Do you carry with your own reloads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We are talking about being in court. You are in trouble.

Weapons issues come into play if you are in court.

Thus, significant societal forces think it is a bad shoot.

Is this so darn hard for some people to understand?

So if you continue to say - If it is a good shoot - you really have a problem in thinking this through.

Also - go read the literature on what influences juries. Since you are in court, the jury is predisposed to think you did it (OH, horrors - everyone is presumed innocent - yeah).

The prosecution can simply and factually discuss the weapon and ammo. The simple description can influence judgment. We know this from simulations and attorneys have mentioned how this is done.

That doesn't make the legal data bases - so show me the case, is another statement by those who really don't understand the total situation.

I also note that no one has come up with a real case where someone lost the gun fight because of handloads. Thus the evidential burdern from the handloaders has failed. They have not shown any benefit.

Understand this - if you are in court, the situation is ambiguous. Many things influence the jury - nothing is the definite deciding factor. If there is doubt about your actions - an appearance issue may tip a jury or two.

We also know that a strong view can sway an entire jury. Not everyone is channeling Charleton Heston in your favor, gun boy.
 
Clarification

If for some reason, I have reached dire straits and can no longer afford to buy factory ammo, I will use up my supply of reloading components for concealed carry, rather than not carry. I still will always use factory SD ammo at all times unless I absolutely cannot, but foremost, I will refuse to go unarmed.
 
Folks are so dire. Who said go UNARMED!

One can buy a box of quality SD rounds for about $25. If you in such bad straights as not to have that amount, then you have more to worry about than reloading.

It's a tank of gas nowadays for a fuel efficient car.

Such melodrama.
 
Melodrama, on the Internet? Say it ain't so! My suggestion in tough financial times would be to not shoot up your remaining supply of ammo, so that you still have enough for self defense purposes.
 
Last edited:
Yes I Do

When I carry one of my revolvers I load it with my handloads. When I carry a semi-auto pistol I load factory. I hate running around picking up the cases so I can reload them.:eek:
 
P5 Guy said:
When I carry one of my revolvers I load it with my handloads. When I carry a semi-auto pistol I load factory. I hate running around picking up the cases so I can reload them.
Click to expand...
We're talking a homicide here. You shouldn't be running around picking up the cases after a self defense shooting, unless you want to police to add "tampering with evidence" to any other charges they might feel disposed to lay on you.
 
We are talking about being in court. You are in trouble.

Weapons issues come into play if you are in court.

Thus, significant societal forces think it is a bad shoot.

Is this so darn hard for some people to understand?
Click to expand...

For many people, no. For others...yes, it is hard to understand. The reason is that they do not know the law, the legal process, or anything outside of watching Law & Order each week. There are people who believe many of the CCW and SD myths perpetuated by those who do not know anything. There are people who believe every shooting will be a major trial, and every shooting, in which reloads were used, will wind up with a murder conviction. There are people who believe you need to wait until someone steps through the threshold of your front door, with a deadly weapon, before you can legally shoot them in defense. There are firearms instructors who believe this crap as well, and spread it like a bad STD.
 
.357SIG said:
...There are people who believe every shooting will be a major trial, and every shooting, in which reloads were used, will wind up with a murder conviction....
Click to expand...
I don't see anyone here saying anything like that. But I think what is true is the following:

  1. Most defensive gun uses turn out to be clearly justified. And although there will be an investigation, the defender will be usually be quickly cleared.
  2. But there have been cases in which a legitimate and justified use of lethal force has been challenged, and the defender charged and brought to trial.
  3. You can not know ahead of time whether if you ever have to use a gun in self defense, you will be quickly cleared or you will have to go though the legal meat-grinder.
  4. You could be forced by circumstances beyond your control into situation which you reasonably conclude is dire and in which you will be forced to make an instantaneous decision to use lethal force. Your instantaneous decision will be second guessed by the authorities at their leisure, and your decision to use lethal force will be open to challenge in the great tradition of Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
  5. You do of course use all your powers of situational awareness and conflict avoidance, but even your great skill at such can not guarantee success.
  6. If you do get caught up in the legal system, it will be an expensive and emotionally torturous experience.
  7. Anything you can do ahead of time to reduce or eliminate avoidable possible complications will be in your interest.
  8. One such complication is the use of handloads. It's avoided by simply using factory ammunition. And doing so will not impair your ability to defend yourself on the street.

