Serious court + warranty question on reloads

[papajohn428]

Blujax, have you ever BEEN on a jury? Heard the discussions? Realized the collective IQ of your fellow jurors wouldn't equal a tropical temperature........and they all got their knowledge of firearms and ammunition from Hollywood and Television.

I'm not saying it's happened.........but I will NEVER put anything past them. And given the zeal of some DA's and Prosecutors, that won't change.

 

[blujax01]

Blujax, have you ever BEEN on a jury? Heard the discussions? Realized the collective IQ of your fellow jurors wouldn't equal a tropical temperature........and they all got their knowledge of firearms and ammunition from Hollywood and Television.

I'm not saying it's happened.........but I will NEVER put anything past them. And given the zeal of some DA's and Prosecutors, that won't change.

Yep, twice. And for whatever reason (maybe because I take my civic duty seriously?) I was selected as the Foreman both times.

Do what suits you for whatever reason makes you most comfortable.

One final question:
Aren't you worried that the prosecutor may paint you as a vigilante SWAT wanna-be since you see fit to purchase the "best defensive ammo I can find/afford, which is often the same thing the local cops carry?"

Out.

 

[AlwaysUp56]

I'm pretty darn sure what Elmer Keith would have to say on this issue! Is'n there an argument that could be made that accuracy increase attributed to building a custom performing round for your weapon might be a valid indication that you prefer to hit what you shoot at and the harder the better? I think we all agree don't pull it if you don't intend to kill it, don't we?

 

[Hook686]

by using what the local LEOs carry you have taken away one of their ''your bad'' strategies.

Only to add another, that being ... you have a LEO complex ... you want to prentend to be a cop and shoot people.

 

[Skip Sackett]

Lawyer asks: "Did you load your own ammo for this shoot?" Answer: "Yes."
Cross by Lawyer: "To your knowledge is shooting reloads against the law?"
Answer: "No."
Cross by Lawyer: "Can you tell the court the reason that you use reloads or handloads in your firearms."
Answer:"Because they aren't illegal, they are cheaper and I can have better ammunition. I have had bad experiences with factory ammunition. None with my handloads. Again, having handloaded ammunition, in our firearms for self defense, in our state, is not against the law."

What is so hard about that? DUH

 

[OldBull57]

I always enjoy that conversation about Factory vs. Home-brew ammo and the imaginary Jury's reaction.

As far as I know there are only two degrees of dead, those being DEAD or NOT dead. A "hot" load doesn't kill one any DEADer than normal spec load.

Allow common sense to prevail on these topics.It's not the choice of weapon, it's how and why you used it that counts.

 

[RobsTV]

The issue of reloads for self defense comes down to one word.

Evidence.
(snip)
When reloads are put into play powder testing can result in serious problems for the shooter. Assuming the would be victim states that he was 2 feet away from the perp when he shot the guy, its not going to look good when the prosecution asserts that based on the powder tests of the reloaded ammo the perp was in fact 15 feet away. This can have devastating consequences to the case of someone arguing self defense in court.

Since reloaded ammunition isn't made by a factory with established tables and load information, there's no standard to verify the police test results. Worse, any information about the reloads has to come from the defendant, which automatically ruins credibility .A jury doesn't see a shooter trying to save money or make an effective defense load, they just see some guy making rounds in his basement who think's hes too good to buy his ammo from "the professionals" like the cops and military do.

When dealing with court, we all would do well to remember that a "jury of our peers" won't be composed of 12 guys from the local gun store.

This is actually a strong case of why you would want to reload.
If they have no data for the burn or powder that you used, prosecution can not use any burn or powder speculation against you. They must prove, not the other way around. By reloading, you have removed a possible piece of evidence that could be used against you. The example of 2ft Vs 15ft could not be used against you, as they would have no way to say how far you were when using reloaded ammo. If they tried, they could easily be made to look less than knowledgeable, clueless on the subject, and that could quickly ruin a case for the prosecution.

 

[mikld]

Well, after seeing this topic debated for a few years, I believe it's all speculation. No hard facts. But for me and my house, I will continue to use DEWC over a stiff load of a fast powder in my 2" .38 for my house gun...

 

[DEG]

If! you are forced into a position of having to shoot somebody, you want the most lethal round possible.

These are the kind of statements prosecuting attorney's love to hear. You've just provided evidence of depravity that as a minimum can be used to support a manslaughter conviction even if you are shooting in self defense. If forced into the position of using a firearm to defend yourself you want the ammo most likely to immediately stop the attack.

 

[geoff40]

I don't buy this stuff. If you reload or hand load ammunition, it can be shown that your ammunition is meant to kill, but factory ammunition isn't? Factory ammunition is somehow less lethal, or more humane when fired in to center mass? What a crock of elephant dung. I'd like to see a lawyer try that against me, because I'd tear him or her apart in a courtroom, or die trying. A proverbial line in the sand would be drawn.

