Legal Issues Related to Ammo

Just to let all of you who advised me, I am now signed up (and payed up) for 2 more classes for beginners. The first is this coming Saturday and I am excited. I started from the beginning because this class covers things that my first class did not. This class is for "defense" while my first class was for "recreation"
I am still fascinated by the different kinds of loads available. I may take up making my own, once I can demonstrate competence on the range.
Thank you all,
Bill
 
Wildbill: Remington marketed a 2 - 000 Buck stacked round in 357 Mag. for law enforcement. I bought 3 boxes at a store in Sacramento. Nice loads and they were legal.
 
I agree with the advice to take a class in your state. Take a CCW class, even if you do not intend to carry. It is very educational.

The one statement my CCW instructor made that sticks in my mind is that "If you shoot someone you WILL be required to get permission from the state after the fact, but with that in mind, your FIRST priority is to SURVIVE in order to get that permission."
 
So, it is a loose-loose situation. If I do not shoot, I could be killed, with a knife or even a brick. If I do shoot, and the intruder has a knife only, I am likely to go to jail. That might or might not be better than being killed.
I knew a lady who had her throat slit by a home invader. If a stronger man has only a knife, I am screwed or dead.
Click to expand...

From my search on CA law, a home invader is paid for. The homeowner is "presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household" whether or not the intruder is armed.
 
You have to be careful there. While those "presumptions" are correct, they are not iron clad guarantees. They are ALL rebuttable assumptions. Even Castle Doctrine, No Duty To Retreat, Stand Your Ground type laws are not "License to Kill".

A wise person uses force only as a last resort, only when it is the only remaining "safe" action.
 
A wise person uses force only as a last resort, only when it is the only remaining "safe" action
Click to expand...

If you have ever read or skimmed the book Self Defense Laws in All 50 States (http://www.amazon.com/Self-Defense-...191&sr=8-1&keywords=self+defense+in+50+states) you will quickly learn that while there is quite a commonality in self defense laws, they are still enough different from state to state that you might get arrested in one state, but not another. It also depends on the culture whether or not you get arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty or not guilty. One state actually says that you have to retreat in your own house:eek: I would try to retreat in daylight where I can see, but not at night and not if someone is breaking in the door or window at any time. But contrary to Biden, you can't shoot through the door, nor should you.

Many, or maybe most, states have some form of castle doctrine even if they don't explicitly say so. In NY State, the burden of proof for self-defense in the home is on the prosecution. In Western NY two people were acquitted after self defense incidents that I was very surprised got off, i.e., they could have avoided the whole situation.

So after reading this book I decided that the best approach is to always try to retreat. Never try to protect property. Do not intercede in a situation if you don't know how it started because if you shoot one person and it was the other that started the fight, you cannot call it self defense. I think stopping a rape is OK. Stopping a felony may be legal, but that varies from state to state. Stopping an arson on a building is often a named felony where you can shoot the arsonist.

IOW, the lowest common denominator action is the safest bet: Be able to show that you did everything you did to avoid shooting, but once you are really in danger of GBHoD (grievous bodily harm or death) shoot until they stop. In many cases that means showing your gun and they run. Which is where it gets tricky because you really can't wait to pull the trigger to see if they run.

The problem is that everyone but you is playing Monday morning quarterback with 20/20 hindsight.
 
If the prosecutor has you in court they are out to win. In their mind you are already guilty, now all they want is to get the jury on their side. If they can talk about how you used some abnormal ammunition that was supposed to cause a greater chance of fatalities in an alarmist tone and get the jury going they will.

That round isn't going to be more fatal IMO. It is going to *reduce the chance of over-penetration which in return reduces risk to neighbors.*

Seems a bit gimmicky to me though. The safest legal bet would likely be to inquire as to what your local police departments use and use one of those. If a prosecutor attacks you for using the same round they won't be winning any favors from local law enforcement and may even be the one tasked with defending local LEO actions.

I use Hornady something or another as I believe it to be the most reliable to fire ammunition. I'm not too worried about what comes out the barrel as long as something comes out. It is all pretty nasty stuff. I've carried WWB before and was never worried about the amount of damage it would do if I hit with it.
 
The homeowner is "presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household" whether or not the intruder is armed.
Click to expand...
I'd like to read that citation, please.
 
