Extra mags and Reloads for CCW

T

TennJed

New member
First a disclaimer, I am not against carrying extra mags for all the logical reasons like malfunctions. I have not carried them in the past, but I am considering it. One thing concerns me though. We have all seen the warning about an overzealous prosecutor going after someone carrying reloads because he can present the case of a "killer making his own high powered ammo"

Could the same not be said for carrying spare mags. Imagine you have your glock 19 with 15 rounds and an extra 17 round mad in your pocket. You are involved in the common one to two shot SD scenario. The question then comes up on why you felt the need to carry 30+ rounds (or heaven forbid 45+).

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. At the time of the killing Mr. Smith had over 30 rounds on his person. Let me ask you, does this sound like someone wanting to protect themselves or someone looking for a gun fight?"

And mr. fair and balanced news person has the headline "ammo laden man shoots young citizen and claims stand your ground defense"

Am I over thinking this?
 
Yes; Massad Ayoob...

yes

please read the magazine articles by noted author, gun writer, tactics trainer & sworn LE officer(Captain at last check ;)) Massad F Ayoob, www.massadayoobgroup.com . Ayoob wrote at length on this very subject. He put out a few well know high volume firefights like the trolley Mall event in Utah or OR where a young off-duty sworn LE officer was on his last 1911a1 series .45acp pistol magazine, confronted by a violent spree killer.

I suggest using ball or FMJ rounds for spare magazines. You may need them for penetration if the subject is now behind a barrier or hiding in a protracted gun fight. Milspec or PowRball type loads feed well & have less jams.
In 9x19mm or 9mm Luger, Id use the Hornady TAP, the great Critical Duty +P 135gr or the DPX but use Buffalo Bore 124gr +P+ FMC rounds in the spare mags. .45acp too(220 gr Hornady Critical Duty or Speer Gold Dot 230gr JHP +P) with milspec 230 gr FMJ rounds.

ClydeFrog
 
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

I've never heard or read of anyone having an undesirable verdict rendered against them due to carrying spare magazines. Now, that's not to say that a prosecutor couldn't try to go after you over it, but I think the advantages outweigh the risk. Honestly, there are only two cases in which I can even imagine a prosecutor even trying such a stunt: a shooting that's questionable to begin with where he hopes the extra mags might tip the balance in his favor, or a case in which the shooting was clearly justified and the prosecutor is grasping at straws absent any real evidence.

The fact of the matter is that a prosecutor could concievably go after you for any choice of gun, ammunition, or accessory if he has a vivid enough imagination. It is possible that using a single-action revolver with no extra ammo could prompt the prosecutor to try painting you as a "Wild Bill wannabe" or some other such nonsense. This does not, however, mean that such far-fetched mud slinging will stick. It seems to me that rather than worry about every minute detail of you gun and gear, it would be far more productive to have a reasonable and easily articulated rationale behind your choices and a good lawyer. For example, if you carry a Glock (or any other common brand of semi-auto) loaded with factory JHP ammunition and one or more spare magazines, you should be able to fairly easily answer the "high-capacity assault pistol loaded with baby-killer ammo" accusations by simply pointing out that a majority of American police officers carry similar or identical guns, JHP ammunition, and spare magazines. You see, the statement "if it's good enough for the police, then I figure it's good enough for me" sounds both rational and reasonable to most people even if they're not "gun people."
 
I can't see it being a problem unless you empty the second mag into him after he was no longer a threat. Also if you need a second mag and don't have one then you could be dead so you wouldn't have to worry about a problem in court.
 
Caveat: I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer, and I'm not a lawyer in your jurisdiction. Take what I have to say for being worth what you paid for it.

Some time ago, I put together An Archive Regarding Reloads and Self-Defense. On the issue of reloads and SD, that's a good place to start on that particular issue. (Hopefully, I'll get around to better organizing the Archive soon.)

That said, I won't go into great detail regarding reloads here, as that's not really the question at hand. I will say, however, that there are some issues about reloads that are qualitatively different from the issues surrounding the carrying of extra mags. Any problem that I could foresee with extra mags are basically jury perception problems, the kind where a prosecutor tries to paint the SD shooter as having gone out looking for trouble. Carrying extra mags is an explainable issue, though. I would actually worry more about things like "Punisher" grips or death's-head decorations than I would extra magazines. Naturally, this assumes that: (1) the magazines are legal in the CC-ers jurisdiction; and (2) you don't (as manta49 puts it) "empty the second mag" into the attacker after he's no longer a threat. FWIW, I'm a lawyer, and I carry a spare magazine.
 
