Concealed carry ammo.....?

I carry a Kimber UCC II and my own handloads. I will worry about the courts later [if I'm still alive].

As far as the dependability of handloaded ammunition. I've been reloading for 27 years and still have not experienced a failure to go down range. No failure to fire of any kind.

The conception of faulty handloads is contrived by those who are careless when reloading ammunition.

The rules of evidence remain the same whether the case is a SD shooting, a homicide, or a personal injury car wreck case.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know.

The handloads found at the scene of the Bias case were tested and the results were (if I'm not mistaken) presented at trial.

It was his "phantom" loads or load data that was not allowed, (conviently data that would corroborate his story) if there was no evidence these loads exsisted than of course they were not allowed.

I found one court case where a single juror opined after the trial about the ammo.

Click to expand...

One person's opinion is not going to change the way I do things... Guess I could send my 1858 Remington to the factory for loading. Of course they wouldn't do it. Then I would loose my gun, because they can't ship it back loaded

OK - now we get another cup of coffee and wait for someone to post something from a gun rag author that is supposed to show the rest of us are too dumb to breath and their opinion is the only valid one.

ArchAngelCD, I agree with you...good is good, and if its bad, what you use ain't gonna make it good.

the Black Spot said:

Do the authorities frown on using handloaded ammo? Is there a chance of less repercussions if I use factory ammo?
Thanks.

Click to expand...

There have been several threads that dealt with this topic, either directly or indirectly, and the responses have been divided and passionate. I will only say that your worries are not with the authorities, but with clever bottom feeding Attorney's. With factory ammo they will question your use of a JHP over a FMJ, or a +P over standard loads, and with reloads they will question your powder load. Some have suggested copying what your local PD uses, but this move can also be twisted around to make you look like a wannabe copy cat. I say use a reliable round, be aware of your local SD criteria, and don't leave a injured witness!

LD

I read of one. It was a case in which a woman whose husband had often left a handgun loaded with a lighter-recoiling handload (.38 Special) out for her to have access to. . .

Click to expand...

I at one time researched this case a bit. In my opinion, as an attorney, I think people like Mr. Ayoob have tried to use this case for an example of something it wasn't. I suggest you look into it. It was a pretty sketchy accident claim from the get go. Mr. Ayoob and others associated with it clearly believe their guy was innocent. I can tell you that it is not uncommon for people to really get behind their arguments in a case and become galvanized in their belief they are correct, period. It helps some folks become better advocates.

What the anti hand load folks try to say is that certain test with respect to gunshot residue were disallowed simply because the rounds were hand loads. That is not at all what I see having been the evidentiary issues with what the defense was wanting to do. Rather, the issue was really that the fatal shot came from a mixed lot of loads. Any of that lot could have been the fatal shot. No one could establish which load that round was. Mas and company wanted to say it was the particular one that would best match their account of what happened that night. They couldn't prove, or even show in any kind of reliable way, whether it was one of the lighter or heavier loads. The judge disallowed them to make a hand load and do tests with it and introduce those results because they couldn't reliably establish that the load they were going to make was the same as what was in the gun. Essentially they were not allowed to make up hypothetical evidence and present it. Had all the hand loads been the same, and that could be reliably established, the ruling might well have been different.

The issues in this case could have just as easily existed with a mixed lot of factory ammo if one couldn't show which load the fatal round was.

In sum, the defendant had much bigger issues in this case than the hand loads. Chief amongst them was the seemingly fanciful story he told the cops when they arrived. If there is a lesson to be taken from this case its that one should exercise their rights to remain silent and their right to counsel. The second lesson is not even that hand loads mean you will not be able to introduce evidence based on that load. Rather the only clear take away is that if you cannot say with any degree of certainty what load was in the gun (factory or hand load) you will not be allowed to pick which one best supports you story and test it.

If our one case we can point to in arguing against hand loads is one that wasn't even a self defense case, and one in which those pointing to it have to wrest what was really going on to make their arguments, I think that tells you something.

