Reloads a legal nightmare?

[Bubba613]

But that's not what the issue is. The issue is the jury wondering why you needed to make your own and why store bought wasn't good enough for you and your having to explain yourself. The less to explain, the better.

Right.
And as long as you have a reasonable explanation (I handload factory components to recommended specs in order to increase my confidence in my ability to hit what I am aiming at and not kill innocent bystanders) then there is no issue there.
Personally I think the tendency to carry "high capacity" pistols with multiple magazines and dress like a ninja looks a lot worse. But no one has ever been convicted on poor taste.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Innocent, I beg your pardon. It seems that I was unduly harsh with you, you clearly didn't deserve my ire. You needn't worry about hurting my feelings. In my line of work (or former line of work), a think hide is an occupational requirement. I am grateful for your post and apology.

...And as long as you have a reasonable explanation ...then there is no issue...

I guess you missed the part about, "The less to explain, the better." Anyway, do as you see fit, and God bless.

 

[Bubba613]

No I saw that. I guess we'll have to disagree on what is reasonable.
Maybe in a legal hell hole like CA or NY I might be more cautious and agree with you.

 

[luckylogger6]

Here is discussion of relevant cases. I have not done any investigating to the accuracy but its more than you normally get from this question.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2129976&postcount=140

 

[Bubba613]

I wonder how many cases reloads were used and it was not an issue.

I really found them unpersuasive. Maybe that's just me.

 

[Master Blaster]

Master Blaster and Inspector, you're not really playing "devil's advocate." You're just trying to ridicule me and the issues I raised, and which you apparently haven't been fully following and grasping.

I fully follow and grasp your arguement, but I disagree with it.
I still say you are more likely to get in trouble for your association with the NRA because your state of mind and intent in shooting the perpetrator is more of an issue than the gun or ammo you used.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Somethings you may have good reason for, and you take the risks for doing them. Somethings offer little or no benefit, so they aren't worth any risk.

 

[Kleanbore]

Originally posted by HisSoldier:
I guess the answer to your original question is "no". It doesn's look like anyone has came up with any cases of someone being convicted based on factory or reloads alone.

Someone has come up with a case that might well otherwise have ended in acquittal but for the use of hand loads.

Someone has come up with a case that ended in acquittal due to the admissibility of GSR evidence because factory leads were used.

Someone has come up with a case in which the use of hand loads became an issue regarding mens rea, and although the case ended in acquittal, the emergence of said issue required the defense to bring in an expert witness to rebut the accusation. That costs money--real money.

And Fiddletown has graciously explained for us why retrieving the details of what happens in trial courts is not a success oriented endeavor.

 

[Coronach]

Two thoughts:

1. Setting aside debate about how problematic using reloads in a defensive shooting can be, I think we can all agree that it might well be brought up in court. Our opinions may very about how important it will be (varying from difficult to refute down to easy to refute), but I think we're all aware that the issue stands a decent chance of coming up. Given this, should we not look to the other side of the coin and ask ourselves honestly "just how much of an advantage does using homerolled rounds give me in a defensive shooting?" I find it terribly difficult to believe that anyone here is able to load a handgun round better than quality factory ammo to a degree that it will make a wit of difference in 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of defensive shooting situations. Since we're balancing out probabilities, this side of the equation needs to be examined.

2. Everyone is talking about criminal prosecution. What is for more frightening to me is the civil trial. If you are involved in a genuine "good shoot" the chances of you emerging with nothing worse than hefty legal bills is very good. However, the chance of you being sued in civil court for wrongful death is also quite high. And civil court has much lower standards for awarding judgments than criminal court (proof beyond a reasonable doubt vs preponderance of the evidence). We frame our defense of handloads around the idea that the arguments against it do not rise to the level of proof of criminal misconduct. We routinely fail to consider the peril presented by civil courts, where some juries like to dole out money for absolutely silly reasons.

Mike

 

[Bubba613]

First, the existence of one or two cases is not significant in the overall scheme of things. In how many cases were reloads NOT an issue?
Second, ANYTHING can be construed to be a problem. "Your honor, this man was a frequent poster on TheHighRoad, a super tactical forum where people discuss the best way to kill other people." So maybe we should just quit posting and close down all gun fora.
Third, it depends on the ammo and the reason for carrying that. I have yet to find a good SD load for my 3" .44mag. Not many companies make them and the cost to practice with them would be prohibitive. If I chose to carry that gun on a regular basis I would handload my own ammo no question.