I'm not going to make any sort of recommendations as to what anyone else should or should not do, but I carry four spares. And I do not worry that it will negatively affect my chances in criminal or civil court should an event arise where I need to defend myself or others.
 
I'll go you one further- that's some of what people quoting Mr. Ayoob are getting at. One of the points he hammers home is that the American Public take their cues from the military and law enforcement communities on what to carry.

Law Enforcement do not, by and by, hand load. There may be a SWAT team sniper with permission somewhere in a small town where everyone knows everyone. But he'd be the exception that proves the rule.

Law Enforcement DO carry around (usually as prescribed) two spare magazines minimum. Both my City, and my County mandate a full or (full -1) Magazine with one in the chamber, as well as two full spares, or two full speed strips for the guys still carrying revolvers.

I can't imagine many prosecutors are going to want to open the door to a policy for their law enforcement. Even if they win this case, they lose the next one when the PD is sued. Not a precedent they'd want to establish.
 
If you ever choose to use your sidearm for self defense it means that you would most likely have died if you didn't have it...otherwise you should NOT have used it. I intend to carry whatever I think will give me the best chance of success, within legal limits. If I end up having to defend that in court then I will thank God I lived and made it to court. The rest is gravy.

I have yet to see even a single example of someone who used their pistol for legitimate and legal self defense who was convicted of wrongdoing because of their equipment. It may have happened but I don't personally know about it.
 
MTSCMike, it's not just a matter of "was someone convicted because of" their equipment (though I would suggest that you do some research on the Harold Fish case); it's also a matter of "how do I stack the deck as far in my favor as I can?"

Under a specific constellation of events, reloads may present evidentiary issues that complicate a SD shooter's defense. Look around for information on the Daniel Bias case. Here's a post by Massad Ayoob on the issue: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2679566&postcount=101 (the whole thread is probably worth reading). This one is problem governed by the rules of evidence at trial.

The issue of equipment (and by that I mean items that are not destroyed in the shooting, such as the gun) presents a different set of problems. Jury perception is the one that stands out in my mind, which is why I mentioned death's-head grips earlier. If you're charged with murder and tried, you can bet that the prosecutor will blow a picture of your gun up and show it to the jury every time he utters the word "murder."

Perhaps you've heard the saying, "if it was a fair fight, then I was unprepared?" I view the legal aftermath the same way. I don't want to just win my trial. I want the proof stacked up in such a way that I never have to go to trial. On some items, you just have to weigh risk vs. reward. I, for example, consider night sights to be worth the risk. I do not consider the aforementioned grips to be worth it. Custom grips may help me hang on to my pistol better, but I'd be looking for a set without a skull on 'em.
 
The way I look at it, it's a risk vs. benefit ratio. With the exception of oddball/obsolescent calibers, handloads offer very little, if any, practical advantage over modern factory ammo but they do, as Spats pointed out, present very significant evidentiary risks. Cosmetic features such as those that Spats mentioned offer no practical advantage whatsoever, but they do present jury perception issues.

Spare magazines and ammunition do, however, offer a significant enough benefit to outweigh the potential risk. As both Spats and myself have pointed out, there are very reasonable and easily articulated rationale for carrying extra ammo and those rationale can be easily understood by most people.
 
Not a lawyer. But from the psych-jury literature that is quite large, the crucial variable is telling the jury a story which leads them to look favorably on your case. Any aspect may contribute - race, age, gender, do you wear glasses, dress, etc. And gun related issues.

It is not necessary for a DA to explicitly make an antigun rant (although some have), if the exhibits lead to you being seen negatively, it doesn't work you. This has been shown in simulations many times.

This appearance factor doesn't show up in court records and appeals, so standard data base searchs are not useful. We may never know of a case, where a juror looks at an item and it influences them in an ambiguous shoot.

We do have enough cases where reloads, engaging in shooting sports, training (and having documents from training indicating blood lust) and simulations indicating gender, gun presence, and guy type to have reasonable suggestions to be cautious.
 
