Are legal concerns over carrying handloads trivial?

[JDGray]

If im pointing a gun at someone in self defense, the decision to kill is mine ,not the ammo! JDGray

 

[EddieCoyle]

I was told by a MA State Police firearms instructor (now retired) and several lawyer/aquaintances that in order to minimize any possible legal trouble, for self-defense I should "use the ammo the cops use".

Quick story (take it for what it's worth - a 2nd hand account of someone's opinion):

I was at my gun club's pistol range one Saturday shooting with two other guys: a long-time handloader, and a Suffolk County (MA) Assistant DA.

The handloader, a very serious and methodical guy, often loads ultra-hot ammo. While at the range he was taking copious notes, including comments about his latest loads. The ADA looked at his notebook and said something like, "If you ever have to shoot somebody and you use a handload, burn that book before your house is searched. A prosecutor will use it against you, and in a civil suit they'll make you look like a lunatic."


Note: Edited for clarity

 

[griz]

Mas, what is GSR? And would your opinion be the same if a handloader used a factory duplication load, same bullet and velocity, in a SD situation?

Thanks, Griz

 

[gwalchmai]

My first exposure to handload problems in court was NH v. Kennedy, the argument that "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for this guy, he had to make his own..." blah blah blah.

Yep, I guess that's always a possibility. OTOH, that legal beagle could point out that the Germans in WWI considered pump shotguns too cruel for trench warfare...

btw, Mas, I enjoy reading your stuff, even when I don't agree with it.

 

[stoky]

Gun Shot Residue ?

 

[HankB]

If GSR from handloads can't be used to clear you, then it can't be used to hang you either.

IMHO (note that IANAL) a prosecutor who uses ammo type as a centerpiece of his prosecution has a weak case, and can be countered by good lawyering on the part of your attorney.

There's a theoretical downside to every choice you may make . . .

* Use ammo the cops use, and you're "A Walter Mitty LEO-wannabe." (Police standard ammo has been made an issue in officer-involved shootings!)

* Use FMJ ammo, and you're using "military warfighting ammo, made for extreme penetration."

* Use HP ammo, and you're "using dum-dums, banned by the Hague Accords."

* Use generic ammo like WWB, and "you're for killing on the cheap."

* Use premium ammo, and "You'll spare no expense to commit murder."

* Handloads? "Factory ammo wasn't deadly enough . . ."

If it's a good shoot, it's a good shoot. Unless you've custom-made explosive bullets filled with cyanide and dipped them in rattlesnake venom, the circumstances of the shooting are going to be far more important than what you're using.

I'm not going to mention names here, but at least one very prominent gun writer and author of several books who recommends strongly against the use of handloads has (or had, at one time) a significant financial interest in a well-known boutique brand of high performance ammo. ("Don't use handloads, buy and use MY hot stuff instead!") Hmmm . . .

 

[massad ayoob]

Griz:

It's gunshot residue. Trouble with a factory dupe handload is same as any other handload: they're unlikely to take your word as to what was in the round, but they can't play that card if you used factory ammo. See the mentioned thread on "the other board" for further detail.

HankB:
Please refer to answer above. I used to be a distributor for CorBon, and made that clear in many articles. CorBon, like other manufacturers, had a production code lot number on each box, which facilitated exemplar testing for GSR.

 

[Clark]

Yes, be afraid, very afraid! ....This is a Jeff Goldblum tag line the the 1984 movie "The Fly" .
It means......No, Legal concerns are NOT trivial.


We don't need no stinking factory loads! .... This is like the tag line handed to Humphry Bogart in the 1948 movie, "The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre" 24 "Ah, we don't need no stinking badges!"
It means Yes, legal concerns ARE trivial



No opinion. Where am I?
More confusion.



