1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Carrying Handloads, yes or no?

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by Comrade Mike, Aug 5, 2013.

  1. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Except in a case in which the defendant is claiming self defense, he will have admitted committing the elements of the crime. His defense is justification, and he will have the burden of putting forward evidence establishing prima facie that the legal standards for justification were met.

    Only then does the burden shift back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's acts did not constitute justifiable self-defensive use of force. And as a practical matter, the less convincing the defendant's evidence is the easier it will be for the prosecution to meet its burden.

    These issues are discussed on this board here. And see this post for links to an excellent article by attorney Lisa Steele on defending the self-defense case.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2013
  2. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    That's not really crux of the argument.

    Whether or not the factory has exemplar rounds to be tested (they may or may not have, but in most cases they probably do), they most certainly do have records--independently created records, independently maintained--from which an independent concern could reproduce similar samples, unless the propellants and/or priming compounds were obsolete. You can bet on it.

    There was a case discussed here a couple or three years ago in which some ammunition had to be assembled for testing using old Frankford Arsenal records because ammunition from the lot at hand could not be found. The specimens met the requirement. I do not remember the case, or whether it was civil or criminal.

    That's a true fact. And that's precisely what we have been discussing here.

    Yes indeed.

    They will have the records, and if they are duly called for for use in a trial, they will be produced, along with whomever would be required to speak to them.

    That's all very fine, but what the state labs do, however important it may be, isn't the issue here. The issue has to do with the admissibility of evidence, and more specifically, the inadmissibility of certain kinds of evidence that have or may have been in the custody of a party to a trial, civil or criminal.

    Now, you may ask the question, what if the ammunition company is a party to a trial, as a defendant in a civil liability case? That is a very good question.

    Well, that is one reason why they have independent organizations responsible for lot testing and for maintaning the records from such testing.

    There may or may not be samples from lot acceptance testing, but even if there are none, they most certainly have records that would meet the requirements.

    No one likes to testify at trials. But people do not have that option when their testimony, records, computers, and so on are called for.

    And along that line, it is a practical necessity to properly maintain data--manufacturing data, test data, quality assurance records, accounting data, purchase orders, memoranda, and so on--that have a reasonable potential of becoming relevant in later litigation. It's a fact of life these days. For the shareholders and for management, is a matter of financial self preservation, and sometimes more.

    It applies to just about any major corporate entity, whether the firm produces rocket motors, industrial gases, rocket motors, turbine blades, food additives, musical instruments made from various kinds of wood, insect repellents, cosmetics, arresting gear for carrier based aircraft, firearms, pharmaceuticals, ammunition, or even public audit reports.

    It is one big reason why data from a major ISO-certified firm would be most likely to be admitted, and to be believed.

    The remanufactured .45 target ammo I have used at the range? I just don't know, but I am far less confident about it.

    I hope this helps to clear some of the fog.
  3. bluetopper

    bluetopper Well-Known Member

    Some attorneys will argue with a fence post. They thrive on confrontation and trying to make a point, valid or not. And will do so no matter the frustration caused to whom they argue with; in fact, the more caused the better they like it. To most, it's like an adrenaline rush to them.........seriously.
  4. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Attorneys try to support their clients.

    Generally speaking, they do this in four ways:
    1. by advising their clients on matters of legal compliance;
    2. should it become necessary, how to conduct themselves under questioning by investigators or in court;
    3. by presenting briefs, arguments, and so forth in suupprt of their cleints' positions; and
    4. by attempting to counter the aguments of other attorneys who are working against the interests of their clients.

    Regarding the first of the above, they confine their advice to legal matters. When asked, for example, whether it would be wise to make a settlement offer or to sign a contract, they will generally respond with something like "that's a business decision."

    In this thread, we have had some attorneys whom we have not paid generously explain to us some aspects of the legal matters pertinent to the use of ammunition in use of force incidents. They do not represent us in an attorney-client relationship, but their explanations are legally valid. It is usually prudent to heed valid legal advice.

    If that has been frustrating to anyone, the fault lies not with the attorneys.

    You will note that they have not advised anyone on what to do or what not to do. Those are personal decisions.
  5. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    I'm afraid that I haven't had the time to visit THR as much as I'd have liked lately. Nor have I had time to read this whole thread. However, I say "no" on the issue of using handloads or reloads for carry. Here is a brief post that I wrote on the issue over at TFL.

    ETA: I also created An Archive Regarding Reloads and Self-Defense on TFL. It needs to be reorganized, but it contains a whole host of threads in which these issues have been hashed out. Here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=452627
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2013
  6. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    Thanks, Spats.

    I did provide a link to that in Post 145.
  7. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Yeah, I just now spotted it in going back through the thread.
  8. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator

    The discussion here has been valuable, informative, and thought-provoking. Some of the questions and some of the comments have brought to light the need to improve and expand the Sticky on the subject in ST&T. We hope that the revised text provides a more complete, more balanced, and more informative explanation of the issues. This thread is included in that thread.

    We appreciate the participation of everyone who has been involved here.

Share This Page