Reloads a legal nightmare?

[Floppy_D]

Simply loading with a street-proven factory round, and practicing with handloaded duplicates for cost-effective training, seems to be a perfect compromise.

Works for me.

 

[Bubba613]

I'll stand with the "I'll use what works best for me, thanks" crowd. Going to factory when handloads work better for me (and I'll add personally I do not handload and do carry factory ammo) simply because of an amorphous, unproven possible legal liability is letting the legal system beat you before you ever set foot in court.
That said, there are handloads and there are handloads. I would think the rule is, anything that looks really unusual is going to attract lots of attention.
So carrying a DE in .50AE is likely to cause problems. Carrying a snub in .454 casul is probably asking for trouble. Loading well beyond manual specs and/or casting one's own extra lethal bullets sounds like a bad idea to me.

 

[crushbup]

I won't, if only because I don't think it's possible to properly handload an SD cartridge. Manufacturers have time and money that individuals don't. That money goes to R&D. They can use that data to make effective rounds that they then test and refine until it is perfect. Maybe over a very long amount of time I could accomplish that, but instead of taking years worth of work that could be surpassed in weeks by a munufacturer, I'll take 10 minutes to order some Federal HST. (I don't think they sell the bullets used in HST, anyway)

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'll stand with the "I'll use what works best for me, thanks" crowd. ...

And yet you say that you

...and I'll add personally I do not handload and do carry factory ammo...

don't reload and actually carry factory ammunition.

... Going to factory when handloads work better for me ...simply because of an amorphous, unproven possible legal liability is letting the legal system beat you before you ever set foot in court.

I prefer to think of it as proper planning in light of an unpleasant reality -- sort of like the way we keep canned goods, extra water and other supplies around in case of earthquake. Going through the meat grinder that is our legal system can be an awful experience. It is highly stressful, wildly expensive and can strain families to the breaking point. I know and understand it, and I'd want every edge I could have if it's my freedom and property at stake.

 

[Deanimator]

BECAUSE of, not likely.

As a contributing factor where the person showed bad judgement, made ill-advised statements without benefit of counsel, etc.

I save so much money practicing with reloads that I can afford to keep factory ammunition around for self-defense. Of course Winchester White Box 9x19mm 147gr. JHPs are good self-defense ammunition and relatively inexpensive in the first place. All of my other factory ammunition is a bit more expensive, but I save enough reloading to make up the difference with no problem.

 

[calaverasslim]

+1 with fiddletown. Masaad Ayoob(I think I have it spelled right) who writes for a gun magazine has said a number of times about what fiddletown has said. He has testified in several cases on this same subject.

Basically, don't carry handloads for self defense. Use them for plinking and carry when hunting or hiking. If you even think you might end up in a shooting situation, always, always, load with factory ammo.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If I am interpreting Massad Ayoob's post correctly, NJ v. Daniel Bias suggests that even if you DO keep exemplars of your handloaded carry ammo, they may not help you.

If that is the case, then the legal risk of handloads carried for SD is even higher than I expressed at post #15.

Thanks for the ed, Mas, from me as well--for the manyeth time.

 

[Bubba613]

I won't, if only because I don't think it's possible to properly handload an SD cartridge. Manufacturers have time and money that individuals don't. That money goes to R&D. They can use that data to make effective rounds that they then test and refine until it is perfect. Maybe over a very long amount of time I could accomplish that, but instead of taking years worth of work that could be surpassed in weeks by a munufacturer, I'll take 10 minutes to order some Federal HST. (I don't think they sell the bullets used in HST, anyway)

The flip side of that is that manufacturers have to load for every kind of gun chambered in that round. They have to keep in mind that people will shoot .38spc+P in 50 year old Colts.
You otoh can tailor the round to perform optimally in your own gun, according to your own shooting style. That is the only reason I can think of to use handloads for SD.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...tailor the round to perform optimally in your own gun, according to your own shooting style...

I'm not sure that this is really such a big deal for self defense. Bullseye shooters of course need to fine tune accuracy to the nth degree. And many IPSC shooters will load for a type of recoil pulse they find most congenial. But we're talking about tiny increments here.