If no one ever has had any court trouble from handloads, I can't calculate any risk, but if someone ever WERE to have troubel....then there would be some real risk:

If there are 3.4 million concealled carry permints in the USA, if half them carry handloads, resulting in one court case in 20 years, then the risk each day from a court's reaction to handload being carried would be
Risk = 1/[20 3,400,000/2] =.000 000 029 per year

Meanwhile the risk for any of the 100 ~ 200 Americans of of 300,000,000 Americans being killed by lightning each each year is:
Risk = 100/300,000,000 = .000 000 333


What does it all mean?
Carrying handloads has a risk of court trouble 11 times smaller than the risk you will be killed by lightning.


For me, the chance of a wimpy .380 factory load not getting the job done, is why I take the chance and carry my atomic handloads.

For me the chance of lightnihng strike is offset by my personal desire to go outside.

We get to choose the chances we take, and I have chosen mine.

 

[jerkface11]

No one else is concerned about factory ammo just plain not going off? Touch off some without a flashole sometime. It'll lock your gun up solid.

 

[griz]

Thanks for the response. I didn't know gun shot residue was that exact a science. My assumption would be the remaining reloaded rounds from the magazine or ammo box could be tested for GSR as easily as a factory round could. But anyway I will check out the other thread.

 

[AnthonyRSS]

So I take it GSR is used to determine that you did in fact handload your ammunition? How would they know that it is handloaded versus a random lot of ammo? I think I'll go read those threads now.

 

[gwalchmai]

Yes, be afraid, very afraid! ....This is a Jeff Goldblum tag line the the 1984 movie "The Fly" .
It means......No, Legal concerns are NOT trivial.

That's interesting. I interpreted that option as mocking those who preach incessantly about internet bogeymen like handload liability, tumbling loaded rounds, and allowing a Brasso molecule to come within fifty feet of a cartridge case.

 

[halvey]

I refuse to live in fear of lawyers.

One of the best from SW!

Clark
I have read many of your posts on many forums over the years and wish you'd put all your info and data into a book and sell it. People said Ackley was nuts with his tests but we think differently today.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The first of those threads includes the names of cases where handloads were a problem in court.

Ayoob provided 4 cases where handloads were supposedly a problem in court.
State of NH v. Sgt James Kennedy
TN v. Robert Barnes
NJ v. Leonard Bias
Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems

State of NH v. Sgt James Kennedy. Kennedy was criminally charged on a theory of recklessness which was based in part on the fact that his pistol was loaded with handloads according to Ayoob. The prosecutor did make negative references to the reloads, trying to cast them in a negative light, but reloads most definitely were not the only thing about that situation that the prosecutor tried to convey negatively, such as Kennedy's gun handling, and Kennedy's lawyer did a crappy job of keeping the evidence from maligning Kennedy for the ammo. Given that any facet of a prosecution can be turned and presented in a negative light, I find it hard to believe that the issues of handloads or reloads was necessarily any more salient than anything else. It is Ayoob's opinion that the use of handloads was significant, but as is discussed below, his opinions on significance unbiased. Apparently factory ammo choice attacked in court isn't a significant matter.

TN v. Robert Barnes. I find that a convicted the Defendant, Robert Sanford
Barnes, of reckless endangerment, attempted rape, robbery, aggravated
burglary, and assault. I don't know if this is the case you mean or not, but if so, I am not sure just how it was that reloads were significant in regard to a person who was committing other crimes. As this was not a self defense case, I don't see much useful correlation here as one assumes many liabilities when breaking the law. Barnes was engaged in criminal activities and didn't have the right to do what he was doing.

NJ v. Leonard Bias - still have not found

Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems. Not really relevant since the officer used factory ammo.

---------------------

Since we are citing cases discussed by Ayoob, I would like to warn everyone at this time that on the same basis as Ayoob has argued against handloads/reloads, you should not be carrying the factory ammo carried by your local law enforcement. It has been stated and implied that you should not carry handloads because of reliability issues and more heavily discussed, legal issues. What is the alternative? Factory ammo! Strangely, Ayoob has failed to mention the horrors of carrying factory ammo in this thread because factory ammo most definitely can be problematic and used by the prosecution to portray the good guy shooter in a negative light as Ayoob has published.

