Legal problems with reloads
- Thread starter ludwig1138
- Start date
Musketeer, not everyone who shoots buys factory ammo, especially if they're shooting 5,000 to 7,000 rounds a year. The whole idea of reloading is to not pay the high prices of factory ammo. If you ask most reloaders they will tell you thier ammo is just as good as, if not better than, factory.
Rimrod, I do reload. I reload both 10mm (a caliber I carry with factory ammo) and 45 Colt. Both rounds are just too expensive to buy factory for practice. The vast majority of my practice is with 10mm handloads loaded up to 10mm standards. I then will sprinkle in some DoubleTap 10mm rounds to make certain the practice with the handloads is working as planned.
Musketeer nailed it. Reload for practice, duplicating the factory round if you wish, and use factory for serious business. You'll have the best of both worlds.
GSR issues come up more than some seem to expect. Earlier this year, when I had ten cases active (nice even number for us mathematically challenged folks to work with), FOUR involved gunshot residue testing to determine the defendants veracity when they described the encounter. All four have been ruled justifiable. A situation like Bias' could have compromised all of those outcomes had they not used factory ammo.
Yes, four out of ten at one point in time is a small sample. However, if you look on other threads current in TFL as to average distance in civilian gunfights, or do the research elsewhere, you'll see it's highly likely that it can be an issue. The closest CQB, by definition, happens at "powder-burning distance."
Simply one more element of the fight and its predictable aftermath to plan for ahead of time and get squared away beforehand.
GSR issues come up more than some seem to expect. Earlier this year, when I had ten cases active (nice even number for us mathematically challenged folks to work with), FOUR involved gunshot residue testing to determine the defendants veracity when they described the encounter. All four have been ruled justifiable. A situation like Bias' could have compromised all of those outcomes had they not used factory ammo.
Yes, four out of ten at one point in time is a small sample. However, if you look on other threads current in TFL as to average distance in civilian gunfights, or do the research elsewhere, you'll see it's highly likely that it can be an issue. The closest CQB, by definition, happens at "powder-burning distance."
Simply one more element of the fight and its predictable aftermath to plan for ahead of time and get squared away beforehand.
At the risk of chiming in too late, here's my .02.
In a criminal case, whether you used a sharp stick or the superdeathgiver3000 is irrelevant. If you were justified in using lethal force, how you did it isn't going to matter. The defending attorney could make an issue of it, but I highly doubt that it would go far.
That leaves us with the civil case. With all due respect to Mr Ayoob, I don't think its going to matter much there either. The fact of why you were carrying a gun or why you pulled it will be far more important. Again, the opposing attorney can bring it up if he likes, but its just not going to hold ehough weight to be of any significance. This is especially in light of the fact that the shooter has a valid justification (savings) as well as the fact that they could likely point to several brands of factory ammo that have and identical or (gasp) more deadly composition.
If anyone could point to a case where someone was convicted for a shooting and the fact that he used reloads was either the issue, or a major part of the issue then I might rethink the issue. As it stands right now however this seems like another example of something long on sensationalism and short on fact.
In a criminal case, whether you used a sharp stick or the superdeathgiver3000 is irrelevant. If you were justified in using lethal force, how you did it isn't going to matter. The defending attorney could make an issue of it, but I highly doubt that it would go far.
That leaves us with the civil case. With all due respect to Mr Ayoob, I don't think its going to matter much there either. The fact of why you were carrying a gun or why you pulled it will be far more important. Again, the opposing attorney can bring it up if he likes, but its just not going to hold ehough weight to be of any significance. This is especially in light of the fact that the shooter has a valid justification (savings) as well as the fact that they could likely point to several brands of factory ammo that have and identical or (gasp) more deadly composition.
If anyone could point to a case where someone was convicted for a shooting and the fact that he used reloads was either the issue, or a major part of the issue then I might rethink the issue. As it stands right now however this seems like another example of something long on sensationalism and short on fact.
Wouldn't an alternate lesson to the Bias case be that if you reload keep all your ammo in boxes that are marked with the load data on the box, and don't use recycled factory boxes without covering all factory markings, including the lot numbers inside the box. If they had walked into his house and picked up a box of ammo in a plain white wrapper with data tag on it, they wouldn't have had an excuse to say that what was on the box was what was inside the box.
Although it does sound like there are no right choices in some places.
Although it does sound like there are no right choices in some places.
contender6030
New member
Double naught and Musketeer, you also forgot one other reason to use reloads in your firearm for protection. Because I want to. It's a free country, what's wrong with that reason????