Most all the cases people point to with respect to caliber used, hand loads, weapon type, etc the underlying facts are what is really problematic. I would be much much much more worried about clearly understanding the laws regarding use of force and making sure that I had exhausted all other remedies, that whether I my gun had hand loads, was a 10MM, etc.

The fact is gun writes need something to write about. They can't advise you on the actual laws somewhere because they aren't attorneys. You can only write so many articles telling people to seek professional training. As a result we get articles about outlier cases where non legal "experts" swallow camels and strain at gnats with respect to the various legal issues in the case.

If our one case we can point to in arguing against hand loads is one that wasn't even a self defense case, and one in which those pointing to it have to wrest what was really going on to make their arguments, I think that tells you something.

Click to expand...

I can't agree more!

Absolutly zere logic in citing Bias as a warning or an example of the dangers of carrying handloads.

Pure and irresponsible speculation!

If you'd like for me to link the post from another forum in which I've more thoroughly laid out the legal analysis, just let me know.

Click to expand...

I'd be curious to see this. It's always good to see an experienced attorney's take on such things. Far too many "legal" experts on forums have no credentials, or worse, are a year or two out of law school and already know everything.

I think we're arguing very passionately over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I agree with Spats McGee et. al. when they say that handloads could produce a GSR evidence issue. It seems that the paucity of case studies would indicate that this is a very infrequent decider of self-defense cases.

However, I would like to lay out a potential case where it might matter.

You are walking through a parking ramp late at night. There are no cameras or other persons nearby. You are walking to your car, when a man with a tire iron steps toward you and swings it at your head. You draw and fire, killing him.

Your gun was loaded with handloaded ammunition.

You are sued in civil court by the family of the deceased, who argues that the deceased did not attack you (he had no history of violence, was a choir boy who liked puppies, etc.), and that you were sufficiently far away from the deceased that the tire iron (if it was even used as a weapon) was not a deadly threat to you, and therefore you were unjustified in shooting the deceased.

I am not a cop, lawyer, ballistics expert, or forensic scientist, but it seems to me that the gunshot residue pattern on the victim is now very important in determining how far away your erstwhile attacker was from you when you shot him.

Will the court allow GSR testing of your firearm with the rest of your handloads? Or will they use factory ammo? I actually have no idea, but I also have no desire to find out the hard way.

I also strongly disagree with the idea that a 'good shoot is a good shoot, and a bad shoot is a bad shoot.'

I think a 'good shoot' only becomes a legally justified one AFTER the justice system has had a chance to nitpick it for a near-indefinite amount of time compared to the amount of time you had to make up your mind about shooting. In that sense, it only becomes a 'good shoot' if the county/city attorney declines to press charges or an empaneled grand jury no-bills you.

And THEN you have to survive civil court, which has a substantially lower burden of proof and is known to be a wretched hive of scum and villainy with personal injury lawyers swimming around. Unless of course you're fortunate enough to live in a state with good protection for people against civil suits resulting from a criminal case that went in your favor.

Thanks, Spats. It's an interesting discussion, to be sure.

As to GRS evidence and how it can a likely would be used at trial this is a post from BullfrogKen from a previous discussion.



As I mentioned, I had occasion to speak to a good friend yesterday, and I asked him if we could have a short discussion about the matter of reloads used in a shooting. I passed some of the assertions here past my friend, a state crime lab expert, last night. I won’t go into the entire conversation, but I’ll share a few relevant points.

The matter of ammunition in evidence –
Asserted here and in other discussions is the belief that ammunition in evidence must remain entirely preserved. That is entirely false.

Any recovered bullets, casings, and unexpended ammunition is thoroughly inspected at the lab. Furthermore, as a matter of procedure unexpended ammunition is disassembled to determine its characteristics as precisely as possible. The bullets and powder are examined, weighed and identified, as is the primer. An experienced and trained examiner will have the ability to determine with some certitude the manufacture of origin. In other words, the examiner can determine whether the rounds are loaded at a factory and by which manufacturer, or outside a factory.