Of course, I test various commercial self defense loads in various of the gun I might use for self defense (a good excuse to shoot more). If I found a brand or type of ammunition that I found unmanageable or inaccurate or unreliable in a particular gun, I wouldn't use it. But over the years I've tried out self defense ammunition from most of the major manufacturers (at least in .45 ACP and 9mm) and have yet to find anything that didn't preform satisfactorily in my self defense guns.

Just as I'd want every possible edge in court, I'd certainly want every possible edge if I were unlucky enough to find myself in a situation in which I needed to rely on my gun to defend myself or family. I think I stack the deck in my favor in that regard by: having good quality guns that are accurate, completely reliable and that suit me; getting periodic professional training with those guns; practicing regularly; and using quality [factory] ammunition that has proven itself accurate and reliable for me.

 

[Art Eatman]

Among other things, I'm an old race car driver. "Calculated risk" are important words, IMO. At 200 mph, tires & brakes & curve radii are all part of the risks.

So, the same holds when dealing with the unknowable as regards the views and beliefs of anybody with some power over me, such as prosecutors and jurors.

Since factory loads work just as well in my self-defense critters as do my handloads, my calculation is that the legal risk is reduced via using factory loads. My physical risk is not increased.

Ain't that easy?

, Art

 

[HisSoldier]

"I don't think it's possible to properly handload an SD cartridge."

Hmm, that may be, I haven't handloaded a cartridge since the old Lee loader whack it with a hammer days, I use a machine designed for the task.

Well, the above isn't actually true, I do handload my black powders, and unfortunately many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and wounded with those.

If you are saying that reloads are not reliable or effective we may have an argument. If you are saying they are not as reliable or effective as factory,,,,,we may still have an argument.

 

[revjen45]

Haven't seen this mentioned yet:
Factory ammo has better repeatability for forensic purposes. If you say you shot an assailant (or if you say nothing and let the evidence speak for itself) at point blank range the stippling from factory ammo can verify the conditions more easily than handloads. Do you load with Bullseye or Unique? The results on the target will be harder to verify with "non-standard" ammo. I carry WWB 147 gr JHP. It functions in my gun and probably works as well on the assailant as anything I could load myself. Also "Winchester White Box" doesn't sound as blood thirsty as "Super Flesh Ripper Death Claws" or some other tripe dreamed up by marketing weasels.

 

[.38 Special]

Anyone taking bets on how long it will be before someone starts a thread asking about the legal ramifications of handloads for self defense, followed by a bunch of chest-thumpers going on about how there isn't a shred of evidence and Ayoob is a liar, followed by Ayoob presenting said evidence... again?

I've got five dollars on Thursday after next.

 

[never_retreat]

Enough is enough.
So what you shoot someone with your reloads. The DA says did you reload them? No I didn't. Correct answer is.
They might be from some surplus stuff I got at a flee market.
Or I don't recall where I got them from.
You are not responsible to keep track of where ammo comes from.

 

[Noxx]

the less I have to explain, the better off I am.

Quotable wisdom, that.

I reload by the bucket for the range, and load factory after I clean my guns and put them on the nightstand. DPX isn't cheap, but neither is car insurance, PMI, etc, the other expenses we pay for peace of mind without a thought.

 

[Noxx]

So what you shoot someone with your reloads. The DA says did you reload them? No I didn't. Correct answer is.
They might be from some surplus stuff I got at a flee market.
Or I don't recall where I got them from.

This deserves a response.

Morality aside, lying is NEVER the correct answer in a legal situation. If it can be proven, or even intimated that you lied about "X", your statement of "Y" falls into doubt.

 

[justice4all]

As a lawyer/prosecutor, I don't personally see it being much of an issue in a criminal case. I cannot recall any case where law enforcement paid any attention to whether or not the ammunition used was handloaded or factory. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't thik it's very likely to be an issue in 99.99% of the cases.

If this evidence is going to be used, as fiddletown suggests, to impeach your character and credibilty, it should not be admitted. Character is generally not at issue, and credibility cannot be proven or disproven by what ammunition you used.

If the prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney wanted to make a big deal out of the ammo you used, and the judge allowed it, you would then need to hire your own expert to explain to the jury about handloading.