In the Sept 2004 "Combat Handguns" issue that Ayoob has published an example that pretty well shoots down the contention that factory loads are necessarily any less of a legal concern than handloads when used in a justified self defense shooting. On page 8, example number 1 is of an officer's use of a Glock loaded with Hydrashok ammo in a self defense shooting. Attacks on both the type of gun used and ammo failed in the end, but that didn't stop the prosecution from casting both in a negative light. So all you Glockers need new guns as well.

In Case 9 on page 95, the lawyer was specifically arguing that Hydrashoks' purpose was to "tear great and terrible wounds," implying malice aforethought on the part of the officer for using the round. WOW!!! In the end, the maligned ammo issue wasn't a problem.

To quote from Ayoob in that article, "Things like attacking the officer's gun or ammunition are the sort of things that are predictably used by lawyers who have no[thing] substantive."

Strangely, while Ayoob has gone into some detail here and on Glock Talk, plus countless publications, about the horrors of using handloads, citing underwhelming cases supporting his point that the choice of handloads can be used against you because the prosecutor can portray the ammo in a negative manner, Ayoob does not argue against the use of factory ammo which he has documented being used in a negative manner against a good guy cop in court. Why?

How is it handloads are so darned bad to use from a legal standpoint and factory loads aren't?

Ayoob has played both sides of the fence, but not equally. He has shown where the prosecution can use ammo choice in a negative manner whether handload or factory, but Ayoob has only suggested not using handloads He hasn't even suggested not using Federal Hydrashok, the particular ammo brand and model attacked in both cases.

I do appreciate the fact that not all cases make it into case law and that not all facets of how the case was developed make it into the public domain. However, hiding behind a claim of there being all these cases out there that never make it into the public domain, but really are there is completely bogus in terms of argument construction. It is an appeal to disembodied authority. Since disembodied, nobody can argue that it is accurate or not. I am just as confident that there are many many cases where factory ammo was attacked in court, causing all sorts of problems for the good guy, but those cases didn't make it into the public domain of case law. In doing this, I would be making an appeal to disembodied authority as well and doing so in an equally [il]legitimate manner.

We know the rumors. We want to know the facts that we can verify, not the "facts" based on the opinions of others who can't present useful evidence to support the rumors.

 

[BigSlick]

Carry the most accurate, controllable, reliable ammo you can.

For me, that's currently a handload.

Great post Double Naught Spy +1 in every respect.

BigSlick

 

[~z]

Not to hijack, but maybe sidetrack...We are takling about "customizing ammo for the purpuse of killing" (in a legitamate self defense senerio), correct. Let me step out just a bit further, how about customizing the weapon? I can only imagine the fiasco of a shooting involving a full race gun, but I'm refering to the slight mods most of us have: trigger job, beaver tail, sights, amb safety...

I guess the question would be, since I put new grips (or whatever) on my pistol, is it now considered "more deadly" or "customized to kill more effictively"?

~z

 

[Rockstar]

I have problems with taking legal advice from non-lawyers, just as I have problems with taking reloading advice from somebody like Clark. While it's true that there probably are a couple of cases (In New England or California, etc.) where some ignorant, bottom-of-the-class, inexperienced prosecutor raised the issue of using handloads for s.d., I don't believe that a consultation with real criminal defense lawyers or experienced judges or district attorneys will reveal any concerns for such use of handloads.

How you are treated in the use of a firearm for self-defense will depend, largely, on your jurisdiction. Don't expect to be treated the same in one of the Sissy States as one might be treated in one of the Real States.

In virtually all cases of self-defense, there's no question about who pulled the trigger or what weapon was used. Finding residue is a non-issue, as there's no dispute about the weapon or ammo that was used. There is no more of a problem with using handloads in a case of self-defense (but I choose not to, for other than legal reasons) than there is in using a "specialty" knife or shotgun or any other weapon (modified or otherwise) in a case of self-defense. If you happen to be attacked while you're target-shooting, the fact that you defended yourself using a highly-modifed target weapon firing your reloads won't be used against you. The issue will be whether deadly force were justifiable. Period. It's really just that simple.

