Consequences of using reloads for defensive shooting is that you may have your reloading equipment/components confiscated during investigation/trial.
BDS, I don't think anyone in that other thread was suggesting that having a bit of property confiscated was even one of the primary consequences of using reloads.
At the risk of rehashing that debate -- which I don't think we need to do -- there were two primary concerns:
1) Your reloading habit (and your "super lethal" reloads) might be portrayed as suggesting a mindset which predisposes you to violence, casting doubt on the
necessity of your actions. The prosecutor might try to portray you as a "Rambo" type who was out looking for a fight, and thus you were a mutual combatant, not an unfortunate victim of potentially lethal violence who acted as a reasonable and prudent person acting to save his life.
This one has been pretty much denigrated as a realistic concern. A good defense attorney should be able to cut off that line of attack and focus on the facts of the case.
2) IF your defensive shooting was called into question AND some critical facet of your self defense claim hinged on evidence supplied by gun shot residue (GSR) testing, there is a chance that data obtained through testing YOUR ammo might not be admissible
in your defense. You'll have to read the other thread to see the arguments for and against that theory.
As far as concerns over having things confiscated, that often just plain happens when someone is on trial for murder/manslaughter and/or trying to establish a self-defense claim. There are examples of "simple" defensive shootings where the investigating officers confiscated every firearm in the house and all ammo until things were all sorted out. All you can count on is that life is going to SUCK for a while if you ever shoot someone for any reason. The fact that they might pack up and haul off your Dillon 550 and a few lbs. of powder for testing isn't really a compelling factor in this decision.