In trouble for handloads in SD--Urban Legend?

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Ross

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
534
Location
St. Louis
Many people, most notably Massad Ayoob, tell us to use only factory ammo in any gun which one carries for self-defense. They paint unpleasant pictures of the aftermath, with prosecutors making the case that the citizen suffered from bloodlust, loading his special, extra-wicked ammo, proving that he was just itching to kill some poor soul.

Has this ever *actually happened,* or is it an urban legend? Is Ayoob just trying to eliminate a potential trouble spot that he thinks *might* come up someday, but hasn't yet?

Can anyone point to trial transcripts in any shooting of a BG where the citizen received *any negative consequences at all* for using reloads or handloads?

If someone know's Ayoob's email address, I'll ask him personally.


JR, the .500 Specialist
 
I vote for urban legend, John. Mas is an expert at niche marketing. When he was trying to break into regular gun mag writing the good spots were all taken by Elmer Keith, Chas. Askins, Jr., Skeeter Skelton, etc. Mas, to his credit, came up with the "what if" hypothetical situation and made an art form of it, imho. Lots of less than insightful folks have taken it a step further into the unwritten axioms of gundom. "Thou shalt not..." etc.
 
I remember reading one of Ayoob's articles where this was brought up in a trial where he was testifying as an expert witness. Problem was, Ayoob brought up the fact that the defendant was using reloads. The prosecution did not know that this was the case but Ayoob handed it to them on a platter.

If I remember correctly the defendant got off because the shooting was justified. The reloads really didn't matter.
 
Many people, most notably Massad Ayoob, tell us to use only factory ammo in any gun which one carries for self-defense.

I agree, but for a different reason.

I would rather trust my life to high quality factory ammo than my own amatuer reloads.

This might be different with some other folks, who REALLY get into hand-loading and seal their primers, etc ...
 
Urban Legend or not, consider the following, respecting the use of handloads for defense.

1. A great many of the general population have had limited experience, if any experience, with gun handling/shooting.

2. They know virtually nothing about handloading/reloading, which in the event of a lawful shooting, could spell potential troube for the law abiding citizen who used deadly force. Potential trouble could arise later on, as a result of CIVIL SUITS filed by others, which could prove very expensive for Mr., Mrs. or Ms. Law Abiding Citizen.
 
readers should consider the following, and the article too.

Given that airline pilots used to be armed, the government required armed pilots, to guard airmail, what is the big problem REARMING the same people?

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOMELAND INSECURITY
TSA procedures 'discourage' armed pilots
'Restrictive' government policies make carrying weapon prohibitive

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 27, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A commercial airline pilot who has been through the Transportation Security Agency's Federal Flight Deck Officer program and has been "trained" to carry a gun in the cockpit says the agency's policies "are designed to discourage pilots from participating in the program once they do get through training."


(Boeing photo. Used with permission.)

The pilot, who requested anonymity, told WorldNetDaily the TSA has set "restrictive" guidelines for the carry of guns through airports and even in cockpits, though other armed federal agents and officers have far fewer limitations and can access their weapons much more readily.

According to information published on the TSA's website, the agency cannot divulge specifics of the armed-pilot procedures, for security purposes. But that claim of protection, say critics, is allowing the agency to cover up the fact it is making it too difficult for pilots to fulfill Congress' and the Bush administration's mandate.

Transportation officials made no bones about their opposition to arming pilots before Congress authorized it last fall. Initially, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta opposed arming pilots before eventually changing his position, and TSA chief James Loy grudgingly signed on to the issue only after he realized Congress would pass an armed-pilot provision.

That initial opposition, critics say, has carried over to its implementation of the program, resulting in delays, cost overruns and a bureaucratic nightmare for pilots who volunteer for the training.

"In contrast to the ability for any deputy sheriff, armed [Housing and Urban Development] or Post Office official to carry a gun in the passenger cabin and airport terminal, loaded and concealed … ready for use at any moment, the FFDO cannot," the pilot told WorldNetDaily. "When the pilot does have access to the weapon, he most likely would not be able to use it in a timely manner in case of a cockpit intrusion, due to the FFDO [standard operating procedures]."

Supporters of the program say pilots should go through the same training as other federal officers. The FFDO's week-long program involves firearms and hand-to-hand combat training, and is held at the TSA Law Enforcement Academy in Glynco, Ga. Pilots must also endure background checks and psychological testing that could take as long as two months, according to published information.

Some pilots' groups have complained about the lag time.

"It's been almost two years since the attacks ... and we only have less than 150 pilots approved to carry a firearm," said Capt. Bob Lambert, a former fighter pilot and current president of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, a group that has lobbied hard for arming pilots.

