ludwig1138
New member
I saw the quote above in another thread. Are there some legal problems with using reloads for SD?
Legal problems with reloads
- Thread starter ludwig1138
- Start date
I saw the quote above in another thread. Are there some legal problems with using reloads for SD?
remshooter
New member
Just about every forum that I have ever visited has had at least one of these debates on it.
I can see how a over-priced lawyer could argue that you were intending to kill someone pass dead with the proper reloads but to me it is just hype.
If you shoot someone, no matter the reason, you are intending to cause harm to that person.
I would figure that if it ever came down to me having to shoot someone its not gonna matter what is in the mag. I am going to try to hit them with everything that I got.
I would not let the threat of a lawsuit dictate what I loaded in my guns.
I can see how a over-priced lawyer could argue that you were intending to kill someone pass dead with the proper reloads but to me it is just hype.
If you shoot someone, no matter the reason, you are intending to cause harm to that person.
I would figure that if it ever came down to me having to shoot someone its not gonna matter what is in the mag. I am going to try to hit them with everything that I got.
I would not let the threat of a lawsuit dictate what I loaded in my guns.
Being niether a lawyer nor an expert, it sure seems possible to me that an over zealous young prosecutor would formulate a statement to the effect of "he was such a calculated killer that he built his own ammo for the select purpose of killing a human" with the clear intent of finding you guilt of a wrongful shooting or wrongful death.
For my buck, it's not much of a debate simply because I'd rather use factory defense loads for home defense. So I needn't worry much of it's "true" or "possible". Given some of the things we've seen in this country in recent history... there's no doubt that it's possible.
For my buck, it's not much of a debate simply because I'd rather use factory defense loads for home defense. So I needn't worry much of it's "true" or "possible". Given some of the things we've seen in this country in recent history... there's no doubt that it's possible.
45Marlin carbine
Moderator
how they gonna know that reloads (or custom loaded ammo) was used. put win. ball in win. brass and rem. GS (shoots best in every pistol I own) in rem. brass
One thing to keep in mind, is that most gun magazines used to publish data specifically for self defense loads. This stopped being an issue when the manufacturers got on the bandwagon in the late '80s and early '90s and introduced their own personal defense ammo to compliment the new area of handgun manufacture.
This was about the same time many rural PD's stopped allowing their officers to use reloads.
Nowadays, it can be a liability issue, in either criminal or civil court. Mostly, I think it depends upon the area of this country you live in.
For me, I can't afford to purchase ready made Speer GDHP's, so I make my own. I can afford to practice with what I carry in that manner.
YMMV.
This was about the same time many rural PD's stopped allowing their officers to use reloads.
Nowadays, it can be a liability issue, in either criminal or civil court. Mostly, I think it depends upon the area of this country you live in.
For me, I can't afford to purchase ready made Speer GDHP's, so I make my own. I can afford to practice with what I carry in that manner.
YMMV.
Attorneys are going to attack you for everything you do, it's their job. If you are afraid of what they will accuse you of, don't carry a gun.
We stopped using reloads when Winchester started selling their Ranger LE ammo cheaper than we could buy reloads for.
There was some confusion here (Ohio) when the states police training council told the depts. that they had to use duty ammo for requalification. They later clarified that by saying the ammo had to be the same power level as what the dept was using for duty. They didn't care if you used reloads but many depts were using low powered target ammo instead of full power loads like they were carrying.
We stopped using reloads when Winchester started selling their Ranger LE ammo cheaper than we could buy reloads for.
There was some confusion here (Ohio) when the states police training council told the depts. that they had to use duty ammo for requalification. They later clarified that by saying the ammo had to be the same power level as what the dept was using for duty. They didn't care if you used reloads but many depts were using low powered target ammo instead of full power loads like they were carrying.
Smokey Joe
New member
How they gonna know?
Marlin Carbine--
I knew someone who worked in my State Crime Lab. Believe me, if you are anywhere near a killing, all aspects of what you did there--or didn't do--are an open book.
Lying about it will only just get you in trouble for the lying, even if you are otherwise innocent of any wrongdoing.
Marlin Carbine--
They'll just ask you, in open court, under oath, if you used reloaded ammo. Also, a forensic ballistician will testify that the powder in the rounds you did NOT fire is not the same as the powder in similar factory rounds.