Lots of this stuff, or most of it, is based on lawyer speculation. Sophistry to create job security.

I would hope and pray that if this indeed happens to a citizen using a firearm in an otherwise legit looking example of SD, that every right thinking gun owner in this country would send a contribution to the shooter for their defense. IMO this would be a situation where we better unite and support such a defendant. The consequences of not doing so are too far reaching and extreme.

 

[m1gunner]

If you are forced to defend yourself with a lethal weapon, your best defense is to not say a word until your attorney arrives, and do what he says.

This is way above what ammunition, caliber, type of weapon, etc. will do for your case.

 

[WR Moore]

Since this has turned into a replay of most of the other discussions on the subject, let's look at the original question. Not in order.

1. Factory produced defensive ammo is far, far better now than it was 20 years ago. A handloader might do as well, if they can get the same bullets and load them to the same velocities. With modern designs, velocities measured in warp factors aren't necessary for proper performance.

However, with all the legal variables-and by that I refer to the attitudes and ethics of prosecutors in various and sundry jurisdictions- I simply don't see any point in possibly creating issues that might need to be dealt with at trial. Anyone else remember Mike Nifong and the Duke "rape case"? If those kids hadn't had parents with substantial funds, I expect they might be in jail.

In the appellate case mentioned earlier where the factory was able to demonstrate that the ammunition tested by the state wasn't the same as the ammunition used (ball powder vs flake powder), they were an independent party uninvolved in the case. Your reloading records, if any, wouldn't be viewed in the same light, they certainly wouldn't be in as much detail. I wouldn't want to bet my freedom on my records.

2. If you pay attention to what you're doing and use reasonable care, you can produce practice ammuntion yourself for a fraction of the cost of factory new. I produce all my practice and hunting ammunition, and the vast majority of my match ammo. I may buy the occasional box of factory shotgun ammo for 3 gun matches. I also buy factory ammo for defensive use, the cost doesn't amount to much as I try to remember to rotate ammo about every year.

Do as you please, it's your life.

 

[4506517]

In all the murder trials I have ever sat through, never, not once, have I EVER seen the type of ammunition used EVER brought up. Usually the DA goes after intent. Never seen an expert witness ever asked about the lethality of one type of load or round vs. another.

And who the heck is 1SG? That's driving me nuts.

 

[TaxPhd]

I do believe the general consensus is that there is no one who has been able to cite a case law where the use of reloads convicted the person of wrong doing.

I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't NJ vs. Daniel Bias show this exact thing? He served three years and is a convicted felon.

 

[TaxPhd]

2: It does not void warranties unless you damage the weapon in some way that can be proven to be a result of your reload. Even Glock doesn't void the warranty, they just recommend against firing reloads due to the unsupported nature of the chamber.

Glock says nothing about this in their warranty.

The use of reloaded ammunition will void the Glock warranty, due to the unpredictability of the standards (SAMI/NATO) adhered to, since reloads of poor quality ammunition may not meet (SAMI/NATO) specifications, may exceed limits, and therefore may be unsafe.

 

[blujax01]

I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't NJ vs. Daniel Bias show this exact thing? He served three years and is a convicted felon.

The use of reloads did not convict Bias of wrongdoing.

 

[TaxPhd]

The use of reloads did not convict Bias of wrongdoing.

Care to elaborate?

 

[blujax01]

The whole article is here (inappropriately titled) "Hand Loads For Self Defense". Bias' story didn't make any sense to begin with. No doubt; He shot his wife point blank in the head.

Handloads for self-defense: the Daniel Bias case | American Handgunner | Find Articles

 

[CALREB]

I think that this "myth" had its origin from the days when some Police Officers, stuck with only 158 lead roundnose cartridge, would pull the bullet, or hand load, the same, to a higher velocity to get a little better performance. And then because it was brought out in court or supervisors wanted you to think it would be, reloads were painted as a possible evil thing.
Of course I would think an officer would have alot more worry about this, than a civilian. Because they could be portrayed as a nut or evil for not trusting what ammo had been issued or was Dept standard.
Where as a civilian could simply say I reload to save money, and thats how all my cartridges are loaded. Just my opinion.
Never heard of it( reloads) actually coming up.

 

[AZretired]

You're killing me.

Make that choice for factory ammo, that's cool. It's some fine stuff.

But if your reason for doing so is as stated above, you are making a false assumption.

Please realize that a jury has never heard the argument.

It has never happened.

Not once.

Ever.

It is an Internet myth.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to banging my head against the wall...

I totally agree! I was an LEO for more than 25 years, have been involved in many firearms related shootings investigations and have read everything I could get my hands on related to this subject. I have never actually seen a case cited where the subject of reloaded ammo ever came up.

Food for thought. People get sued daily for auto accidents. How many of us drive a car that is still to factory specs? ( same tire size & quality, not suped up etc.)