I never said you couldn't. I also never said you shouldn't go sunbathing coverred in mayonaise but that doesn't mean I think it is a good idea.
As far as the "If it is a good shoot what you use doesn't matter" line... You don't KNOW it is going to be deemed a good shoot. You certainly hope it is going to be so. A large part of that is the story you have to tell. You need the jury to believe your side and if they don't you are in real trouble. If the jury thinks you are some type of nut job because they do not accept your reasons for using home loaded ammunition you are going to be in a worse postion in their eyes and they are likely to be much more skeptical of your story. Likewise if the court does not allow the very concept of reloads to enter into the discussion the forensics evidence may not agree with your story, again damaging you in the eyes of the jury.
It is NOT a clean shoot until you are clear of prosecution criminally and civilly.
Well, in the case you cited, by insisting they test ammo that matched the headstamp but not the actual reload (Did the guy handload the same projectile as factory ammo? If not, there was a ROYAL evidentiary screw-up) they came to the conclusion that the shooter was farther away than he said he was, and I gather his presumed lack of proximity to the victim was a key part in the prosecution.Mas Ayoob said:
So if a cartridge was handloaded hot rather than light as in the above case - say, a .357-class load in .38 cases - that produced GSR at a greater distance than what the crime lab assumed was used, then in that case, use of a handload would place the shooter closer than what the crime lab thought . . . which in some cases, might benefit the shooter. (The threat was closer, and hence, more, well, threatening.)
And if the use of handloads is recognized by the court, which then makes a determination that no credible GSR evidence is available, which disallows ballistic testing . . . well, while your attorney won't be able to exonerate you with GSR or something, it seems the other side won't be able to use it to hang you, either. No admissable forensic evidence means the other side will be reduced to using emotional arguments.
I'm old enough to remember when, if you wanted effective ammo, you HAD to handload; things like a reversed HBWC on top of a powder charge that would make gun company lawyers blanche were the only way to get good performance out of, say, a 2" .38 . . . but with plenty of good ammo on the market today I don't see a real need to handload for performance.
I don't see a real problem with handloads either unless they're explosive or poisoned or something - particularly in states where there is civil suit protection in the case of a "good" shoot - but FWIW, I actually carry factory ammo in my carry guns. If I carried a pistol chambered for a cartridge in which there were no satisfactory loads from a big manufacturer (.45 Auto Rim? .44 Special? .44-40?) I'd carry handloads and not worry too much about it.
Know what you mean, Hank...I too remember the bad old days where you had to handload to get the most effective ammo. Good news: those days are gone. Bad news: we live in more litigious times.
If Bias' ammo had been loaded extra hot with extra GSR, he and his attorneys wouldn't have begged for it to be tested. (And the bullet wouldn't have stopped in mid-brain.)
Testing was done with factory Federal +P from the crime lab's exemplar testing inventory, solely on the assumption that what was on the headstamp equaled what was in the gun. Court approved, and forbade testing of the handloads.
I know you don't agree with that. Neither do I, entirely, though I understand the reasoning. But, we know what we know, and as I think Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
BTW, while the "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for this guy" argument against handloads can be beaten, and has been, it's an iffy thing with a jury expressly selected for lack of knowledge of firearms and ballistics, and a problem best avoided IMO. "A battle avoided is a battle won," it is said, and if nothing else a battle avoided is a battle not lost.
If Bias' ammo had been loaded extra hot with extra GSR, he and his attorneys wouldn't have begged for it to be tested. (And the bullet wouldn't have stopped in mid-brain.)
Testing was done with factory Federal +P from the crime lab's exemplar testing inventory, solely on the assumption that what was on the headstamp equaled what was in the gun. Court approved, and forbade testing of the handloads.
I know you don't agree with that. Neither do I, entirely, though I understand the reasoning. But, we know what we know, and as I think Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
BTW, while the "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for this guy" argument against handloads can be beaten, and has been, it's an iffy thing with a jury expressly selected for lack of knowledge of firearms and ballistics, and a problem best avoided IMO. "A battle avoided is a battle won," it is said, and if nothing else a battle avoided is a battle not lost.
Double Naught Spy
New member
"Because I want to." Ah, the cry of the obstinate.
Simple, if the reload is for protection, the justification for using reloads should have nothing to do with you wanting to carry them. That is poor reasoning. Yes, it is your right to carry whatever is legal, but it is poor reasoning to carry a round that is inferior to something else for which you have access.
If you are going to carry a reload for defense, then carry something that is superior to commercial defensive ammo. Otherwise, you are doing yourself a disservice in regard to personal protection.