Personally, I carry factory ammo, because my handloads for pistols are low-power plinking rounds, and becasue I don't yet trust my own handloading skills as much as I trust factory ammo.

 

[never_retreat]

This deserves a response.

Morality aside, lying is NEVER the correct answer in a legal situation. If it can be proven, or even intimated that you lied about "X", your statement of "Y" falls into doubt.

The way I look at it is that if they want to bring up petty crap and lie to the courtroom, reloads being extra special death seeking bullets bla bla bla

Than its fair game to do what ever you need to do.

Hey cops will lie to put you in jail, might as well lie to keep your ass out.

Or the best catch all
I have no relocation of that matter.

 

[larry_minn]

Let me ask a question to the learned folks (and those who stayed in a Super 8 in the last yr)
Do you have any idea why the Defendent comes into the court in a suit? Why he (or she) has their hair cut nicely, acts respectful in courtroom? When this is NOT their normal dress/actions...











I will give a hint. Its because they want a favorable IMPRESSION from the jury (and judge) I can't be the only one who sat on a jury? Even if you didn't care do you recall at least someone remarking during deliberations "you know he looked this way/acted this way/etc when this was said" Or heaven forbid "He kept pulling on his tie till he broke the top button of that nice shirt"

People WILL judge you for stupid things. Do you think it won't stick in the mind that it was repeatedly stated that you loaded ammo for the spacific reason to KILL. Factory ammo was not good enough. If your load goes 10fps faster then a factory load he may harp on that.
As said it will NOT be allowed for comparision. Never mind you keep records. have 1000 other rds loaded exactly the same. NO thanks.
Now if I happen to have my reloads handy when I am around the home and need to use it I will... If I am going to town factory ammo.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If this evidence is going to be used, ... to impeach your character and credibilty, it should not be admitted. Character is generally not at issue, and credibility cannot be proven or disproven by what ammunition you used.

Really? I'd say character could easily be made an issue, especially when the defendant is claiming self defense. If the defendant is claiming that he reasonably believed his life to be in danger, you don't think that there might be competent character evidence to challenge that assertion. The standard, as I understand it, is whether an ordinary, reasonable person in like circumstances would reasonably believe his life to be in danger. So if th defendant testifies that he believed his life to be in danger, warranting the use of lethal force, it would certainly be proper to look at whether or not the defendant saw things as "an ordinary, reasonable person." What about evidence from you you could argue that a jury could infer that the defendant was of a violent disposition or obsessed with violence?

Are you saying that as a prosecutor, if you had the opportunity to argue that the defendant claiming he shot in self defense is a gun nut obsessed with maximizing the destructive potential of ammunition and engaging in violent encounters, and that the jury may therefore conclude that the defendant overreacted and unnecessarily responded with lethal force to a non-life threatening situation, you would not take that opportunity?

 

[justice4all]

I would not personally make an issue out of what kind of ammo, or gun for that matter, a defendant used. If the situation is that iffy that it turns on something like that, I've already lost. Plus, I was a prosecutor in an area where the jury pool generally knew about guns, so such a strategy would have lost me credibiltiy with the jury.

The only character that should be at issue in a shooting case is the character of the accused and the victim for violence/peacefulness. Generally, the defendant has to open the door to this sort of character evidence, by bolstering his own peacefulness, or by showing that the victim was violent. So if the defendant brings in several people to say that he would never be the aggressor in a confrontation or to say that the victim was always starting fights, maybe the prosecutor could try to rebut that with evidence that he used handloads. But it doesn't seem to follow that if someone uses handloads, they are more aggressive.

The issue for self-defense will be whether a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have felt the need to respond with deadly force--an objective component--and whether the defendant himself actually believed he needed to defend himself--a subjective one.

My opinion, and it's just that, is that if you are quibbling over what sort of ammo the defendant used, there's going to be reasonable doubt, and you've lost the case, at least where I was a prosecutor. Jury pools vary.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The standard, as I understand it, is whether an ordinary, reasonable person in like circumstances would reasonably believe his life to be in danger.

Almost. We have to add to ordinary, reasonable person "knowing what the defendant knew at the time."