"While the Department of Homeland Security warns that al-Qaida has threatened to use 'commercial aviation here in the United States and abroad to further their cause,' their colleagues at [the Transportation Security Administration] are preventing the fastest and most effective deterrent, which is to arm pilots in the cockpit as a last line of defense against an attack," Lambert said.

In June Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., head of the House Aviation Subcommittee, also complained about the slow pace of training pilots, USA Today reported.

"It's one more bureaucratic disaster devised by those who want to make this more complex and expensive than it has to be," Mica told the paper. "I don't know what their ulterior motive is, but it is very frustrating."

TSA officials were contacted for this story, but did not respond to questions about the FFDO program.

The Associated Press reported the pace of getting pilots through the FFDO program would increase after summer. There could be more delays, however, because one report said the TSA was planning to move its sole FFDO program from Georgia to another federal training facility at Artesia, N.M.

There are other complaints about the program as well. Some pilots say the agency's psychological testing is redundant. They maintain the TSA's psychological requirements are unnecessary because they must submit to and pass many layers of psychological examination by airlines before they can fly the multimillion-dollar aircraft.

"Late last year, Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation directing the TSA to arm America's airline pilots to allow them to protect their passengers and aircraft against terrorist hijackings," says Capt. David Mackett, executive vice president of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance. "The TSA, admittedly opposed to the program, responded with antipathy toward Congress and our nation's pilots, designing a program so rife with roadblocks and nonsensical practices it is doomed to failure."

Mackett, in a letter to pilots posted on APSA's website, says TSA, among other things, "requires … onerous redundant background investigations of pilots who have already passed the required layers of screening repeatedly," as part of a campaign to "discourage volunteers … and disqualify pilots."

One pilot the TSA disqualified, Mackett said, was a 10-year veteran of the Drug Enforcement Agency and the U.S. Customs Service.

According to TSA information, to qualify for the program pilots must "successfully complete all selection assessments including any specified cognitive psychological, medical or physical ability requirements; be determined to meet all established standards by TSA;" and "be available to attend the training program in its entirety on your own time and at your own expense."

The agency covers the actual cost of training, but pilots are expected to pay for their own accommodations and lodging for the week-long course. Once certified, FFDO "deputation" lasts for five years, unless it is revoked by the government. Airlines do not have "veto" power over their pilots who seek training.

"It is time to start treating airline pilots as the responsible professionals they are and to take advantage of this critical and inexpensive resource," he said. "The pilots that volunteer for this do so on their own time and do not even get paid for this vital service.

"It's time to get serious about airline security," Mackett wrote.

Related stories:

Pilots to Feds: Arm us faster!

Coming soon: Pilots packing heat

Widow of slain 9-11 pilot bashes Congress

Pilots' group decries missile deployment

Too expensive to arm pilots?

Bush's armed pilot plan called 'bad joke'

Pilots press Senate for guns in cockpits

Mineta reverses stand on armed-pilot issue

Boxer signs on to armed-pilot bill

Petition seeks to force armed pilot issue




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

Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily.
 
John - Congrats on 100 posts! It's good having you on board here.

As I've said here before, the more Ayoob I read, the less I believe. It is easy to find contradictions within his "books" which are nothing more than recycled collections of magazine articles written to a target audience.

And, no, I've never heard of an actual case.
 
I carry factory loads because it typically takes five or six trips to the range to develop the most accurate target hand load for a given gun, and I'm sure the task is more complex and time-consuming when full house loads are being considered. I bought six or eight boxes of premium ammunition with hollow-pointed jacketed bullets, and have gone with the most accurate.
 
When I took LFI-1 (one time, at gun camp) I raised this; asking for specific cases in typical tilecrawler fashion. I was given the answer that "it could" (which I agree with) happen, rather than "it happened in these listed cases."

It's funny when this is raised as the "ammunition issue" that arise in cases I am aware of have entailed factory ammo and NOT reloads.:D
 
It's funny when this is raised as the "ammunition issue" that arise in cases I am aware of have entailed factory ammo and NOT reloads. :D

OK, Mr. College: you wanna say that in English? :evil:
 
Ayoob is the main proponent of the point, that being handloads COULD be played up by a prosecutor as: "Members of the jury, not only did the defendant prepare to kill someone, he decided that standard commercial ammunition was inadequate for the task, so he rolled his own extra-super-deadly bullets - is this the act of a reasonable person simply trying to protect himself?" No cases have actually gone that route - as Ayoob is quick to acknowledge - but it's likely just a matter of time.

Ayoob makes it abunantly clear (if you ask) that you can and should do whatever you feel comfortable loading your SD gun with, be it factory or hand loads...and that you should be fully aware of what could happen depending on the choice.

Unfortunately, this whole issue tends to get bent way out of shape. The real view is that handloads COULD conceivably get you in extra trouble, so just be aware and plan accordingly (even if you choose to use them). Ayoob does NOT insist on not using them.
 
ct, good points. I believe Mas was raising an issue and it grew out of control.