Thanks for the reference, SPATS...I did some research as you suggested. Mr Fish's case seems to be hinged on the validity of the shoot itsself and had nothing that I could see to do with whether he had an extra magazine, reloads or a modified firearm. I didn't read a lot about the case but I assume his problem was that he drew his pistol and fired a "warning shot" and then had to shoot his way out of the confrontation that followed. I suppose the jury believed he must have prompted the attack by his assailant by drawing his firearm before his life was in immediate danger allowing the attacker to attempt self defense. I don't presume to know the merits of that case based solely on the limited research I did so the above are only my suppositions.

I didn't research Mr Ayoob's posting but did read a little about the Bias case. It seems that yet again it was the shoot that was questionable in the first case and the use of handloads simply added to the difficulty of a defense that was going to be difficult anyway.

While I do not use handloads for defense it is simply because I don't reload any more and there are plenty of good factory offerings, I can imagine that even that ammo might be questioned if the shoot was questionable in the first place...ie: "so you selected this ammo for it's killing ability...". Neither do I add "punisher" grips to my carry guns but I do have trigger work done on all my pistols. I shoot competitively and I want all my pistols to operate with the same level of effort. I don't want an errant shot in a defensive situation just because my carry gun has a harder and therefore less familiar trigger pull. I can see this being a question I may have to answer in court if the worst ever happens but as I stated, I intend to do what I need to do to make sure I have the best opportunity to appear in court instead of the morgue. If I am involved in a shoot that is questionable then perhaps my own actions have contributed to the difficulties I might face in my defense.

I still have not seen a case where an unquestionable defensive shoot led to a conviction for wrongdoing because of the equipment used. I can see where equipment choices can create added difficulty in a case where the shoot is questionable to begin with. While I can see that we need to avoid stupid equipment choices that throw obvious doubt on our motives for concealed carry, I don't see that I should intentionally choose equipment that might handicap my ability to successfully defend myself in a valid attack just to be more courtroom friendly.

Just my personal choice...others must make their own decisions.
 
From my readings, it appears that the jury was disturbed by Harold Fish's use of a 10mm. No, he wasn't convicted "because of" his use of a 10mm, but it certainly affected the difficulty of his defense.

As for Daniel Bias, I believe that he eventually pled to a lesser charge, but the legal aftermath cost him his life savings, house, job, and a few years in prison waiting for the case to wind down.

MTSCMike said:
I still have not seen a case where an unquestionable defensive shoot led to a conviction for wrongdoing because of the equipment used. I can see where equipment choices can create added difficulty in a case where the shoot is questionable to begin with. While I can see that we need to avoid stupid equipment choices that throw obvious doubt on our motives for concealed carry, I don't see that I should intentionally choose equipment that might handicap my ability to successfully defend myself in a valid attack just to be more courtroom friendly.
Click to expand...
If you're looking for a "a case where an unquestionable defensive shoot led to a conviction for wrongdoing because of the equipment used," you might as well go chase unicorns. It's an impossibility due to the way you've phrased it. If it was an "unquestionable defensive shoot," we'll never hear about it because it will likely never go to trial. If the equipment used was legal, one cannot (by definition) be convicted of using it.

One of the problems is that none of us will ever be able to guarantee that a SD shoot in which we may become involved will be "an unquestionable defensive shoot." Should the attacker survive, he will undoubtedly tell the police that he was minding his own business on the way to choir practice when the SD shot him without any provocation. The police investigating the scene are not required to believe the SD shooter's version of events.

I have never said that you should choose equipment that would handicap you. That would be silly. It would be equally silly to assume that you will be the one deciding whether a defensive shoot appears as pristine and clear-cut as you would like it to be.
 
Fish & worms...

Not to stray off topic to far, but there are a few related points;
Fish was convicted but his criminal case was later over-turned & the prosecutors declined to put a new case against Mr Fish.
The state of AZ also changed a few of the self-defense/gun use of force laws after that case.

I'll also mention that a NBC News broadcast(Dateline NBC) had a female juror state; "I don't know why he(Harold Fish) had a 10mm." & "I don't know a lot about guns." :rolleyes:

I'd add that the recent change by the Knoxville TN police department from the Glock 22 .40S&W to the SIG P220R .45acp(8 round magazine). The police chief also authorized the sworn officers to carry 5/five SIG Sauer P220 .45acp magazines on duty.

ClydeFrog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top