I believe in stacking the deck in my favor whenever I can, and especially when I can do something as simple as just loading my self defense guns with factory ammunition.

Anyone who wants to use handloads for self defense is of course free to do so. It won't be my problem.
 
Last edited:
The reason is that they do not know the law, the legal process, or anything outside of watching Law & Order each week.
Click to expand...
Given that several of the people who have contributed to this thread are attorneys, I think that perhaps this comment may be just a tad bit off base.
There are people who believe many of the CCW and SD myths perpetuated by those who do not know anything. There are people who believe every shooting will be a major trial, and every shooting, in which reloads were used, will wind up with a murder conviction. There are people who believe you need to wait until someone steps through the threshold of your front door, with a deadly weapon, before you can legally shoot them in defense. There are firearms instructors who believe this crap as well, and spread it like a bad STD.
Click to expand...
There may be some people like this but I can't find evidence that anyone on this thread is like this or believes any of these things.

The fact is that a good number of the people I've seen who advocate not using reloads for self-defense are quite knowledgeable, quite experienced, quite reasonable, and understand and have participated extensively in the legal system.
 
whether the loads were light or heavy had no bearing on the evidentiary issue.
Click to expand...

The loads being light created the evidentiary issue for Bias. The evidence on it's face suggested that she was shot from across the room because she had little or no GSR on her. They would not allow his reloads to be used to test to support evidence because of the bubba factor, conclusion...don't carry light loads if you do have reloads in your gun. I'm ok with that. Do the make a 45acp version of DragonsBreath? That should leave plenty of GSR for them.
 
Edward429451 said:
The loads being light created the evidentiary issue for Bias. The evidence on it's face suggested that she was shot from across the room because she had little or no GSR on her...
Click to expand...
Nope, what created the evidentiary issue was that the loads were handloads.

The prosecution claimed that Mrs. Bias was shot from a distance because her corpse showed no GSR tattooing.

Bias attempted to introduce into evidence expert testimony based on GSR testing of his handloaded ammunition that Bias claimed was identical to the handloaded "death round." That testimony would have been to the effect that the handloaded ammunition that Bias claimed was identical to the handloaded "death round" actually would not show GSR tattooing at the close distance at which Bias claimed his wife shot herself.

What Bias wanted to introduce into evidence would have corroborated his story. But the offered testimony was not allowed into evidence. That was the evidentiary issue.

Edward429451 said:
...They would not allow his reloads to be used to test to support evidence because of the bubba factor,...
Click to expand...
There is no "bubba factor" involved. Bias' expert's tests were not permitted into evidence because an adequate foundation for admission could not be laid. And an adequate foundation could not be laid because, since the ammunition was handloads, the judge could not be satisfied that the tested ammunition matched the "death round."

Edward429451 said:
...conclusion...don't carry light loads if you do have reloads in your gun...Do the make a 45acp version of DragonsBreath? That should leave plenty of GSR for them.
Click to expand...
And that is the wrong conclusion.

To understand the application of the rules of evidence with regard to the introduction of an expert opinion based on a scientific test, see my posit 71.

The issue has nothing to do with how much GSR is produced. The issue is whether it can be established that whatever was tested was the same as what was fired in the incident. And that's pretty much not going to happen with handloads.
 
I hate to be repetitive here but it appears to me that the rounds that remaining in Bias' gun--and which Bias admitted to be his reloads--were tested by the state crime lab. Bold type/underlining are mine.

Quote:
Sgt. 1st Class Carl Leisinger III, of the New Jersey State Police Firearms I.D. Bureau, testified on his examination of Bias' hand-loaded ammunition and tests conducted for gunpowder residue.

Leisinger said the 110.2-grain hand-cast lead semi-wad-cutter bullet that killed Lise Bias was fired from Bias' revolver. He said the Remington-Peters shell casing and primer had distinctive marks showing it was fired from the gun.