If you're involved in an accidental shooting, then legitimate questions could be raised about type of ammo, whether the weapon was modified, etc. When there is no dispute as to the circumstances of a self-defense shoot, nobody except one who makes a living writing articles and conducting seminars about such matters has any interest in weapon or ammo type.

Yes, I have been in court...many, many times. Yes, I have prosecuted a bunch of cases, and yes, I have discussed these matters with real, well-known, experienced criminal defense lawyers, judges and district attorneys. No, I have no financial interest in disseminating made-up "theories" about what an "overzealous prosecutor" might attempt in any case. These aforementioned "overzealous prosecutors" might also raise an issue as to what type of "practice" shooting one does. "So, explain to us exactly what IDPA is, how it works, etc. You don't think you're lethal enough without spending thousands of dollars and firing thousands of rounds practicing to become more lethal? etc., etc., etc., blah, blah, blah?"

Mindset is paramount if one ever has to use a weapon in self defense. Understand your rights and execute them expediently, should the need arise. Choose to live in a State run by Real Americans, not pansies. If you do have to use your weapon in a case of self-defense, and you've chosen to live in a State not run by pansies, there's an infinitesimal possibility that you'll suffer any civil or criminal consequences for doing so.

If I did carry reloads for self-defense, they sure as hell wouldn't have been made using Clark's recipes!

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

 

[halvey]

the Smoking gun?

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=471695&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=4

Steve Koski: I'm not convinced. I need to see more case law.

Mas Ayoob: First, it won't be caselaw because that's determined by appelate courts. Which means, from our perspective here, that the guy has to get convicted. In the cases I'm aware of, none have yet been convicted.
---------------------------

No one has ever been convicted that Mas knows of. Not saying it has never brought up. But if you are worrying about a conviction, it hasn't happened yet. If you are worried about being the first, don't carry reloads. For those of us who carry what we want, keep carrying.

 

[Grump]

Has anyone here read DeMai's Gunshot Wounds?

Let's follow the science and apply evidence rules...

Posted by Mas Ayoob over on GT:

The forensic evidence that will show the truth is called GSR, gunshot residue, deposited on the body and/or clothing of your opponent at very close range. However, to prove that in court, your experts have to perform tests with exemplar ammo, ammo identical to that used in the gun. With factory ammo, you simply have the experts do the tests with ammo from the identical lot. You can't do that with handloads. Can you say, "Your Honor, the defendant manufactured the evidence?" In all probability, it won't be allowed.

I'd rather trust the opinion of someone who's familiar with the realities of the various evidence codes.

1. What is the likelihood of there being unexpended rounds left in the firearm? I say high.

2. What is the likelihood of there being rounds left in the shooter's chosen reload mode (speedloader or mag or dump pouch or pocket)? I say really, really, high.

3. What is the likelihood of there being rounds left in an ammo can, on the shooter's reloading bench, or in one of those neatly-stacked boxes at the house, if not in the car, etc.? I say virtually certain.

Now, how easy is it to get a reasonable inference that the shooter's remaining ammo is precisely the same as the rounds found elsewhere? The shooter will testify that it was all the same batch, the cases might be different but powder, primer and bullet will all be the same. THAT lays evidenciary foundation, folks!

Scientific evidence from the GSR from the shooting will include clues about primer type, based on various trace metals that some primer makers use and other primer makers DON'T. On-scene GSR matches GSR from the "exemplar" ammo....and what can the finder of fact infer from that fact?

From what I've read in an actual crime lab report on ammo used in a mere harassment incident, the PDs and the DAs have no trouble at all matching the ammo on-scene with what was found in the gun and at the shooter's house. The fact that the shooter "manufactured" or whatever'd the "evidence" would be irrelevant, and it all goes back to the touchstone standard of whether the evidence is probative of a material fact. If yes, it's admissible!

FYI, the completely unreported case I worked on involved an angry ex-husband in Las Vegas shooting some 9mm rounds out of his Glock over the roof of the ex-wife's house. He was pegged as the shooter, in part, by matching the fired cases found at the scene with what he had in his gun, the fact that the gun had recently been fired, the number of recovered cases matched how many "rounds down" his magazine was, and the fact that the Russian ammo he possessed had not at that time been widely distributed--it was a bit rare in that market at the time...and he was DENYING it was his ammo found at the scene.