Furthermore, if the firearm itself and enough ammunition were recovered, some of it will be fired through that firearm as part of the examination. If there isn’t sufficient ammunition in evidence, the lab will test some that is as similar to the evidence as possible. Most of the cases the lab works the lot number, or numbers, of the ammunition is simply impossible to determine. But the lab will have identified who made it, place a phone call to the manufacturer, and request some having the same characteristics and using similar components. And when it arrives, even the factory rounds are examined, disassembled and sampled to ensure the lab got what it asked for. If that’s not possible, the labs have reloading equipment. They will replicate, as close as possible, ammunition identical to the round they disassembled and use those to conduct their firing tests.

So, the notion that an examination of recovered ammunition can only be done through means of observation that completely preserves the evidence is not true.

If the state in any way suspects that hand loaded ammunition was used, a search warrant will include the seizure of the suspect’s components, loading equipment and loading data. I believe his quote was, “Ken, if you’re ever the subject of the attention of the state in a homicide, we can turn your entire life inside out. After the search warrant is executed you’ll be lucky to have carpet left in your house.” I asked him specifically if he’d ever worked a case where the crime lab used a hand loader’s data book to develop test ammunition. “Of course,” was his reply.


The matter of Gun Shot Residue –
Asserted here are many false notions of GSR examinations, most commonly repeated is the notion that GSR testing without independent factory exemplar data is not admissible as evidence in court. That is entirely false. We discussed this at length. I’ll leave you with this.

Quite often the crime 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 from that evidence alone. We 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


Quote:
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


Quote:
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 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.


The matter of submitting evidence produced by the Defendant –
As I have already presented, part of the examination will include disassembling the ammunition in evidence. It may include firing some of those rounds in evidence. Even the National Institutes of Justice (NIJ) agrees this is within the scope of a proper investigation of evidence. The NIJ has a complete, and quite thorough, program that they’ve published on-line used as a training tool for Firearms Examiners. In Module 9 it mentions the use of evidence ammunition in testing.

http://www.nij.gov/training/firearms...m12_t06_08.htm


Quote:
To reproduce results, the suspect firearm must be available. The size and density of residue patterns vary based on a combination of factors that may include the firearm, ammunition, barrel length, caliber, powder type, and powder charge. When residue patterns are reproduced in a shooting case, it is essential that the firearm and ammunition used in known-distance testing be as similar as possible to that used in the case.

Sources of testing ammunition may include

evidence ammunition from the case, per laboratory protocol,
purchased ammunition (same brand, stock number, with the same powder, projectile and primer components),
reference ammunition (same brand, stock number, with the same powder, projectile, and primer components).

Note: Examiners should always be aware that reference collections/database programs are seldom all inclusive; all available resources and examiners should be consulted.

If hand loaded ammunition was used, in order to replicate ammunition as similar as possible to the evidence, the lab may load it and use it for testing. The conversation I had last night discussed a case where a man used a round of .45 ACP ammunition dating back to the 1940’s. The lab simply could not find ammunition from that time period to use in testing. So the technician identified the components and loaded some that were as similar as possible to the ammunition and used it for testing.


Fiddletown, you seem to be under the impression that taking a Sharpie to your box of factory ammunition will be sufficient to substantiate to the examiner that this was the ammunition used in the incident. I’m not sure how you come to reconcile that this piece of “defendant-manufactured” evidence is of unimpeachable value, but loading data is not.

A competent Firearms Examiner will not take your half-empty box and merely assume since the evidence ammunition looks similar to the ammunition in your box no further examination is necessary. “I’d be derelict and negligent in my duty if I did not perform a thorough examination of the evidence ammunition,” was his comment to me. “A factory box is nice to have, because I can make my determination quicker. But I could do the same with a reloader’s box of ammunition, or his data. A competent examiner assumes nothing.”

