Carrying Handloads, yes or no?

[HOOfan_1]

The reality in our world is that the courtroom is where we resolve certain disputes. Would you prefer trial by combat or trial by ordeal? Do you have a better way?

Better ways do not necessitate taking the dispute outside of the court room. I am sure we could all think of better ways that things can be done in the court room.

In any case, our legal system is what it is. You might have a jaundice view or it, but in the long run, it's better to understand it than simply complain. And if you understand how things work you have a better chance of being able to effective politically if you become interested in trying to change things you think are wrong.

Your posts go a LONG way toward giving everyone a better understanding of the way things are done. But often that understanding leads to "jaundiced views". The same thing could be said about understanding how things are done which affect legislation.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I posted this in the thread from a year and a half ago. I think few people will take the time to go read it, so I'll post it again.


Quite often the ballistics lab works a case with evidence that contains GSR, but no gun or ammunition was recovered. Now according to some, without a gun and the ammunition the evidence is rather meaningless. Far from it. Much can be determined just from that evidence alone. (My State Ballistics Lab Expert) and I discussed just how much information can be gathered, “But rather than take my word for it, Ken,” he says, “go to the Kentucky State Police Forensic Lab’s website and look for yourself.”

So I did. You can, too. http://www.firearmsid.com/A_labsys.htm

When a pattern of gunshot residues is found on a submitted article of clothing and the questioned firearm and ammunition are known, firearm examiners will try to bracket the muzzle-to-garment test results within a minimum and a maximum distance. Results may read something like:

Exhibit 1 (victim's shirt) was examined and a pattered deposit of gunshot residues was found around a bullet entrance hole located in the shirt's left shoulder. Exhibit 2 (firearm) was found to produce similar deposits of gunshot residues when fired at a target from a minimum distance of 6 inches out to a maximum distance of 18 inches.​

Bracketing the muzzle-to-garment distance within a minimum and maximum distance is being pretty specific. To get a report back saying something like that listed above the exact firearm and ammunition used in the case must be known and there must be a significant pattern of nitrite residues on the garment.

So we see here that in order to get a precise distance, precise meaning within a foot at close distance, having the exact gun and ammunition isn’t enough. The GSR evidence itself has got to be both well-defined and well-preserved on the garment. Neither of those factors is within the shooter’s control. One is a result of pure luck. The other is subject to any number of factors such as handling by first responders and even the weather.

This module in particular addresses determining distance using only the evidence with GSR - http://www.firearmsid.com/A_distanceResults.htm

When a firearm is not recovered there still may be certain general conclusions that can be reached when gunshot residues are found on the evidence garment.

Contact or Near Contact Gunshot

Probably the easiest conclusion to report would be one involving a contact or near contact gunshot. The results may read something like:

​

Exhibit 1 (shirt) was found to have a bullet entrance hole in the chest area that displays physical effects and gunshot residues consistent with a contact or near contact gunshot.​

A contact or near contact gunshot will normally deposit a very intense ring of residue right around the margins of the bullet hole. A close range gunshot, like the one seen above, will typically be in the near contact to approximately 12-inch range of fire.


Close Range Gunshot

Another conclusion that is fairly easy to reach involves what can be call a close range gunshot. The results may read something like:

​

Exhibit 1 (shirt) was found to have a bullet entrance hole in the chest area. A heavy deposit of gunshot residues were found around this hole that are consistent with those that would be deposited by a close range gunshot.​

Close range gunshots will usually leave a very concentrated deposit of residue around the bullet entrance hole that is visible to the eye.

A close range gunshot, like the one seen above, will typically be in the near contact to approximately 12-inch range of fire.


Intermediate Range Gunshot

An intermediate range gunshot usually will deposit a significant amount of particulate residue that is not easily seen with the eye but can be detected through a microscopic examination and through chemical testing. The results may read something like:

​

Exhibit 1 (shirt) was found to have a bullet entrance hole in the chest area. A deposit of gunshot residues were found around this hole that are consistent with those that would be deposited by an intermediate range gunshot.​

An intermediate range gunshot, like that seen in the above image, can range from just beyond the 12-inch range out to 24 to 36 inches. This depends greatly upon the caliber, barrel length and powder type used in the ammunition.