Apply the same reasoning to a shooter who WANTS to prove that the ammo found at home was the same as that used at the scene.

Comes a time when you realize that, as I tell my clients, any idiot with $200.00 can file a lawsuit and force you to defend yourself. We can anticipate all kinds of arguments ranging from laughable to problematic to (depending on the facts we cannot change--how BAD the case is!!!) impossible. We cannot prevent every argument, and WILL be forced to defend ourselves. Thus I focus more on the merits and don't worry about the laughable or inevitable attacks. See HankB above--he's pegged many of them.

Some may choose to prefer the Walter Mitty argument over the "more deadly ammo" argument, but neither of them is likely to be as much of a problem as the "gun nut" argument. That one could come up regardless of how you try to present yourself, 'cause the lowlife trying to escape accountability for criminal actions (or the dead/injured relative's bad acts) will be highly motivated to portray you as badly as they possibly can.

The more important arguments are
1. were you in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury for yourself or another person (second half may depend jurisdiction where the incident happens), and
2. was the force applied reasonable for the threat faced (again, there are some local variations). Once the justification for the shoot is established, ammo choice evidence *can* be excluded as irrelevant, because there is no "nice" way to apply lethal force.

Arguing for "nicer" bullets can easily be proven to be silly.

Carefully consider HankB's listing of arguments. He's spot-on, and I believe grasps the total situation better than Mr. Ayoob.

 

[taliv]

Finding residue is a non-issue, as there's no dispute about the weapon or ammo that was used.

rockstar, i think you've missed the point here. the thread on glocktalk explains that GSR is used to support the defense's explanation that the attacker was within arms reach, or on top of the defendant, when the attacker claims he was 10 feet away and just talking.

GSR from factory ammo would say conclusively that you were 1 foot away or 10 feet away. seems hard to dispute the value of that evidence.

again, given risk/reward, i'm still carrying handloads.

 

[bakert]

Although I'm very particular wih my handloads and trust them to go boom I'll stick with factory loads for concealed carry myself especially in light of the actions of lawyers and juries in civil courts.

 

[~z]

Seems like a "justified shoot" would be a justified shoot (please don’t let me ever find myself in that situation). Mr. Ayoob and others (namely; 00Spy, Grump, Halvey, HankB, Rockstar, taliv and others, and you know how you are) all make good points as to the pros and cons. But when if comes right down to it, it is a personal choice and a personal responsibility to protect yourself and those in your care. If you make the conscious choice to carry in a public setting, you assume a certain amount of responsibility for those around you. In the end it is YOUR CHOICE. Do I honestly feel that this situation I now find myself in demands the use of deadly force? Do I want to live the rest of my life knowing that my actions directly caused the death of another human being? Do I want to spend the rest of my life knowing that had I acted I could have saved the life of another human being? The weapon and ammunition are all secondary to the conscious choice you must make in the morning when getting dressed. I believe, and I speak for no one but me, if you feel the need to carry, be confident in your equipment. Take that for what it is worth, carry stock or modified, your recipe or factory. But you owe it to yourself and those around you to know your limitations and that of your equipment. Push those limits in practice and practice those limits in your daily life. If you are not confident with factory ammo, carry your own.

soap box now put back in its original location.

~z

 

[massad ayoob]

Ayoob provided 4 cases where handloads were supposedly a problem in court.
State of NH v. Sgt James Kennedy
TN v. Robert Barnes
NJ v. Leonard Bias
Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems

State of NH v. Sgt James Kennedy. Kennedy was criminally charged on a theory of recklessness which was based in part on the fact that his pistol was loaded with handloads according to Ayoob. The prosecutor did make negative references to the reloads, trying to cast them in a negative light, but reloads most definitely were not the only thing about that situation that the prosecutor tried to convey negatively, such as Kennedy's gun handling, and Kennedy's lawyer did a crappy job of keeping the evidence from maligning Kennedy for the ammo. Given that any facet of a prosecution can be turned and presented in a negative light, I find it hard to believe that the issues of handloads or reloads was necessarily any more salient than anything else. It is Ayoob's opinion that the use of handloads was significant, but as is discussed below, his opinions on significance unbiased. Apparently factory ammo choice attacked in court isn't a significant matter.