Bolshoi Gee, did I lapse into Russian again.:D What I meant to say was that the only criminal, civil and administrative cases that I know of where usage of a certain ammunition is at issue directly or indirectly have been cases in which factory ammo (usually those eeevil exploding hollowpoints) has been used.
 
Al Teehon :neener:

I think judging from most responses here, the majority believe that Mas has used that as a stock issue to fill his columns and "THE FAITHFUL" have transformed it into an axiom of absolute TRUTH.

A fanatic of any stripe makes me heave. Thanks all! :)
 
BigG, that's it exactly. It is as if the students have seized upon one small warning from Mas and made it doctrine or dogma.

When I spoke with him about it, Mas was really clear and rational about it, even using the proper tilecrawler "it depends." However, the gun rags or the young guys who read the gun rags and are eager to emulate their heros have taken this as a rule to live by.

Well, it depends. There COULD be a backblast on handloads, it depends.:D

Almost anything can blowback. Just like his recommendation that you carry what local po-po does. Or, training: "so Mr. Tejon, if that is your real name, isn't it true that you have spent hundreds of hours going to gunfighter school and five days a week train in martial arts so that you can better able harm women, children, minorities, puppies, the environment and the elderly and their Social Security checks."

Tall and Standing make my arguments for factory ammo. I carry Black Hills ammo, but do so because of low flash and their quality. Good people up there.:)
 
Alas, I Fear Mr. Ayoob's Enthusiasm is Showing

See my post on the thread entitled "Cannibals". The title of mine is "Purple Prose". (I think I misspelled Mr. Ayoob's name there; sorry sir:) )
 
Urban legend.

When I am no longer required to carry a certain type of ammo (LEO issued) I will carry my handloads in every weapon that I will carry and no concerns about it.

Think there can't be problems with "factory" ammo??? Try explaining why you carried hot Corbon loads as opposed to the normal factory (Remington, Winchester, etc) loads.

Atty: See......the average factory loads weren't good enough so that person right there............who shot my client.......decided he needed even more powerful ammunition.

Hog wash...........

If the shoot is justified........the shoot is justified.
 
Steve in PA:

Re your post: "Urban legend.

When I am no longer required to carry a certain type of ammo (LEO issued) I will carry my handloads in every weapon that I will carry and no concerns about it.

Think there can't be problems with "factory" ammo??? Try explaining why you carried hot Corbon loads as opposed to the normal factory (Remington, Winchester, etc) loads.

Atty: See......the average factory loads weren't good enough so that person right there............who shot my client.......decided he needed even more powerful ammunition.

Hog wash..........."

I cannot answer the
 
Steve in PA:

Re your post: "Urban legend.

When I am no longer required to carry a certain type of ammo (LEO issued) I will carry my handloads in every weapon that I will carry and no concerns about it.

Think there can't be problems with "factory" ammo??? Try explaining why you carried hot Corbon loads as opposed to the normal factory (Remington, Winchester, etc) loads.

Atty: See......the average factory loads weren't good enough so that person right there............who shot my client.......decided he needed even more powerful ammunition.

Hog wash..........."

I cannot answer the question of fact vs. urban legend, however intrested parties might consider the following. In the case of a defensive shooting, involving a "civilian" or off duty police officer, the first investigation, was there a criminal act on the part of the survivor (shooter), determines that the shooting was legitimate, that is justified. So much for the possible consequences of the criminal statutes.

We then come to, the possibility of civil action, "wrongful death", that sort of thing, where the standards of proof are different, as might be the rules of evidence, and possible penalties, after all, it's just money involved here.

The wounded "bad guy" or his friends/relatives brings a civil action. Here, we might well come to that bit about how "factory ammunition wasn't powerful enought for this blood thirsty individual, who greviously wounded or killed my client".

Remember, most people on juries don't know much about anything, let along firearms or ammunition, or that somewhat arcane business called handloading or reloading. I also do not know if there has ever been a case where final decision hung on the question of factory loads vs. reloaded ammunition.

I shoot competition with handloads. For carry purposes, I use factory ammunition in pistols, usually "ball". Others may do as they choose, I'm merely trying to describe a possibility, for there is and remains that old saw about, One never knows what a jury might do.

By the way, I'm less than certain concerning exactly what Mr. Ayoob had to say on the subject.
 
Remember, most people on juries don't know much about anything, let along firearms or ammunition

A good line of reasoning, I would add to "most people" most attorneys, prosecutors, police officers, and judges...

Of the policemen, attorneys, soldiers, and so on I have known only a small percentage knew jack about guns, ammo, and related subjects. In my estimation, the issue will never arise unless you the enthusiast bring it up or Mas Ayoob is working for the other team! :uhoh:

Of course, my crystal ball is a little cloudy...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top