I knew someone who worked in my State Crime Lab. Believe me, if you are anywhere near a killing, all aspects of what you did there--or didn't do--are an open book.
Lying about it will only just get you in trouble for the lying, even if you are otherwise innocent of any wrongdoing.
Attorneys are not going to attack you, in a legitimate case of s.d., if you're smart enough to live in a jurisdiction where they're precluded from doing so.
Kind of like the popular "shoot to stop" mantra. There's nothing in any state's lethal force statutes that commands one to "shoot to stop." Lethal is lethal; if it's permitted, then one isn't dictated to about one's methodology.
I use factory loads for daily carry, but wouldn't hesitate to use my reloads, if the situation arose where I just happened to be loaded up with my reloads.
Kind of like the popular "shoot to stop" mantra. There's nothing in any state's lethal force statutes that commands one to "shoot to stop." Lethal is lethal; if it's permitted, then one isn't dictated to about one's methodology.
I use factory loads for daily carry, but wouldn't hesitate to use my reloads, if the situation arose where I just happened to be loaded up with my reloads.
This is an interesing question/thread. Here in Kentucky, my CCW permit class stressed that after a shoot, you WILL be a defendant. I'd like to minimize the fall out and use factory loads. I'm guessing if you use what your local PD uses, there wouldn't be much anyone could say. Of course, taking this one step futher, if the PD used 40 Gold Dots and you use 45 Gold Dots, It may be possible that something could be said about the larger caliber but that would really be splitting hairs unless you have a really stupid jury (which is way too possible).
Crazylegs
Crazylegs
Not A Lawyer
Somewhere there is a thread which mentions a story about a guy who was either charges, convicted, or lost a civil case (can't remember which), because the reloads he had performed differently than similar factory ammo that a lab tech tested, resulting in the lab tech coming to an erronious conclusion about the range or angle at which the shot was fired. It was not the fact that they were reloads per se, but only that the real round used in the shooting performed differently from the round tested by the lab. It was a lab screw up. That's the only case I remember specifically named where reloads mattered at all. I never looked up the case, so I don't know if the description in the retelling was accurate.
I can tell you that I have seen lawyers make every arguement udner the sun, and sometimes someone (the judge, the juror, just one juror, etc.) buys it and sometimes they don't. There are enough theories about using reloads being brought up in court that eventually a DA will read one of those theories, get a shooting involving reloads, and make the argument, if it hasn't happened already. It's a really good arguement to use, especially in front of a jury that may have shooters and sportsmen cleared out of it.
Will it make all the difference in a case, where it turns a 100% justified shooting into a pre-meditated murder conviction? I'd say it COULD, only because I've seen cases where jurors get hung up on one piece of evidence, or one statement, including something they misheard or don't remember correctly. I could definantely see a case where a DA says "I'm telling you that Joe Smith loaded his own super bullets to make sure the victim would die", and a juror hears, "Joe Smith said [or told someone] that he loaded his own super bullets to make sure that the victim would die". It doesn't happen in every case, but that kind of thing happens. All in all, I would suspect that it is very unlikely to turn a case from "not guilty" to "guilty". I would also bet that it is VERY UNLIKELY to be the deciding factor in whether the DA prosecutes the case. It's not impossible, and I'd hate to be the guy who gets hit with it, but I don't think I'd lose sleep over it.
Now, if you had somekind of weird ammunition, like poisoned bullets, exploding bullets, a bullet with a homemade penetrator, or something, that would be a different story, and could cause the police, DA, or jury to take an extra look at what happened, and take a negative view of you as the shooter. A poisoned bullet, for example, could turn a justified shooting into a murder, because the poisoned bullet is "unreasonable".
My biggest worry with a reload is that they wouldn't work right.
Somewhere there is a thread which mentions a story about a guy who was either charges, convicted, or lost a civil case (can't remember which), because the reloads he had performed differently than similar factory ammo that a lab tech tested, resulting in the lab tech coming to an erronious conclusion about the range or angle at which the shot was fired. It was not the fact that they were reloads per se, but only that the real round used in the shooting performed differently from the round tested by the lab. It was a lab screw up. That's the only case I remember specifically named where reloads mattered at all. I never looked up the case, so I don't know if the description in the retelling was accurate.