“Remarks like this show ignorance and inexperience, both of how a Forensics Lab works and trial proceedings in general, and you don’t want them making your defense.” He made some other commentary that really isn’t High-Road material, and has little additional value here. But after roughly an hour’s conversation on the matter he reminded me of one thing –

“Ken, there is only one Finder of Fact. It’s not the ammunition factory. It’s not the Forensic Lab, or anyone else involved in the case. The only Finder of Fact is the jury. And they get to chose who they believe. They get to chose how much weight they want to give to each expert witness. Or even if they want to give it any at all. You can present all the expert testimony you want, and it can be clear and convincing in its findings, but the jury retains the right to discard all of it if they want.”



The assertion that you need to use factory ammo to ensure you’ll be safe from a difficult trial is nothing more than a fantasy floated about by speculative masters. The sword cuts both ways. If the GSR that studies say should be there from factory ammunition isn’t, or is inconsistent with the facts as you assert them, all you’ve done is trade one set of problems for another. Sure they can be explained, but once again, the jury gets to decide who to believe.

If you are involved in an incident where you used hand loaded ammunition, and your defense team says they can’t get this sort of ballistics evidence submitted into testimony, retain yourself another.





For those that may still be interested here is a link to the thread Kens above post came from. It's long , but very informative.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=634817

I'm going to take this thread off on a different tangent.

For years and years there was no real reason to carry a handload over factory. Ammunition was fairy inexpensive, avalible and RELIABLE

But I don't think there's a person here whose not noted an increase in "bad ammo" reports over the past few years and its not wild speculation to surmise that when ammo plants are going 24_7_365 that qc will suffer.

Typically I don't carry handloads but I have and do on occasion particularly as an outdoors type when things lean more towards anti 4 legged uses. However my handloads are absolutely as reliable as factory, at least I know the cases have flashholes anyways.

Notice no manufacturer advertises SD ammo having gone through any more stringent quality checks than their bulk wal mart loads.




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complaints about

During your research, did you happen to lay hands on any of the pleadings, briefs, transcripts, etc. I've read everything about this case that I've been able to lay hands on, shy of actually ordering a copy of the court file. If you happen to have access to any of the court documents, I'd be very interested in reading them.

Click to expand...

No, I could not find them either. I noticed that those who certainly had access to such materials, but where trying to characterize the evidentiary rulings a certain way, did not reference them or even really discuss what was supposedly in them.

One could certainly get them if he or she were so inclined. I, however, don't really care enough to do so. It seemed fairly evident to me, based on what I did read, that this case did not stand for the propositions Mr. Ayoob and others have tried to use it to support.

Spats McGee said:

The attorneys, the police, the judge(s) may question any of those things, as well as gun modifications. As regards JHP, FMJ, +P loads, though, data on the loadings is available from a neutral, third party with no interest in the case. That will make it much easier for the shooter/defendant to get his expert's testimony, based on exemplar evidence, admitted. If I am ever forced to shoot anyone, heaven forbid, I want two things: (1) to survive; and (2) for my lawyer to have every possible tool available to exonerate me.

Click to expand...

While anything is possible and your jurisdiction may have different trail etiquette, I have never heard an Officer, Detective, or District Attorney ask those type of questions in my 30 years of LE. It has always been from the mall office Attorney trying to defend an injured suspect or the family of a dead perp looking for a wrongful death settlement.

LD

Spats McGee said:

Well, I'm pretty confident that our trail etiquette here is quite similar to that in Indiana. With that said, the items that I listed may be questioned. Not will, but may. Most of the issues that I could see being raised are jury perception issues.

I would agree, though, that the most likely scenario in which those could arise would be a wrongful death case, or some other negligence-type case. In your basic homicide or battery shooting, I doubt that any of them will be raised as an issue.