So GSR evidence – or the lack of it – will become part of the discovery and can be admitted into evidence whether you used hand loaded ammunition or not. Furthermore, quite a bit of information will be gleaned regarding the distance the shot was taken, even if the gun and ammunition used is completely unknown. If your case and proving your innocence hinges upon knowing the distance down to matters of inches, you’ve got a big hurdle to overcome.


Furthermore, if you claim you shot someone at close distance in self-defense, there's a high probability some GSR will be present. It may even be the case that the prosecution uses the work of the ballistics lab to corroborate your story and decline to file charges. Or, like George Zimmerman, they may ignore it and proceed anyway. Regardless, the work will be done by the state and the results made available to both sides if the case proceeds to trial. And it'll probably get in front of the jury, just like in the Zimmerman trial.

 

[1SOW]

I carry my handloads.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank,

...Again you're trying to sell us a bill of goods...

Ken,

1. You are not a lawyer. In fact I don't know what your profession is. But it's also clear that you do not independently have any personal training or experience in this area.
   
   
2. You also relied on conversations with state criminal laboratory technicians. While they know their business, their business is not the same as the business of lawyers nor do they have the same skills, education or experience as lawyers.
   
   
3. Dr. Vincent DiMaio testified for the defense; and, as far as I know, the introduction of his testimony was not objected to by the prosecution. (See also paragraph 7, below.)
   
   
4. The legal issue involved is very specific: the admissibility by the defense of expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing of exemplars for the purposes of corroborating the defendant's story of how a claimed self defense shooting happened. At least two other lawyers, Spats McGee and Bartholomew Roberts have agreed that getting such opinion testimony admitted into evidence is going to be highly unlikely if handloads were used.
   
   
5. That's because to establish the relevance of the tests, which is a threshold requirement for admissibility, it is necessary to establish that what was tested was the same as what was shot in the incident. Indeed it must be established that the conditions of the testing closely mimicked the incident that is the subject matter of the trial.
   
   
6. That applies, BTW for all sorts of test based evidence. The test, and what was tested, needs to be established as being duplicative of whatever the trial is about. Otherwise, the tests have nothing to do with the subject of the trial. And that also applies to all sorts of litigation -- civil, criminal, medical malpractice, product liability, negligence, etc. -- if you want to admit opinion evidence based on tests those tests must be duplicative of the subject matter at issue in the trial.
   
   
7. There can be all kinds of expert opinion testimony for all sorts of purposes introduced in all sorts of ways. For example, opinion based on an examination of the physical evidence at the scene or produced by the incident can also be offered for a variety of purposes and in a variety of ways. If the side not offering the opinion objects, the other side will need to convince the judge that the witness is qualified to form those opinions and that those opinions can validly be drawn from his observations of the physical evidence. But if the opinion is relying on some scientific test of an exemplar, the validity of the test and the character of the exemplar as validly reflecting what the trial is about must be first established.
   
   
8. Perhaps one's purposes will be adequately served by expert examination of available physical evidence. Sometime one's purpose will be better served by an opinion based on exemplar testing.
   
   
9. I do have reason to know something about the admissibility of scientific evidence. In managing litigation as a lawyer and officer for a major health insurance and health care company, I was frequently involved in working out strategies for getting scientific and expert opinion evidence introduced into evidence. I thus have personal, professional knowledge and experience relating to laying the sort of foundation necessary to get such evidence introduced. And the rules relating to the introduction of expert opinion evidence are the same no matter what the underlying legal matter is.
   
   
10. So the bottom line is that you have no way of knowing if someday you might find yourself in a legal pickle, having fired your gun in what you believed was legitimate self defense. And you also can know whether it would help you to get out of that pickle to be able to get into evidence expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing of exemplars of the ammunition you used. But if you find yourself in that situation, and you had used handloads, there's an excellent chance that you won't be able to make use to that sort of helpful expert opinion (i. e., it won't get into evidence).
    
