Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.
In the area of urban legends, I heard the main rule against hand loads was some fancy attorney would accuse you of undo pain and anguish by using hand loads
The questions that established the current rules for the admissibility of scientific trace evidence have come up in courts of law on multiple occasions.
The Federal rules are the result of at least two SCOTUS rulings in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Some states use somewhat different rules. but the principles are the same.
The rules are very well established.
Don't look for "handloads". The same rules apply to the admissibility of expert testimony RE: explosive testing, fingerprints, computer-generated records, toxicity testing, pharmaceuticals, and a host of other things
We've been over this in great depth over the years.
have been visiting reloading forums since 2006 and this subject rears its stupid head on a regular basis, and there is never a consensus reached (not even close).
That there continue to be those who cannot understand, and/or do not accept, the underlying legal issues does not tell us that there is informed disagreement on the subject.
I still wait for a specific case (cite a case with names, file numbers, etc.) where handloads were the reason for prosecuting a shooter. Not the reason for the shooting, not for the actions taken by the shooter and not the "mindset" of the participants...
Handloads will never be the reason for prosecution.
But they may deny a defendant the right to have admitted what could be valuable exculpatory evidence.
Both of those points are set forth quite clearly in our sticky thread.
You apparent failure to understand those points indicates either that you have missed some important things here since 2006; or that you cannot understand the subject matter, or that you are simply choosing to be argumentative--or all three.
This thread has followed the usual course for these sorts of discussions -- down the rabbit hole.
People will believe what they want to believe. If anyone wants to carry his handloads for self defense, no one is stopping him. It won't be my problem.
But if someone is on the fence, he might want to reflect on the fact that in all these discussions I can't recall any lawyer participating who said he chose to carry handloads for self defense.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.