In an SD shooting (probably with a zealous (or overzealous) prosecutor, and a civilian shooter/defendant, I could see the prosecutor making some claims to the jury about FMJ or JHP, etc. Though it wasn't a question of FMJ or JHP (as best I recall), Harold Fish comes to mind.

Gun mods, . . . I would expect those to be more likely, as you noted, in the wrongful death case with private counsel. Something along the lines of "Shooter, you didn't really mean to shoot him, did you? But you'd had the trigger lightened so far that you accidentally shot him." (And my imaginary shooter's glib response: "No, sir, and I really don't know how you could think I accidentally shot him twice in the chest and once in the head." -- Not a response I would actually suggest using in court. . . )

Some of these potential complications (gun mods, JHP, reloads, etc.) simply boil down to a risk/reward assessment: "Is the increased legal risk warranted by whatever reward (increased weapon utility) that could be created by whatever choice is made here?" In some cases, yes. In some cases, no.

Click to expand...

That's the label I've been searching for, thank you! I've heard them ask a shooter why they chose a .357 over a .22, why they chose ______ brand of ammo, why use the JHP's, why are you a member of _______range or shooting club, and why extra magazines, were you planning on killing more than one person? While these idiotic and extreme questions are asked, thankfully the Jury usually has an IQ over the room temperature and see's through desperate tactics.

LD

If you carry, do NOT load up with anything but factory ammo that is marketed as "defensive". The legal ramifications will be serious in any shooting situation. Insulate yourself from juror misunderstanding. I should know. I'm a Criminal Defense attorney with 18 years experience. I've come across this issue.

Ummmm...no. Lawyer or no, you have made a blanket statement above that cannot be backed up. You cannot say that the ramifications WILL be serious. Obviously there have been many cases where it didn't come up at all. I disagree with others here who scoff at the idea that it can EVER be used against you, but neither can it be said that it absolutely WILL.

I could also give a rat's hiney about what the box says, if there are two different packages for the same cartridge, but ine says "LE only" and the other says "defensive use" or something to that effect. There is absolutely no way the crime lab can ascertain which package the cartridge in question came from. That also goes into legal rhetoric that can easily be turned either way. You can carry what the local police carry, and you will be accused of wanting to 'play cop', because you bought horrible cop bullets. Or, you can carry something else, and be labeled as irresponsible or negligent for carrying 'off-brand' bargain basement jhp ammo which might give unpredictable results, because you were too cheap to buy the quality ammunition that the police use.

MLJdeckard: Please, just follow me on this one. EVERY TIME there is a shooting, particularly a fatal shooting, there WILL be a serious investigation. Even if it's been determined that you acted in justifiable defense, the incident will be placed under tremendous scrutiny. My position, which is backed up by 18 YEARS OF COURTROOM EXPERIENCE, OVER 100 JURY TRIALS, AT LEAST 25 TRIALS INVOLVING SHOOTINGS, and having otherwise handled hundreds of gun-related cases, many which were self-defense cases, has NOTHING to do with:

1. The reliability of handloads,
2. The preferred manstopper: factory or handload,
3. Ballistic characteristics,
4. lead vs. copper,
5. Or any other scenario concerning which bullet is best for SD.

It has EVERYTHING to do with someone discharging a firearm in self defense, subsequently falling under police scrutiny, GETTING UNJUSTIFIABLY CHARGED with having killed someone, and then hoping, no BEGGING GOD, that his or her attorney convinces several people who are likely to be totally uneducated concerning firearms, or are BIASED toward firearms, that the idea of a hand loaded round is simply okay. I had a juror tell me after a trial that the hollow point round is designed to "kill, nothing more. They should be banned". This, after expert and well presented testimony concerning the reality of HP's. You want to carry in self defense? Good, I congratulate you. But do so in a manner that protects you from the MILLIONS of ignorant people out there.

And another point....this was good, free advice to you. Accept it....next time you're on the clock!

Your advice is contrary to the advice I paid for.