I can tell you that I have seen lawyers make every arguement udner the sun, and sometimes someone (the judge, the juror, just one juror, etc.) buys it and sometimes they don't. There are enough theories about using reloads being brought up in court that eventually a DA will read one of those theories, get a shooting involving reloads, and make the argument, if it hasn't happened already. It's a really good arguement to use, especially in front of a jury that may have shooters and sportsmen cleared out of it.
Will it make all the difference in a case, where it turns a 100% justified shooting into a pre-meditated murder conviction? I'd say it COULD, only because I've seen cases where jurors get hung up on one piece of evidence, or one statement, including something they misheard or don't remember correctly. I could definantely see a case where a DA says "I'm telling you that Joe Smith loaded his own super bullets to make sure the victim would die", and a juror hears, "Joe Smith said [or told someone] that he loaded his own super bullets to make sure that the victim would die". It doesn't happen in every case, but that kind of thing happens. All in all, I would suspect that it is very unlikely to turn a case from "not guilty" to "guilty". I would also bet that it is VERY UNLIKELY to be the deciding factor in whether the DA prosecutes the case. It's not impossible, and I'd hate to be the guy who gets hit with it, but I don't think I'd lose sleep over it.
Now, if you had somekind of weird ammunition, like poisoned bullets, exploding bullets, a bullet with a homemade penetrator, or something, that would be a different story, and could cause the police, DA, or jury to take an extra look at what happened, and take a negative view of you as the shooter. A poisoned bullet, for example, could turn a justified shooting into a murder, because the poisoned bullet is "unreasonable".
My biggest worry with a reload is that they wouldn't work right.
It's not the criminal self-defense trial that's gonna cause you heartburn.
It's the civil trial afterwards by the survivors of the lead-poisoned deceased, where the lawyers for the plaintiff run loose and free with their tactics, and the jury doesn't need to be unanimous in their decision.
There's an old saying that goes something like, "Even if you win after an expensive civil court case, you lose". You may wish you died in the gunfight after losing the lawsuit to the tune of several millions of dollars, or "winning" to the tune of many thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees.
Or, like many do, including myself, save yourself the potential hassle and use factory SD ammo.
Pick your battles carefully. Do you really want to be the test case?
It's the civil trial afterwards by the survivors of the lead-poisoned deceased, where the lawyers for the plaintiff run loose and free with their tactics, and the jury doesn't need to be unanimous in their decision.
There's an old saying that goes something like, "Even if you win after an expensive civil court case, you lose". You may wish you died in the gunfight after losing the lawsuit to the tune of several millions of dollars, or "winning" to the tune of many thousands of dollars in lawyer's fees.
Or, like many do, including myself, save yourself the potential hassle and use factory SD ammo.
Pick your battles carefully. Do you really want to be the test case?
There are a lot of non-lawyers on this board
The concept of being persecuted (as opposed to 'prosecuted') for using non-factory ammo in self defense situations was popularized 15-20 years ago by Mossad Ayoob, the sometimes policeman and prolific gun writer. Like a lot of crap that starts in the gun press, it got picked up and expanded upon by a bunch of other gun writers who did not bother to check their facts.
A few years ago, when I had access, I did a Lexis/Nexis search on court cases where the term "self-defense" was used. I was unable to find any cases where there was a conviction based on the ammo as a contributing factor. The tenet is that when deadly force is required, it is just that - deadly force.
Civil actions are a different kettle of fish. Juries decide awards based on many factors besides truth. I would dare say (and I am not an attorney, either) that if there was a criminal prosecution that was ruled justifiable homicide and a subsequent civil trial resulted in an award based on the fact that non-factory ammo was used in the shooting, that someone hired an incompetent lawyer. If there was no grand jury indictment or no charges pressed by the D.A. and a subsequent civil trial ensued, then any lawyer worth his salt should be able to use that as part of a defense to shut down the civil action by showing lack of delict. SO, from my point of view, ammo used in a shooting where deadly force is justified, as a sole criteria for a case, is a pretty weak strategy.