So much fail on this thread. I suggest the OP go to CalGuns Wiki or to CalCCW for better and more detailed info.
1. It is not illegal to keep a loaded gun in your home UNLESS you have minor children who have access to the weapon; should one do so and injure another, a criminal liability attaches.
2. It is NOT illegal, if you have a CCW, to have your concealed firearm loaded with one in the chamber. That poster was confusing an issue arising under now superseded law dealing with the (then but no longer) legal of "open unloaded" carry, which required the ammo to be out of the weapon.
3. There is a presumption affecting the burden of proof that anyone entering your home is intending to do you harm, and thus there is a presumption that your exercise of the right of self-defense was lawful. What this means is that the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were NOT acting in self-defense, a pretty high burden. Unless the resident of the home knows the invader, prosecution is extremely unlikely.
4. There are NO laws in California regarding the ammunition that you may have loaded into your firearms or in your possession. San Francisco has banned the sale of hollow points in the City limits, and purported to ban their possession; but to avoid a lawsuit, the Chief there agreed that the ban applies solely to Black Talons (if you happen to have any laying around after all these years). Some local jurisdictions do impose an ID requirement for purchases, however.
5. There is NO law that says that ammunition must be transported separately from a firearm, although many will recommend that you do so as a "good practice." Legally, you are only required to have the firearm unloaded and in a locked container other than the glove box or the center console. The trunk (if you have one) counts as a locked container, as does any soft or hard sided case that has a lock between you and the firearm. The locked container may lawfully be carried In the passenger compartment [but may draw unwanted attention of a LEO]. It is perfectly legal to transport ammo in the locked container, for example, if you throw it all in a range bag and put a lock on it. magazines may be kept loaded, as long as they are not inserted in to the magazine well. in fact there was a case where the individual had a shotgun with shells in a shell holder strapped to the stock butt, and the court held that this was not "loaded."
 
Add to number 1: If you DO have children, get a bedside gun safe and keep you loaded handgun in it. Then you have complied with the law. The other option is to put on a trigger lock that disables he gun, or keep it unloaded with the ammo in a different location. The gun safes are the best option, and although they will not stop a burglar, they will stop a small child.
 
First and foremost, you must understand that nearly any combination of gun and ammunition could conceivably be used to paint you in a negative light by an attorney with a creative enough imagination. Because of this, I think that the ability of the gun and ammunition to adequately defend your life should take precedent over its potential appearance in court.

That is not to say, however, that the appearance of your gun and ammunition in court does not deserve consideration. While it is an ongoing debate, the general consensus among those well-versed in self-defense law is that for the most part, handloads are a bad idea. While a very plausible argument can be made that handloads can be used to paint you as a bloodthirsty vigilante for whom factory ammo wasn't deadly enough, the more convincing argument to me is the possible discrepancies that using handloads can create as it relates to physical evidence such as gunshot residue.

You see, the distance at which someone is shot often plays a large part in the credibility of someone claiming that they shot in self-defense. If the claimed attacker is shot from too far away or from a distance different from which the supposed defender claimed, it casts doubt on the supposed defender's entire story. With factory ammunition, the gunshot residue from a shooting can be compared in a controlled environment to that of the same type of ammunition and thus be used to determine whether or not the shooting took place at approximately the same distance as the shooter claimed. With handloads, however, you have only the word of whoever loaded the ammunition as to how exactly it was loaded and such claims obviously cannot be taken at face value.

Such was the case in the trial of Daniel Bias who was convicted of murdering his wife. Bias claimed that his wife committed suicide with very light handloads he'd loaded in his revolver. Because Bias' word on how his ammunition was loaded could not be taken as fact, the GSR was compared to that of factory ammo and thus the shooting appeared to have taken place at a substantially greater distance than Bias claimed.

Now, whether or not the same types of issues might be present with exotic or boutique ammunition like Double Tap isn't really something that I've seen discussed all that much. On the one hand, it is technically factory ammo and thus may be able to be compared to like ammunition in a controlled environment. On the other hand, because boutique ammo makers are more vulnerable to component availability and price, they seem to change their loadings more frequently than larger companies like Winchester, Remington, Federal, Hornady, or Speer and the consistency of their ammo may or may not be the same as that of the larger companies. Likewise, it is unknown whether or not boutique makers keep as detailed records of loading data and lot numbers as the larger makers do so the GSR of boutique ammo manufactured two years ago may or may not be consistent with that manufactured yesterday. Also, it seems to me that you could possibly run into the same "regular ammo wasn't deadly enough" argument with boutique ammo that you could with handloads.