TN v. Robert Barnes. I find that a convicted the Defendant, Robert Sanford
Barnes, of reckless endangerment, attempted rape, robbery, aggravated
burglary, and assault. I don't know if this is the case you mean or not, but if so, I am not sure just how it was that reloads were significant in regard to a person who was committing other crimes. As this was not a self defense case, I don't see much useful correlation here as one assumes many liabilities when breaking the law. Barnes was engaged in criminal activities and didn't have the right to do what he was doing.

NJ v. Leonard Bias - still have not found

Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems. Not really relevant since the officer used factory ammo.

---------------------

Since we are citing cases discussed by Ayoob, I would like to warn everyone at this time that on the same basis as Ayoob has argued against handloads/reloads, you should not be carrying the factory ammo carried by your local law enforcement. It has been stated and implied that you should not carry handloads because of reliability issues and more heavily discussed, legal issues. What is the alternative? Factory ammo! Strangely, Ayoob has failed to mention the horrors of carrying factory ammo in this thread because factory ammo most definitely can be problematic and used by the prosecution to portray the good guy shooter in a negative light as Ayoob has published.

In the Sept 2004 "Combat Handguns" issue that Ayoob has published an example that pretty well shoots down the contention that factory loads are necessarily any less of a legal concern than handloads when used in a justified self defense shooting. On page 8, example number 1 is of an officer's use of a Glock loaded with Hydrashok ammo in a self defense shooting. Attacks on both the type of gun used and ammo failed in the end, but that didn't stop the prosecution from casting both in a negative light. So all you Glockers need new guns as well.

In Case 9 on page 95, the lawyer was specifically arguing that Hydrashoks' purpose was to "tear great and terrible wounds," implying malice aforethought on the part of the officer for using the round. WOW!!! In the end, the maligned ammo issue wasn't a problem.

To quote from Ayoob in that article, "Things like attacking the officer's gun or ammunition are the sort of things that are predictably used by lawyers who have no[thing] substantive."

Strangely, while Ayoob has gone into some detail here and on Glock Talk, plus countless publications, about the horrors of using handloads, citing underwhelming cases supporting his point that the choice of handloads can be used against you because the prosecutor can portray the ammo in a negative manner, Ayoob does not argue against the use of factory ammo which he has documented being used in a negative manner against a good guy cop in court. Why?

How is it handloads are so darned bad to use from a legal standpoint and factory loads aren't?

Ayoob has played both sides of the fence, but not equally. He has shown where the prosecution can use ammo choice in a negative manner whether handload or factory, but Ayoob has only suggested not using handloads He hasn't even suggested not using Federal Hydrashok, the particular ammo brand and model attacked in both cases.

I do appreciate the fact that not all cases make it into case law and that not all facets of how the case was developed make it into the public domain. However, hiding behind a claim of there being all these cases out there that never make it into the public domain, but really are there is completely bogus in terms of argument construction. It is an appeal to disembodied authority. Since disembodied, nobody can argue that it is accurate or not. I am just as confident that there are many many cases where factory ammo was attacked in court, causing all sorts of problems for the good guy, but those cases didn't make it into the public domain of case law. In doing this, I would be making an appeal to disembodied authority as well and doing so in an equally [il]legitimate manner.

We know the rumors. We want to know the facts that we can verify, not the "facts" based on the opinions of others who can't present useful evidence to support the rumors.

Since I was able to post last, a lot of interesting comments have been made. Many questions have been asked, and many ably answered by other posters, so I won't waste anyone's time going over material that others have well explained. I would, however, like to respond to a few points, starting with the message above.