    
11. The risk is non-quantifiable and most likely small. You might decide that you like your handloads enough to take it.
    
    
12. On the other hand, as good as my handloads have proved themselves to be, I've never found that they offered any advantage over quality factory ammunition to warrant even a small risk.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Quite often the ballistics lab works a case with evidence that contains GSR, but no gun or ammunition was recovered. Now according to some, without a gun and the ammunition the evidence is rather meaningless. Far from it. Much can be determined just from that evidence alone....

I certainly don't say it. See my post, above, paragraph 7. But sometimes a person's legal defense might not be well served by that sort of evidence, and testing will be desirable or necessary.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So it would be incorrect to say that a technician could not produce a true opinion based on testing even roughly similar loads. Now can that be admissible?...

No, this takes you only two-thirds of the way to where you need to be.

1. The technician can perform the tests, analyze the patterns made by the test exemplars at various distances and compare those test results to the pattern made in the incident.
   
   
2. As an expert he could then truly opine that if the cartridge fire in the incident was the same as the ones he tested, the shot in the incident was fired at a distance of between X and Y.
   
   
3. But if handloads were used in the incident, the expert will not be able to opine, and the defense will not be able to satisfactorily establish, that the cartridge fired in the incident was the same as the test exemplars.

Ok, right, but WHY can he not opine? I mean, if a shooter has factory ammo in his gun, it's nothing more than a plausible guess that he didn't load some other factory round or hand-loaded round as the first round(s) in the gun. How is it any less reasonable and less admissible to say that if he had a mag full of handloads, and a box more of them at home, the rounds he fired matched those loads? This is precisely as much of a supposition and unsubstantiate-able claim as the same claim made about the first guy's factory rounds!

Of course if the prosecution, for example, wants to challenge whether Federal HST 230 grain, .45 ACP ammunition was used, there might be an issue; and it would be necessary for the defendant to establish that. And there might be some good bases upon which to do that: fresh rounds with the appropriate headstamp in the magazine; a partial box at the guys home; the expended cases with the right headstamps obviously only fired the one time; maybe even a receipt from the shop where he bought the cartridges.

But if there's no dispute about the cartridges being those Federal HSTs, it's easy to establish with evidence from the non-involved third party manufacturer that all such cartridges are subject to various quality control protocol during manufacture and can be expected to be consistent within a defined range. But with handloads there is no non-involved third party doing that sort of quality assurance, so how do you establish sufficient consistency to say that the round(s) fired in the incident were consistent with those pulled from the box of handloads?

So if handloads were used, the only way to connect the test exemplars to the incident cartridge is the defendant -- a very interested party.

Really? If he's arrested at the scene and his gun and ammo are confiscated, how does the narrative explain that he's some how compromising those pieces of evidence? You're STILL relying on his claim (probably not even a claim -- most likely a question never even asked or answered) that the rounds he fired were the same as the ones in the rest of the mag. Some of our members here admit to mixing up ammo ("Dutch" loads) and police reports of confiscated weapons mention completely random assortments of loaded rounds found in guns they take. This is not some wildly improbable idea.

None of this comes up until long after the arrest, when he's going to trial. That's when it comes up that it would be desirable if the rounds he shot were just like those handloads in his box at home. And sometimes the actor isn't arrested at the scene.

...If ammo is taken from a guy's mag (handload OR factory) and tested, then it is assumed to be substantively identical to the rounds fired. ...

For getting something into evidence, assuming isn't good enough.

...As pointed out previously in other threads, investigating agencies DO take such into evidence, and DO test it, and DO use their findings in trials....

Yes, such evidence is routinely collected by the prosecution. Sometimes it may be offered into evidence at trail. However, evidence is collected and used for many purposes in the course of investigation. Things may be offered by the prosecution as evidence in trial in a variety of contexts and for various purposes.

What we are concerned with is the defense being able to have admitted into evidence expert opinion based on GSR testing for the purposes of corroborating the defendant's story.

Right. Why can the defense NOT do this, if the prosecution CAN? Does the defense not have access to the results of the State lab's tests? Can the defense not have trusted, independent labs do their own tests, using the same protocols the prosecution's labs would do? What's the missing link I'm not seeing?...

