds more reasonable.

Besides, most people that handload ammunition for self defense load it pretty close to factory specs so I believe if it was claimed by the state to be some factory round it won't make a lot of difference. Different types of powder do give varying results, but there are factors that can affect GSR "distance" results and they are usually given as estimates instead of written in stone figures. Also, labs do examine ammunition used in shootings very closely if there is any suspicion and if they find the ammunition used wasn't the ammunition tested and lie about it, they are in just as much trouble as the defendant, and may suffer more serious consequences.

This has been a nice diversion from beating the horses from the other same old questions to death, but we're pretty much back at the same old place we've always ended. Like many theories, (such as evolution), this one will probably never be proven and will only lead to an endless debate, but at least jack won't have to learn how to do a search just yet.

Jellybean, I hear ya. Responding to your points in order:

1. I agree on your first point. When we are accused, we become suspect. We can't expect our word to be taken for anything. The burden of proof will be upon us, like it or not, to show that we're telling the truth.

2. Everything I know, including discussions with the attorneys who handled the case, indicates there was no new evidence between trials. The state simply changed their "theory" and proceeded with their trump card, the ballistics evidence.

3. Y'know, I almost didn't take the case for the reason you described: I thought leaving a loaded gun in the bedroom of a person who had been suicidal verged on sufficient negligence to sustain a manslaughter conviction. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized it's human nature. When someone we love has weirded out from alcohol, drugs, or in this case mental illness, when they appear to have returned to normal we're so grateful we want to believe they're recovered for good. I think this is what was going on with Danny Bias when, after being released from mental health institutionalization and home for a while, his wife told him she'd feel safer if they had the gun back in the bedroom.

Human nature: we believe what we want to believe as opposed to unpleasant realities. How many times have we seen that just on internet threads...including this one?

4. I would have been all for disassembling the remaining cartridges for analysis. However, another argument by the prosecutor remained: "Your honor, since HE loaded the cartridges, how do we know the FIRED one has the same characteristics as the ones that remained unfired in the cylinder?"

The sad fact is, the presumption of innocence is sometimes an illusion. Hell, we're seeing it here. A jury made up of S-W Forum members who participate in the Reloading section would theoretically have been a dream jury for Bias...yet look how many were ready, willing, and able to throw him under the bus and automatically assume him guilty.

Jelly, I too found it an interesting discussion. You deserve a lot of credit for keeping it civil, and I thank you for that.

Cordially,
Mas

 

[John Ross]

You'll have to tell the truth: I'm sure John Ross in this thread (if he's the John Ross I think he is) or any of the several other attorneys who participate at S-W Forum will tell you that it's the kiss of death to lie on a witness stand.

I'm Tim Mullin's friend, and have spoken to you several times on the phone, but have never had the pleasure of meeting you in person, unfortunately.

You seemed to give me a law degree in your post, and that is something I have not earned. I am not an attorney, although I am sometimes called in as a consultant for the defense here in St. Louis when local trial lawyers get cases involving gun issues, particularly Title II stuff.

 

[Forrest r]

Years ago I was befriended by several different law enforcement employees that I met at bowling pin shoots & was given advice from sheriff's deputies & police officers from different agencies/towns at different times. They all pretty much said the same thing about what they look for & what will be determining factors on how they proceed.

Make no mistake about it; you're a suspect until proven otherwise.
Never use reloads or any ammo that is known to be excessive in the damage/carnage it creates.
The best ammo to use is any factory ammo that says target on the box & only use full boxes. An example of full boxes, don't buy a box of ammo & shoot 44 rounds out of it & use the last 6 in a revolver for sd. Buy a box of ammo & load 6 in the revolver & have a box with 44 shells left in it so they can clearly see what you were using.
Never discuss what happened without your attorney present.

If you ever have to shoot someone:
Call 911 & let them know there's been a shooting. Touch nothing, do not unload the weapon, put the safety on & set the weapon down away from everyone in plain view. Get the rest of the full box of ammo & set it next to the weapon you used. When the law gets there simply state that you feared for you & your families lives. You are extremely shaken up over this & think its best that you talk to an attorney before answering any questions because you're afraid of being sued.

They couldn't stress enough that perception is everything & that I should use that to my advantage. Their advice influenced my choices in what I use for SD to this day.

 

[Massad Ayoob]

John, thanks for the correction.
appreciatively,
Mas

 

[Jellybean]

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.

4. I would have been all for disassembling the remaining cartridges for analysis. However, another argument by the prosecutor remained: "Your honor, since HE loaded the cartridges, how do we know the FIRED one has the same characteristics as the ones that remained unfired in the cylinder?"

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]

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

 

[parabarbarian]

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.

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]

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!

 

[acl864]

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!

Well said.

Unfortunatly the debate will rage on, and the angels will continue to dance...

 

[Skip Sackett]

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!

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.

 

[SMSgt]

"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.

 

[Jellybean]

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.

 

[parabarbarian]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

The law here today worries about what bullets we used to defend ourselves.... Bill

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]

squander it on golf, whiskey, and hookers...

What kind of a lawyer am I anyway? I haven't played golf in years!

 

[acl864]

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]

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]

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]

you would definately get my vote

Aw, shucks! Time to get that exploratory committee rolling . . .

 

[BigBill]

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.

 

[one eye joe]

This guy knows everything about everything, Or so he thinks.

I`m beginning to not want him for a friend anymore.

That may prove to be a wise decision......