 

[Kleanbore]

First, the existence of one or two cases is not significant in the overall scheme of things

One or two? Fiddleback points out that there is no way to know: trial court records are not published. Massad Ayoob has told us of three cases with which he just happened to be personally familiar. You and I, and Ayoob and Fiddleback for that matter, simply don't know the answer; no one does. You can't Google for it, you won't find it via LexisNexis, and since your lawyer can't either, it won't do any good to ask him. I just happened to be visiting with a lawyer friend, and he immediately agreed with Fiddleback, not that anyone would have reason to doubt him.

I used to hear people say things like "I've never heard of anyone running into a problem with...." and as a result of their own actions, they have now, believe me.

Now let's suppose for a moment that the probability that the issue will ultimately impact your trial is in fact remote. That might well be a reasonable assumption. You have to consider also the potential consequences, which range from substantially higher court costs and greater loss of income even should you prevail, through heavy civil penalties as mentioned by Coronach, to criminal conviction leading to loss of your continued gun rights and loss of personal freedom, not to mention possible restitution. At what probability are you willing to accept those risks? For what potential gain?

 

[Bubba613]

Obviously one cannot put a number to it. Everyone will have a different idea of where to draw the line.
Do you think your online postings will become an issue in court? It certainly is possible and since we can't know how often that is an issue, then it remains a possibility.
Is it worth the risk to you to continue to post?

I am perfectly happy to accept the risks (which I perceive as minimal) of carrying reloads (even though I don't right now). If others are unhappy and want to carry factory only, good on them as well.

 

[Kleanbore]

Do you think your online postings will become an issue in court? It certainly is possible and since we can't know how often that is an issue, then it remains a possibility.

That's a very good point. Bubba! Should you be on trial for homicide, it may be more than a possibility, but what it portends will depend of course on what it is you have posted.

Is it worth the risk to you to continue to post?

Depends entirely on what I have said, and how it will sound to the jury.

Are you trying to win an argument here, or are you trying to gain knowledge for your own benefit? I ask that without malice.

 

[tube_ee]

Simple cost / benefit analysis

puts this one right to bed.

There is, clearly, some small-but-non-zero potential cost. There is no clear benefit.

If you are carrying some gun for which there are no quality commercial defensive loads available, or if you're poor enough that the cost of commercial ammo is a problem, that changes the benefit side of the equation, but for the vast majority of CCWers, I just don't see any upside.

Why is this a controversy, let alone one that keeps coming up every month or two?

--Shannon

 

[Loosedhorse]

Playing 's advocate, let me answer, Shannon (tube ee):

The potential benefit is that this handload is more accurate or more reliable (semi-auto) than factory loads in my particular gun.

My answer: Then get a new gun. (Did you really need my permission? )

 

[mccook8]

I carry nothing but factory hollowpoints in my carry guns...

....BUT....

I have NEVER found ANY factory ammunition which is as consistent (in point of impact) as my own handloads.

.....and I have numerous targets which illustrate that very fact.


One of these days, I'm going to pull apart an entire box of factory ammo and weigh each powder charge. I strongly suspect that I'll find AT LEAST a .6 grain variance within that box.

(Has anybody already done that?)

 

[Cosmoline]

That's a sucker question, and I'm not going to play.

Wait a minute--didn't you say you were a lawyer? And you can't give me a quick hypo?

 

[mccook8]

Cosmoline: lawyers don't have to answer questions. They just ASK those questions which they ALREADY know the answers to.

And, in case you've never noticed, neither do they ever have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help (them) God.....

Were it not so, they'd be unable to work their magic....

 

[Kleanbore]

I have NEVER found ANY factory ammunition which is as consistent (in point of impact) as my own handloads......and I have numerous targets which illustrate that very fact.

How is that relevant to self defense?

I don't think that any shortcomings of factory loads that you may be able to demonstrate would enter the equation for civilian self defense. I have difficulty envisioning a situation in which you would be shooting at a distance sufficient to notice the difference and still meet the prerequisites for defense of justification for homicide. In my house you'd be too close to notice. Outside, (1) unless you are being stalked by a gunman, imminent threat would likely not be clearly demonstrable at a distance; and (2) you would likely be expected to evade before engaging, in any circumstance I can envision in which variability in point of impact would have any importance at all. Your target will be torso sized ("body mass") and your distance, usually 21 feet and closing. Double that if you want--it won't change the answer.

Remember, permission to carry does not grant police powers.

didn't you say you were a lawyer? And you can't give me a quick hypo?