1. The defense can do that. But that might not serve their needs. Maybe to effectively tell the defendant's story it would be desirable to have a solid opinion based on solid testing put into evidence.
   
   
2. Yes, the defense would have access to the prosecution's laboratory data. But the defense might need to dispute those results or the conclusions drawn from them. That has happened before and no doubt will happen again. Among other things, some state laboratories are outstanding and some, at times, not so much so. I seem to recall some years ago some criticism of even the FBI lab.
   
   
3. The defense can indeed hire its own expert (as it did in Zimmerman) and have its own testing done. The expert could qualify and the test procedures themselves pass muster.
   
   
4. What you're missing is the need to establish that the exemplars tested were just like the cartridges used in the incident. And, as I've discussed, that's the problem with handloads.

 

[Sam1911]

But if there's no dispute about the cartridges being those Federal HSTs, it's easy to establish with evidence from the non-involved third party manufacturer that all such cartridges are subject to various quality control protocol during manufacture and can be expected to be consistent within a defined range. But with handloads there is no non-involved third party doing that sort of quality assurance, so how do you establish sufficient consistency to say that the round(s) fired in the incident were consistent with those pulled from the box of handloads?

Or even the remaining rounds (if any) in the mag? As every one of us handloaders knows, a collection of handloaded rounds can be very similar in makeup, and a ballistics lab would have no trouble disassembling the rounds collected to verify how much of what powder, what bullet, what primer, etc. the shooter was using. And then there would be no question of consistency and of the rounds tested making exactly (to all relevant levels of statistical deviation) the same GSR pattern. The disinterested third party would be the state crime lab (or a verified independent lab engaged by the defense) which would be able to verify -- to a higher degree of accuracy than even an ISO9000 production facility -- EXACTLY what those recovered rounds were composed of.

The only remaining question would be whether or not the shot, or shots, actually fired matched the rounds recovered and analyzed.

..If ammo is taken from a guy's mag (handload OR factory) and tested, then it is assumed to be substantively identical to the rounds fired. ...

For getting something into evidence, assuming isn't good enough.

But, as I pointed out before, that problem exists to exactly the same degree if the shooter had used factory ammo. You're still making a reasonable assumption that the fired rounds matched the rounds recovered in the mag/gun. Since we do accept that assumption (unless some reason exists to indicate otherwise), then testing rounds that match those seems a very simple and non-controversial matter indeed.

What you're missing is the need to establish that the exemplars tested were just like the cartridges used in the incident. And, as I've discussed, that's the problem with handloads.

I suppose this is what it boils down to. I can't seem to comprehend why a collection of recovered handloads would be dismissed out of hand as un-verifiable, untestable, and therefore inadmissible rather than being put through the investigative wringer, so to speak, and verified, tested, and admitted for the purposes of GSR pattern evidence?

Surely the loads could prove to be a motley collection of crap (as in the Bias case, IIRC), not able to produce anything consistent, but a great many of us would be able to empty a random selection of our handloaded ammo out of the mag on our belt which would test out to be least as consistent as good factory ammo. A ballistics lab could (and would!) verify this, and then the only assumption to be made is that the specific rounds that happened to be first-up in the mag and were fired at the attacker did indeed match the rest of the lot in our mag. But that's, again, just the same assumption we make as when the shooter was using factory stuff.

We keep coming back to "because it isn't factory ammo" as a prima facie or default answer, but the argument against the ability to test and verify handloaded ammo seems easily surmountable.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Or even the remaining rounds (if any) in the mag? As every one of us handloaders knows, a collection of handloaded rounds can be very similar in makeup, and a ballistics lab would have no trouble disassembling the rounds collected to verify how much of what powder, what bullet, what primer, etc. the shooter was using....

That still can not establish what was in the fired empty case(s). The only connection with the contents of the fired empty case(s) is the defendant -- whose freedom might depend on what was in the fired empty case.

...But, as I pointed out before, that problem exists to exactly the same degree if the shooter had used factory ammo. You're still making a reasonable assumption that the fired rounds matched the rounds recovered in the mag/gun....