This most often comes up with "special knowledge" that the defendant may know through training (like the 21-ft Teuller rule for contact weapons). It might therefore also apply to special knowledge about the purpose of handloading, and the usual capabilities of handloaded ammunition. This may be "special knowledge" beyond the ken of the "ordinary knowledge" of the jury, and so require expert testimony.

I agree that this would seem to be admissable, unless the judge, upon hearing the expert testimony himself and feeling that testimony about the ammunition would have greater prejudicial effect than probative value, excludes it. But the judge might easily decide this matter is one for the jury to decide, and let the testimony come in from each side. Battle of the experts.

And who needs that at your self-defense trial, if you could easily avoid it? Not me.

 

[Cosmoline]

ther "gun nut" stuff can be used to attack your character and credibility.

Give me a hypothetical case where a DA would be able to use a handload as evidence of character under the rules of evidence. What's the relevance? That you made deadly ammunition "extra deadly"? That doesn't even make sense. How is it proof of "character" as that term is used in the rules of evidence? Unless you have lied about the rounds or disclaimed any role in the shooting, evidence that the rounds were hand loaded would have no bearing on the case. It does not make any matter more likely true than not, and does not establish the truthfulness or untruthfulness of a defendant witness. It is not a crime, to be sure. And to the extent a DA tries to use "scary handloads" to show you MUST be a murderer, he would be running headlong into Rule 403 problems and would create an excellent appeal point.

I'd say character could easily be made an issue, especially when the defendant is claiming self defense. If the defendant is claiming that he reasonably believed his life to be in danger, you don't think that there might be competent character evidence to challenge that assertion.

How is handloading evidence of character? That makes no sense. You need to cite the specific rule of evidence you're looking at. Evidence that someone is "a nut" does not cut the mustard under any rules I know of, nor would it be approved by any competent court. Maybe California doesn't have rules or competent courts. But if that's the case, then the response of any rational person would not be to avoid handloads but to GET THE HECK OUT OF CALIFORNIA! If your juries are that stupid and your judges that corrupt, you are boned in any SD situation. Whether you use factory ammo or a pointed stick.

MOREOVER, if you are correct then factory ammo isn't safe either. If a DA is allowed to use evidence of handloads to show "character," then he would be allowed to attack you for picking nasty hollowpoints designed to maim and kill. Or for picking +p ammunition. Or for having a firearm to begin with! Once you go down that road, the only choice is to either go unarmed and let yourself get killed or leave the state completely. Opting for factory ammo over handloads gets you NOTHING.

 

[Cosmoline]

I reload by the bucket for the range, and load factory after I clean my guns and put them on the nightstand. DPX isn't cheap, but neither is car insurance, PMI, etc,.

So your idea is to use DEEP PENETRATING X-BULLETS that come in a MEAN BLACK BOX instead of handloads? The box with the big red X on it? If a DA can use handloads against you, he could have a FRICKING FIELD DAY with this stuff. The videos showing X bullets turning gelatin into a bursting balloon would come into court, if your theory of evidence is correct. Choosing these over handloads GETS YOU NOTHING!


http://www.chuckhawks.com/cor-bon_DPX_pistol.htm

Or you can stop trying to predict what juries will do and start concentrating on defending yourself under the rules of LAW. If you go down the road of fear-mongering and paranoia, the only solution is to disarm yourself entirely.

 

[ultramag44]

Wow! This is more spirited then any thread I can ever remember.

Two things:

1.) NEVER, EVER lie to the police, or a DA. If you are asked ANY question in a interview that you feel you can't answer (to them) truthfully, simply say: "I won't discuss that". The minute you lie to the police, they will know, or find out really fast. Once your credibility is gone...listen for the sound of violins! The only time a DA can force a question to be answered (outside of court) is in front of a Grand Jury (check me on this point you fine 'Officers of the Court')

2.) Here in Texas we have a strong "Castle Doctrine Law". It extends to our business, homes & automobiles. We are protected from criminal AND civil litigation; if we are put in a position to have no choice but to use deadly force, regardless if it's factory, or reloads with component bullets, or home-cast boolits.

This is a serious business, but honest folks are protected by law in Texas when they do what that have to to protect their families.