I've known many people who have been frustrated when they can't get the corporate attorney to commit in writing on hypothetical situations. The reason that lawyers don't do that is that there are always far too many variables, and (1) the advice is therefore something not to be relied upon in the general case and (2) in cases in which attorney-client privilege does not apply, the written discussion can create difficulties in later advocacy.

 

[mccook8]

Kleanbore:

Accuracy would be EXTREMELY relevant if your attacker was shooting at you from behind partial cover.

....and while "permission to carry does not grant police powers", being currently employed as a police officer, and being within the geographical jurisdiction of that agency....DOES.

My CCW permit is LEOSA.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by fiddletown:
But possible legal ramifications of shooting someone in self defense are real.

Absolutely.

REGARDLESS of the type of ammunition used, whether it be handloaded, factory, hollow points, large calibers such as the 10mm that aren't widely used, etc.

I don't reload, but even if I did, I wouldn't lose any sleep about having to use it in a self-defense situation.

Thus far, I've seen NOTHING in this thread to convince me that reloads are "a legal nightmare". All we've seen is a tiny number of obscure cases where they caused legal problems for a few individuals.

We've also seen examples in this thread like the Harold Fish case in Arizona, where a man justifiably defended himself with FACTORY ammo, and STILL ended up in prison.

I'd be willing to bet that far more examples can be found where individuals who used factory ammo to defend themselves ended up in prison, than those who used reloads.

Using a handgun for self-defense with ANY type of ammunition can be a legal nightmare. Just ask Harold Fish.

However, that doesn't mean we should stop using handguns for self-defense. Likewise, I don't think this thread is going to stop many reloaders from using reloaded ammunition for self-defense.

 

[Kleanbore]

Accuracy would be EXTREMELY relevant if your attacker was shooting at you from behind partial cover. ....and while "permission to carry does not grant police powers", being currently employed as a police officer, and being within the geographical jurisdiction of that agency....DOES

.

Makes a lot of sense in your situation. However, I referred to civilian self defense in situations in which defense of justifiability is likely, meaning either castle doctrine or when use of deadly force is the only resort when threat of death or bodily harm is imminent.

In your profession you have the duty to purse and neutralize someone using a deadly weapon. Civilians are prohibited from doing so.

 

[massad ayoob]

We have carry gun/factory JHP ammo combinations out there that can achieve one-inch groups at 25 yards. Two-inch groups are fairly common.

What are the chances of needing tighter accuracy than that in a firefight, particularly in light of the user's ability to deliver that accuracy in a field position with bullets coming his way?

And how do those chances compare to the likelihood of the actual gunfight taking place so close that gunshot residue on the opponent's body or clothing will be an issue in determining whether or not you were right to shoot him? Probably much higher.

That, I think, is where the real issue comes in. Much of the latter part of this thread has focused on what might be called the "second tier problem" with defensive handloads, the potential demonization in court.

However, from what I've seen, the "first tier problem" is going to be the inability to forensically replicate the GSR patterns of handloads. When our account of the incident is questioned -- and we have to assume it will be -- we cannot expect the Court to take our word for what is in the handloads.

We saw that in the Bias case, where the defendant's own lawyers said he probably would not have gone to prison if his gun had been loaded with factory ammo that could have been verified. Remember, NO ONE HAS FOUND A CASE WHERE THE COURT ACCEPTED THE SHOOTER'S WORD OR RELOADING RECORDS AS TO THE COMPOSITION OF HIS HANDLOADS. THIS WILL PREVENT A TRUE GSR TEST TO DETERMINE ACTUAL DISTANCE.

This can be the difference between a Guilty verdict or a Not Guilty, as it was for Bias. It can be the difference between a defense verdict or a plaintiff's verdict in a civil case.

Because armed citizen shootings and police action shootings alike often occur at very close range, this element seems to be much more important than the rare situation where a precise "partially exposed head shot" has to be taken at long range.

As others have said here, it's about balancing predictable need against predictable risk.

 

[fineredmist]

I can easily see a problem if one would handload ammo with components that are not permitted or are restricted to commercial loaders such as armor piercing and explosive bullets but I cannot see any problem with a load that is similiar to mass produced factory ammo. A legal round is a legal round regardless of who put it together.

 

[Kleanbore]

I can easily see a problem if one would handload ammo with components that are not permitted or are restricted to commercial loaders such as armor piercing and explosive bullets but I cannot see any problem with a load that is similiar to mass produced factory ammo. A legal round is a legal round regardless of who put it together.

I'm sure you sent this before reading Massad's post of 8:27 AM.

It is the issue of admissibility of GSR evidence that I consider most important.