That "assumption" will still need to be established by evidence. As I posited above we might be able to do so with: fresh rounds with the appropriate headstamp in the magazine; a partial box at the guys home; the matching, expended cases with the right headstamps obviously only fired the one time; maybe even a receipt from the shop where he bought the cartridges. If the other side challenges, and the judges declines to accept, that the foregoing supports the interference that the cartridges were all the same factory cartridges made by a third party and meeting the published specifications, then the defendant is in a very bad hole.

But it's still one thing to infer from fresh rounds in a magazine, expended cases fired only once with headstamps matching the fresh rounds in the magazine, and a partial factory box of cartridges consistent with the rounds in the magazine and the expended brass that the fired cartridges were the same as the rounds in the magazine and the remaining matching cartridges in the factory box -- all of which were made by a third party in the business of manufacturing and selling ammunition to the public. It would be another to infer from unfired rounds in a magazine, some spent brass and a box of handloads that the fired rounds were the same as the rounds in the magazine and box -- all of which were made by the defendant for his own use.

...We keep coming back to "because it isn't factory ammo" as a prima facie or default answer, but the argument against the ability to test and verify handloaded ammo seems easily surmountable.

Except with handloads, you have no way of knowing independent of the defendant what was in the fired cases. You can only assume what was in the fired cases.

 

[X-Rap]

Sam
I tried to point that out earlier when I said I typically loaded in lots of 1000's and labeled them. I agree that should someone need to make comparisons with what is in my mag they need only to crack a few cans and pull them apart for a simple comparison.
On the other hand, another shooter may have just topped of his mag with factory and thrown the box with the lot number marked on it or bought remans at a gunshow/shop that while done legally they may have mixrd headstamps and show marks from multiple working in a die. Or the shooter could be one of the mixers in which case who the heck knows what came out of the muzzle.
I don't see that ones legal risk is much higher either way if the opposing atterny wants to press the ammo issue.

 

[Sam1911]

Except with handloads, you have no way of knowing independent of the defendant what was in the fired cases. You can only assume what was in the fired cases.

And maybe that's (finally!) just the final fulcrum point of the whole debate.

I believe that there is just as much credible support for the supposition that what was in a fired case matches what was in the other un-fired cartridges in a magazine regardless of whether that was one of a collection of handloads or one of a collection of factory rounds. Especially as a ballistics lab can, and would, verify that the other rounds in the magazine were all of a kind.

For example, they remove 10 unfired cartridges from the mag that was in your Glock when they took it into custody. They pull the bullets and all are proved to be 124 gr. Hydrashocks. They weigh each charge and find out that the powder is all HS6, and the charge weights all varied between 6.4 and 6.6 grains. Any round they find or make that matches those characteristics will produce substantively identical GSR patterns.

The claim, by the defense or the prosecution, that the judge should not accept GSR testing of rounds matching that recipe exactly would be absurd -- unless the objector could sustain a claim that the rounds fired specifically did NOT match the rounds collected because of some certain knowledge to that effect.

In that case, the same claim could be made, and would have to be supported to the same degree, if the rounds collected were factory rounds. You'd still be assuming that the shooter had not topped up his mag with a round or two of oddball stuff he had laying around -- WHICH IS EMINENTLY PLAUSIBLE.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...On the other hand, another shooter may have just topped of his mag with factory and thrown the box with the lot number marked on it or bought remans at a gunshow/shop that while done legally they may have mixrd headstamps and show marks from multiple working in a die. Or the shooter could be one of the mixers in which case who the heck knows what came out of the muzzle....

And if one did anything like that and it later becomes important that he is able to provide good evidence of what did go out the muzzle, he'll be out of luck. That's just the way it is.

...I don't see that ones legal risk is much higher either way if the opposing atterny wants to press the ammo issue...

There are a couple of ways to look at this.

On one hand, it's unlikely that you will need to fire your gun in self defense, and it's unlikely that if you do and you're both smart and lucky about making your decision to use force you'll wind up charged in criminal court, and it's unlikely that if you do wind up in court you'll need the sort of expert opinion that we're discussing based on GSR testing of exemplar.