Personally, I've gravitated away from boutique ammo like Double Tap for self-defense in my 10mm and have instead settled on Winchester 175gr Silvertip as my defensive loading of choice in that caliber. While still a reasonably powerful loading, I feel that it does not leave me open to the same level of legal risk as boutique ammo and thus I'm more comfortable using it. If the Silvertip is not available, Hornady's 155 and 180gr XTP's are also good choices as they're also reasonably powerful while still produced by a main-stream manufacturer. While I am still impressed with what the boutique ammo makers are able to achieve, I personally relegate their ammo to applications with lower legal risk like hunting.
 
Priority 1: Do whatever you think will increase your odds of surviving the fight.

Priority 2: Let your lawyers explain your choice, SHOULD you survive to stand trial.


After all, the LEAST liability would be to allow yourself to be murdered without a fight. Using 12 pound triggers and second-tier ammunition because of what a lawyer or prosecutor MAY do, IF you survive to stand trial, seems like poor prioritization to me.

I want to survive the attack; should I have to use a weapon to defend myself, I want it to give me every possible advantage it can during the fight. Folks talking about heavy triggers and 'safe' ammo are handicapping themselves for the most critical aspect of self-defense, IMHO.


Larry
 
webleymkv said:
Such was the case in the trial of Daniel Bias who was convicted of murdering his wife. Bias claimed that his wife committed suicide with very light handloads he'd loaded in his revolver. Because Bias' word on how his ammunition was loaded could not be taken as fact, the GSR was compared to that of factory ammo and thus the shooting appeared to have taken place at a substantially greater distance than Bias claimed.
Click to expand...

Compare that statement to this news report.
http://articles.mcall.com/1990-10-30/news/2773663_1_mrs-bias-residue-bullets
 
Originally posted by DT Guy
Priority 1: Do whatever you think will increase your odds of surviving the fight.

Priority 2: Let your lawyers explain your choice, SHOULD you survive to stand trial.


After all, the LEAST liability would be to allow yourself to be murdered without a fight. Using 12 pound triggers and second-tier ammunition because of what a lawyer or prosecutor MAY do, IF you survive to stand trial, seems like poor prioritization to me.

I want to survive the attack; should I have to use a weapon to defend myself, I want it to give me every possible advantage it can during the fight. Folks talking about heavy triggers and 'safe' ammo are handicapping themselves for the most critical aspect of self-defense, IMHO.


Larry
Click to expand...

It's a risk vs. benefit assessment. Is the use of a gun with a lightened trigger or handloaded/boutique ammunition so much more likely to allow you to survive an attack that it offsets the legal risk associated with doing so? I personally have a hard time believing that there is no off-the-shelf gun/ammo combination that is adequate for self-defense which would make the use of a gun with a lightened trigger and/or hanloaded/boutique ammo necessary. Now, I suppose if all you had was a gun with an abysmal trigger or one in an odd or obsolete caliber with a poor selection of ammunition then a more convincing argument could be made. However, I would have to then question the wisdom of choosing such a gun and caliber when so many better choices are available.

Originally posted by KyTopGun
Quote:
Originally Posted by webleymkv
Such was the case in the trial of Daniel Bias who was convicted of murdering his wife. Bias claimed that his wife committed suicide with very light handloads he'd loaded in his revolver. Because Bias' word on how his ammunition was loaded could not be taken as fact, the GSR was compared to that of factory ammo and thus the shooting appeared to have taken place at a substantially greater distance than Bias claimed.
Compare that statement to this news report.
http://articles.mcall.com/1990-10-30...esidue-bullets
Click to expand...

Compare it to this more complete account of events:

http://www.gunforums.net/forums/general-gun-talk/5514-cases-where-handloads-caused-problems-court-mas-ayoob.html

The fact remains that with factory ammunition, the GSR characteristics can be confirmed more credibly than with handloads due to the verifiable manufacturing tolerances of an independent third-party: the ammunition manufacturer.
 
Let's not go down the GSR road again.

The rules of evidence and the expert testimony issues have been discussed thoroughly in the threads linked here.

There is no need to tramp that well trod path again.
 
The printed advise to keep the gun and the loaded magazine separate actually came with the Glock.
Click to expand...

That sounds more like a "we want to avoid liability" issue from Glock's legal team.
 
BROTHER.... Go get some training from a reputable source!!!!! Since you live in Cali i would advise a road trip to Vegas and attend a 4 day class at Front Sight.

Dont get involved in all the hoopla about the owner of the place. You wont even see him. But the basic curricilum will help you immensely.

Not only will you learn how to run that Glock 100% better then you do now. A lot of your legal use of force questions will be answered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top