The concept of being persecuted (as opposed to 'prosecuted') for using non-factory ammo in self defense situations was popularized 15-20 years ago by Mossad Ayoob, the sometimes policeman and prolific gun writer. Like a lot of crap that starts in the gun press, it got picked up and expanded upon by a bunch of other gun writers who did not bother to check their facts.
A few years ago, when I had access, I did a Lexis/Nexis search on court cases where the term "self-defense" was used. I was unable to find any cases where there was a conviction based on the ammo as a contributing factor. The tenet is that when deadly force is required, it is just that - deadly force.
Civil actions are a different kettle of fish. Juries decide awards based on many factors besides truth. I would dare say (and I am not an attorney, either) that if there was a criminal prosecution that was ruled justifiable homicide and a subsequent civil trial resulted in an award based on the fact that non-factory ammo was used in the shooting, that someone hired an incompetent lawyer. If there was no grand jury indictment or no charges pressed by the D.A. and a subsequent civil trial ensued, then any lawyer worth his salt should be able to use that as part of a defense to shut down the civil action by showing lack of delict. SO, from my point of view, ammo used in a shooting where deadly force is justified, as a sole criteria for a case, is a pretty weak strategy.
Last edited by a moderator:
1. It is my opinion that in this day and age using reloads for SD is stupid. Clean shoot, jurisdiction and any other items are garbage. People are in jail now for shoots that should have been clean that took place in pro-gun jurisdictions.
2. Search "Reloads" and "Carry" and you will find all the reasons for #1 that I do not feel like repeating again.
3. There is no hope of changing the minds of those set in their ways so I am not going to argue, hopefully someone who is just learning though can be saved from an error.
2. Search "Reloads" and "Carry" and you will find all the reasons for #1 that I do not feel like repeating again.
3. There is no hope of changing the minds of those set in their ways so I am not going to argue, hopefully someone who is just learning though can be saved from an error.
Here's my take on the matter.
If you reload, typically you're using a reloading manual to establish the correct powder charge for the result you want. If you stay within reasonable boundaries of the loading manual with your SD loads, it is unlikely that it will become an issue.
On the other hand, if you do something like create a .38 +P+ load outside of safety limts; solder a BB in the hollow-point; fill the HP with a toxic substance (mercury, arsenic, etc.) or cut deep grooves in the nose, then the prosecution will point out that by using the ammo you intended it to be "as lethal as possible, even to the extent of " making the bullet fragment or adding toxins or creating infections to make wounds lethal.
If your reloading notes indicate that you tried to duplicate a factory load, using the same or similar projectiles and staying within industry pressure limits (+P included) it will be hard for the prosecution to show "malice aforethought" just because of the ammo.
It is always possible that some anti-gun prosecutor will show the jury a box of those Winchester Silvertips with the "deer logo" and the word "Hunting" underneath to imply to the jury you considered the person "game to be slaughtered" or some such nonsense. A good defense attorney could shred that in less than five minutes.
If you reload, typically you're using a reloading manual to establish the correct powder charge for the result you want. If you stay within reasonable boundaries of the loading manual with your SD loads, it is unlikely that it will become an issue.
On the other hand, if you do something like create a .38 +P+ load outside of safety limts; solder a BB in the hollow-point; fill the HP with a toxic substance (mercury, arsenic, etc.) or cut deep grooves in the nose, then the prosecution will point out that by using the ammo you intended it to be "as lethal as possible, even to the extent of " making the bullet fragment or adding toxins or creating infections to make wounds lethal.
If your reloading notes indicate that you tried to duplicate a factory load, using the same or similar projectiles and staying within industry pressure limits (+P included) it will be hard for the prosecution to show "malice aforethought" just because of the ammo.
It is always possible that some anti-gun prosecutor will show the jury a box of those Winchester Silvertips with the "deer logo" and the word "Hunting" underneath to imply to the jury you considered the person "game to be slaughtered" or some such nonsense. A good defense attorney could shred that in less than five minutes.
ludwig1138
New member
Well, that answers my question. Thanks to all for the information.
I guess I'll have to get rid of my depleted uranium/arsenic 40 cal
reloads.
I guess I'll have to get rid of my depleted uranium/arsenic 40 cal
reloads.
45Marlin carbine
Moderator
or say 'I took care to ensure the loads matched factory specs'.