On the other hand, if that sort of expert opinion becomes important to you, and us can't use it, you might very well be unhappy with the outcome. And being able to protect yourself against that possibility really isn't a very big deal. Using factory ammunition, loading all magazines the same and keeping some partial boxes of the ammunition around should do it.

Maybe a small risk, but taking it off the table isn't hard either.

 

[Sam1911]

All of which leads me to believe that the idea that handloads must or will be rejected under these circumstances is simply taken as writ. That is to say, if a judge hears "handloaded ammunition" and rejects all GSR testing out of hand, that's poor work on his part. It isn't a very well-examined and educated stance to take.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I believe that there is just as much credible support for the supposition that what was in a fired case matches what was in the other un-fired cartridges in a magazine regardless of whether that was one of a collection of handloads or one of a collection of factory rounds. Especially as a ballistics lab can, and would, verify that the other rounds in the magazine were all of a kind...

That still doesn't, nor can it, tell us anything at all about the rounds that were previously fired. If they were handloads, all we can know about them is what the defendant can tell us.

 

[Frank Ettin]

All of which leads me to believe that the idea that handloads must or will be rejected under these circumstances is simply taken as writ. That is to say, if a judge hears "handloaded ammunition" and rejects all GSR testing out of hand, that's poor work on his part. It isn't a very well-examined and educated stance to take.

Well maybe this will help, from a discussion of GSR test results on FirearmsID.com (my emphasis in underlined italics, bold in original):

When a pattern of gunshot residues is found on a submitted article of clothing and the questioned firearm and ammunition are known, firearm examiners will try to bracket the muzzle-to-garment test results within a minimum and a maximum distance. Results may read something like:

Exhibit 1 (victim's shirt) was examined and a pattered deposit of gunshot residues was found around a bullet entrance hole located in the shirt's left shoulder. Exhibit 2 (firearm) was found to produce similar deposits of gunshot residues when fired at a target from a minimum distance of 6 inches out to a maximum distance of 18 inches.

Bracketing the muzzle-to-garment distance within a minimum and maximum distance is being pretty specific. To get a report back saying something like that listed above the exact firearm and ammunition used in the case must be known and there must be a significant pattern of nitrite residues on the garment.

The question comes back to how can the exact ammunition used in the case be known (not assumed or guessed at) unless it can inferred with a very high degree of confidence from objective evidence.

 

[Sam1911]

The question comes back to how can the exact ammunition used in the case be known (not assumed or guessed at) unless it can inferred with a very high degree of confidence from objective evidence.

Like by recovering the rest of the rounds from the seized magazine and pulling them apart and seeing what was in them and testing that combination?

I don't see, at all, how that is any different from finding a stack of factory ammo in the seized gun and ASSUMING that the rounds fired matched that.

What is the difference?

 

[Sam1911]

That still doesn't, nor can it, tell us anything at all about the rounds that were previously fired. If they were handloads, all we can know about them is what the defendant can tell us.

Not so. We can pull the other rounds taken off the defendant at the time of taking the evidence into custody and SEE, for real, what is in them. Don't even need to ask him.

Once more, we're assuming that the other rounds in his mag match the round(s) fired.

Which is the same assumption we're making if he's carrying factory ammo.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Like by recovering the rest of the rounds from the seized magazine and pulling them apart and seeing what was in them and testing that combination?

That still only tells us what is in those rounds we examine. The only thing connecting those rounds to the rounds that were fired is the claim of the defendant -- whose interests are served by confirming that the rounds remaining in the magazine were the same as were fired. There is no way to independently establish by examination of the fired cases what was in them. One can only assume they were the same as in the magazine.

With factory ammunition we can base our conclusion on:

...fresh rounds with the appropriate headstamp in the magazine; a partial box at the guys home; the matching, expended cases with the right headstamps obviously only fired the one time...

Sam, we're just repeating ourselves, and I can keep this up as long as you can. Do you really want to spend the rest of August on it?

 

[Sam1911]

So, in both cases we're going to make an assumption.

1) There's factory ammo in the mag and the fired cases seem to match those factory rounds. We'll go ahead and accept the imperfect assumption that the rounds fired were actually these same factory loads. Now the shooter COULD have loaded something else for those first few rounds, in new matching cases, but we'll ignore that possibility and proceed with admitting GSR tests.