Double Naught Spy:
In some of your postings elsewhere, the nature of your criticism tells me that you were excruciatingly honest when you chose your Internet nickname. Please keep that same level of honesty here. Since you quote from that article and must have it right in front of you, I find it rather disingenuous of you not to mention that I explained how easy it is for a properly prepared attorney to defuse arguments against factory hollowpoints.

(One example, since most reading this won't have that magazine in front of them. I referenced one of appellate lawyer Lisa Steele's cases, in which the clueless lawyer who defended in the original trial just sat there while a state police investigator went on and on about how Hydra-Shoks were designed to do all sorts of horrible things. All the attorney had to do was ask one question on cross-examination: "Trooper, what ammunition does the state police issue to you to carry on duty?" The answer would have been, in that state...Federal Hydra-Shok.)

Note that this tactic would NOT have worked for a defendant with handloads.

Let's see, Double Naught, on your assessment of the four cases I mentioned:

Thank you for admitting that handloads were indeed an issue in NH v. Kennedy. However, it's ridiculous for you to say that "Kennedy's lawyer did a crappy job of keeping the evidence from maligning Kennedy for the ammo." Au contraire, he brought in Jim Cirillo, whose testimony killed that element of the state's case and some others, and under this lawyer's able direct examination, Sgt Kennedy himself was able to articulate his reason for using handloads, to the satisfaction of the jury. It was an ordeal for Jim, but he did win acquittal.

Yes, you do INDEED have the wrong Tennessee v. Barnes case.

Let me apologize to all for an error on my part. Working from memory of the 16 year old case, I had listed it as NJ v. Len Bias. I just dug the file out of storage yesterday, and it was NJ v. DANIEL Bias. Try your search again.

I always use IA v. Willems when discussing this matter, because his was a classic case of how easy it is to get the forensic GSR evidence across to the jury, IF you use factory ammo. Police department records showed the lot number of the 9mm 115 grain +P+ he had been issued; exemplar testing showed the attacker to have been some 18" off the muzzle of the Beretta 92 when he was shot; and this disproved the alleged "victim's" testimony that he had been far out of reach of the officer and no danger to him when he was injured. We won acquittal for Randy at the criminal trial, and we won a total defense verdict for him and his department in the civil lawsuit trial which followed.

Note that this would almost certainly not have been possible with reloads, for reasons explained exhaustively on the threads linked earlier, and which I'll explain from another perspective more briefly in a few moments.

Clark:
BlackWidow in Post #10, and I in Post #21, warned how the disingenuous wording of your poll questions would be twisted to skew the results. Thank you for proving us correct in your Post #33.

In that, you say that "Be afraid, be very afraid" now means "No, legal concerns are NOT trivial." (Caps yours.)

In that, you say that "We don't need no stinking factory loads...means Yes, Legal concerns ARE trivial." (Again, your caps.)

I would like to ask those who voted in the poll two questions. If you had known that the cowardly-sounding "Be afraid" really meant "Legal concerns are NOT trivial," would you have voted for it? If you had known that the independent-sounding "We don't need no stinking factory loads" would be interpreted by Clark as "Legal concerns ARE trivial," would you have still voted for it?

In his lightning analogy, already debunked on "the other board," Clark now asks you to assume that fully half of America's concealed carry permit holders use handloads for carry. My experience and input tells me that's unbelievably high. It would be interesting to hear from other experienced CCW instructors on this.

But, Clark, your big fallacy is this: you know perfectly well that what I'm talking about is the aftermath of a shooting. That presumes that the shooting has in fact taken place. Everyone knows that a huge number of armed citizen shootings happen at very close range, often literally "powder-burning distance." Now, GSR issues are very likely to come into play...and now, the likelihood of your handloads being an issue are comparable to your chances of being struck by lightning while standing atop Mount Washington in the middle of a thunderstorm and holding a lightning rod.

But Clark, my favorite part of your post #33 was when you wrote, "For me, the chance of a wimpy .380 factory load not getting the job done, is why I take the chance and carry my atomic handloads."

Ya know, Clark, if I was really in this for the money, as you and some others have falsely and cluelessly suggested, I would be on this thread taking advanced orders for T-shirts and bumper stickers that said in huge, fiery letters: CLARK MAGNUSON CARRIES A .380!