Leisinger said the other three cartridges found in Bias' revolver were 133.7-grain cast lead semi-wad-cutter bullets with three grains of small-disc powder and loaded in federal casings. A fourth federal cartridge was found on the dresser in the bedroom. Other 110.2 semi-wad-cutter bullets loaded in Remington-Peters casings were found in Bias' attic. Tests showed that these bullets were loaded with 3.1 grains of powder.

Leisinger conducted gunpowder residue tests on both types of hand-loaded bullets at distances of 20 inches, 30 inches, 45 inches and 50 inches. Both types of bullets left heavy residue at 20 inches and medium residue at 30 inches. Leisinger noted that traces of residue were found at 45 inches and none was found at 50 inches.
http://articles.mcall.com/1990-10-30...esidue-bullets
Click to expand...

The defense simply did not like the results.They were also unsuccessful in getting their their tests, on their exemplars, admitted. Was the 'best evidence' (my legalese may be off here, so I'll ask forgiveness in advance) rule argued by the state?
 
Last edited:
Sarge said:
...Was the 'best evidence' (my legalese may be off here, so I'll ask forgiveness in advance) rule argued by the state?
Click to expand...
The best evidence rule would have absolutely no application here. The best evidence rule applies only to documents. See here:
The best evidence rule applies when a party wants to admit as evidence the contents of a document at trial, but that the original document is not available. In this case, the party must provide an acceptable excuse for its absence. If the document itself is not available, and the court finds the excuse provided acceptable, then the party is allowed to use secondary evidence to prove the contents of the document and have it as admissible evidence. The best evidence rule only applies when a party seeks to prove the contents of the document sought to be admitted as evidence.
Click to expand...

The defense expert's testimony based on his tests was not admitted for the reasons discussed previously.
 
Sarge said:
...I presume the Sergeant's testimony and lab results were admitted.
Click to expand...
From the Massad Ayood article (see post 80, emphasis added):
...Seeing the devastating effects of the GSR evidence against Bias the first time around, Smith [Bias' lawyer] attacked the evidence gathering. She explained to me much later, "I think in the second trial, I was able to effectively cross examine Dr. Mihalakis (the ME who did the autopsy) about how the evidence was collected (and) was able to really raise doubts about the GSR issue. I don't think the second jury was convinced one way or the other about the GSR evidence." Thus, while the state was unable to show that the GSR should convict Danny, the defense was likewise unable to show GSR evidence that would have exonerated him. The second trial also ended with a hung jury.....
Click to expand...
 
This has been a most enlightening thread, and thanks to all. I had never considered GSR as a means to help exonerate or convict. Never knew why some claim handloads are a bad idea. I do now. It seems like a no brainer. You gentlemen can continue to argue the fine points of the case in question, but I'm very satisfied that factory ammo used in SD can be repeated in the lab, and the GSR results can help to exonerate.

No such claim can be made with handloads. Why not give yourself every possible advantage. I can see factory ammo is the smart choice, but of course use whatever you have in the gun at the time. They say opportunity ( and a successful outcome ) favor the prepared mind. If there were a SD shooting while hunting, and handloads were used, then that would be that, but in any other conceivable scenario that I can think of, factory ammo seems like a no brainer to help stack the deck in your favor in the event life and liberty depend on it.

Thanks to all for helping me understand the importance GSR could play in a SD shooting, and the intrinsically important roll factory ammo would play to that end.

Be safe...
 
That is an excellent contribution. As mods, if this starts again we will refer posters to read it before opining without touching on this wealth of knowledge and insight.
 
Folks are so dire. Who said go UNARMED!

One can buy a box of quality SD rounds for about $25. If you in such bad straights as not to have that amount, then you have more to worry about than reloading.

It's a tank of gas nowadays for a fuel efficient car.

Such melodrama.
Click to expand...
I simply meant that it is more important for me to remain armed, even though I'm a proponent of carrying factory ammo only. A blind man could have seen that with a cane. I also submit that you have no idea what can happen to the cost of said ammo in the future. Good for you that it doesn't matter.

Such arrogance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top