2) There's handloaded ammo in the mag. The rounds recovered are tested and all match for bullet and charge weight and powder type. However, we cannot accept the imperfect assumption that the rounds fired were similar because the shooter COULD have loaded something else for those first few rounds and then fired only those few rounds at the top of the magazine. We could ignore that possibility, but we won't.

Really? That's what it comes down to?

A materially critical bit of evidence WILL be rejected from admission in the trial because of the seemingly substance-less difference between those two assumptions? That would appear obvious grounds for a challenge.

Sam, we're just repeating ourselves, and I can keep this up as long as you can. Do you really want to spend the rest of August on it?

No, I don't really. I think I've finally got this boiled down to the minutiae at the heart of the claim made against handloads. And if that's all there is to it, at least folks can see it in all its glory.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There's factory ammo in the mag and the fired cases seem to match those factory rounds. We'll go ahead and accept the imperfect assumption that the rounds fired were actually these same factory loads. Now the shooter COULD have loaded something else for those first few rounds, in new matching cases,...

I've posited multiple items of evidence leading to the inference that the ammunition fired was factory ammunition. We have no actual evidence, just baseless conjecture, that the defendant loaded something else in the rounds fired, and we might even be able to eliminate that possibility by an examination of the tool marks on the fired cases.

...There's handloaded ammo in the mag. The rounds recovered are tested and all match for bullet and charge weight and powder type. However, we cannot accept the imperfect assumption that the rounds fired were similar because the shooter COULD have loaded something else for those first few rounds...

Since these are handloads, we know absolutely that the defendant loaded something in the rounds fired. We just don't know what. We might assume that they were the same as the other rounds the defendant manufactured, but the only connection we really have is what the defendant claims.

...I think I've finally got this boiled down to the minutiae at the heart of the claim made against handloads. And if that's all there is to it, at least folks can see it in all its glory....

Fair enough.

 

[PJSprog]

Never thought I'd see a post so thoroughly highjacked by "moderators" on THR.

 

[johnandersonoutdoors]

I understand what Frank is saying. It is weird that the rules work that way if you ask me, but if that is how they work that is it.

I find it odd because nobody knows for sure what is inside any given factory piece of ammo either. Yes, Winchester has a recipe for their 9mm 115grain FMJ rounds but the machine may have dropped a smaller or larger amount of powder. So nobody really knows anything for sure it seems.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Never thought I'd see a post so thoroughly highjacked by "moderators" on THR.

I wouldn't say it was hijacked...they are still talking about the topic of whether it is advisable or not to carry hand loads for self defense. Frank is explaining different things which can happen if you end up in court.

Risk management is what it boils down too.
With every aspect of carrying, even carrying itself, there is a risk should you end up in court. Frank is just trying to give information allowing people to assess that risk.

 

[Sam1911]

I understand what Frank is saying. It is weird that the rules work that way if you ask me, but if that is how they work that is it.

Well, that's part of the bone of contention. We're not 100% sure how the "rules" work because there are VERY few cases where this has been a material factor. And the one or two cases where it was a factor, even the facts of what happened in the trial are hotly debated so it isn't even clear how this issue affected anything at all, ever.

 

[PJSprog]

I wouldn't say it was hijacked...they are still talking about the topic of whether it is advisable or not to carry hand loads for self defense. Frank is explaining different things which can happen if you end up in court.

It appears to me that Frank is explaining the possible implications of ending up in court over shooting someone. I have yet to see anyone offer a case (let alone overwhelming evidence) that proves carrying handloads is a legal liability. As such, the question posited by the OP is long lost.
Thus, I maintain, highjacked.

 

[Sam1911]

I have yet to see anyone offer a case (let alone overwhelming evidence) that proves carrying handloads is a legal liability. As such, the question posited by the OP is long lost.

Yeah, you probably should read through the thread again if you don't understand what Frank's saying about why handloads would be a liability in a trial.

Unless you're suggesting that, literally, simply carrying handloads around with you might be illegal? Obviously not. So really, all this debate is about what happens if you do indeed SHOOT someone with those handloads. Does that make it more clear?