Jerkface11:

You ask if any of us have seen a factory round with no flash hole. In my case, yes. Twice that I can remember in more than 50 years of shooting, which has included many weeks of teaching where 10,000 rounds a week went downrange, and many tournaments with many more than that. On the other hand, I have seen countless handload failures and malfunctions. Again, let's ask the experienced competition shooters and firearms instructors and rangemasters about THAT.

Z:
The short answer to your question is yes, but most such issues can be dealt with much easier than the problems that come with handloads. Except for "hair triggers" and deactivated safety devices, any practical enhancement to a defensive firearm is court-defensible. However, the topic is sufficiently involved to warrant a separate thread of its own. This one is getting pretty windy as it is, and I'm already culpable enough in that.

Rockstar:
You wrote in your Post #42, "The issue will be whether deadly force were(sic) justifiable. Period. It's really just that simple."

No, it's nowhere NEAR that simple, and if you believe it is, watch out for people trying to sell you oceanfront property in Kansas City.

TO ALL:
One critical point that many seem to have missed on this thread is that the very fact that you're the defendant means you're facing skilled, experienced, professional character assassins whose job it is to constantly impugn your credibility in front of the jury. Just how much of what powder was in those rounds may be as critical to your case as it was to Randy Willems'. The jury knows that you have a stake in the outcome and therefore motivation to put forth false evidence, and will be vulnerable to the argument that you submitted different loads for testing and shot the "poor, innocent victim" with something else, to make it look as if he was closer than he was, and that you were in more danger than you were. (Remember, ammo remaining in the gun is evidentiary property of the court, and will very rarely be released for GSR testing, since you are literally asking for permission to destroy the evidence.)

That won't happen with factory, because no lawyer is a sufficiently silver-tongued devil to convince a jury that Olin Corporation conspired with you to alter the evidence after you committed murder or perpetrated a wrongful death.

Finally, a number of folks who've weighed in seem to think that so long as your trial ends in an acquittal, there's no problem. They have not taken into account the months or years between shooting and trial with devastating legal bills, severe income impairment (most indicted criminal suspects don't have much in the way of career advancement opportunity in the legitimate world), and the emotional suffering that your friends and family will go through with you.

I'll be off line for most of tomorrow, at a correctional institution visiting a "convicted murderer." I was just very recently brought in to assist with the appeal. The facts in evidence indicate that he drew and fired in self-defense, but he did not anticipate the aftermath of a shooting and handled that aftermath badly, and in my opinion was very poorly defended. Out of a job at the moment of his indictment, he was quickly rendered penniless. His family has spent some $200,000 defending him, most of it in the original trial, and is now stretched to the breaking point.

That's not something I'd care to inflict on my loved ones for the very limited advantages that accrue from carrying handloads instead of quality factory ammunition.

Thanks to all for your patience.Take care,
Mas

 

[Clark]

One of the best from SW!

Clark
I have read many of your posts on many forums over the years and wish you'd put all your info and data into a book and sell it. People said Ackley was nuts with his tests but we think differently today.

Thanks Harvey,
I know How to write a mediocre load book:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.guns/browse_frm/thread/1f090932775caa11/

But to write a good one it would take lots of research per page, unless I wanted to just make up stuff as fast as I can type, it would be $200,000 worth of engineering to get 2,000 book sales at $10 each if I'm lucky.

Highly technical books do not sell as well as "Fantasies about confrontations when carrying a gun" books.

 

[Carpe Cerevisi]

i dont think someone would be sued for using handloads as long as they are legal rounds (not incindiary, ap or anything of that type). I think its stupid to even suggest its not trivial. To be honest if people are handloading, i think they do it to cut back on a budget not everyone wants to pay 50 bucks for 10 rounds of self defense ammo. Im more concerned about gun control rights and criminals getting guns using factory ammo than a legal gun owner using handloads. As long as its a legal gun, legal owner, and legal bullet type i wouldnt even think twice about it. If i see someone with a weapon i dont think about the ammo, i think about the person.