Ideally, you should carry the best performing reliable defensive ammo you can for your caliber/platform/gun model if your goal is actually self defense in a life threatening situation. Maybe that will be a reloaded round, but chances are, it isn't
Mas Ayoob said:
HankB had a good point that I did not see addressed. In the Bias case was the bullet itself one available from Federal in a +P configuration? If he had loaded something that was not available from Federal in +P then the ballistics evidence could be pretty easily contested. The extreme would be something like a Winchester Silvertip in a Federal case but anything not normally available would suffice.
HankB had a good point that I did not see addressed. In the Bias case was the bullet itself one available from Federal in a +P configuration? If he had loaded something that was not available from Federal in +P then the ballistics evidence could be pretty easily contested. The extreme would be something like a Winchester Silvertip in a Federal case but anything not normally available would suffice.
Wow, this is quite a read. I know that I'm not convinced that reloads will affect the outcome of any trial. THE FINAL OUTCOME. Not some think during the trial, or what an attorney postulates, but the final outcome. If one is guilty, he just might be found guilty, even if he uses handloads.
Perldog007
New member
When a person who gets paid as an expert witness says the hand loads can be the kiss of death in a trial. I tend to believe them.
Can't think of any reason for the man to lie, unless he has a secret deal with the ammo industry. Since most people use factory ammo by default that makes no sense either.
Mas does not have a reputation as a snake, people I trust trust him. Good enough for me, the cons of using hand loads outweigh the pros in a defense situation.
Doing things that LFI trained people trained me to do has kept me out of trouble. Perhaps Mr. Ayoob wants to play a little joke on us by embedding blatantly bad advice in the sea of good information? Not likely. This keyboard commando will stay the course on this one kids.
I have needed veterinary services to deal with the newborn kittens when officers discovered boxes of empty brass and no guns and no live ammo in my car at one of those "safety inspection roadblocks". Don't tap on the glass, it disturbs the fish.
Being the kind of @$$#0L3 that takes responsibility for your own safety is enough of a burden if you go to court.
Of this I am sure from personal experience. Plenty of sport in it's own right. No need to spice it up with roll your own ammo. True whether you believe it or not. 
Can't think of any reason for the man to lie, unless he has a secret deal with the ammo industry. Since most people use factory ammo by default that makes no sense either.
Mas does not have a reputation as a snake, people I trust trust him. Good enough for me, the cons of using hand loads outweigh the pros in a defense situation.
Doing things that LFI trained people trained me to do has kept me out of trouble. Perhaps Mr. Ayoob wants to play a little joke on us by embedding blatantly bad advice in the sea of good information? Not likely. This keyboard commando will stay the course on this one kids.
I have needed veterinary services to deal with the newborn kittens when officers discovered boxes of empty brass and no guns and no live ammo in my car at one of those "safety inspection roadblocks". Don't tap on the glass, it disturbs the fish.
Being the kind of @$$#0L3 that takes responsibility for your own safety is enough of a burden if you go to court.
Of this I am sure from personal experience. Plenty of sport in it's own right. No need to spice it up with roll your own ammo. True whether you believe it or not. Frank Ettin
Administrator
Having been involved in numerous litigations, I have some experience in this area. Knowing how the legal system works is how I've made my living for over 30 years.
And it's not about whether you intended to shoot someone. It's about whether a jury is likely to believe your story that you were in fear for your life and were therefore justified in using lethal force in self defense. It's about tactics at trial and the use by a prosecutor of certain factors to dispose the trier of fact against the defendant, to cast doubt on the defendant’s integrity or credibility. Lawyers do that.
At a trial, at the end of the presentation of evidence, each side gets to argue what the trier of fact should infer from the evidence. So a prosecutor might argue that a trier of fact should infer certain things about your character and disposition for violence from the evidence that you carried handloaded ammunition. The prosecutor might further argue that the trier of fact should conclude that you are a gun nut, and that from such inference, the trier of fact may have doubts about your claim that you were in fear of your life and absolutely needed to shoot. And when the prosecutor is finished with you, the jury will have pictures in their minds of you in your garage late at night concocting “super lethal man-killer bullets” and itching for a chance to try them out on human flesh.
So Suzy Soccermom now asks herself, as she sits on your jury deciding whether to believe your story about what happened when you shot that nice gang member, why stroe bought ammunition wasn’t lethal enough to satisfy your perverted bloodlust. Remember, Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was good.
Sometime I think that we all spend too much time hanging out with like minded folks -- shooters and gun hobbyists. We tend to forget how some ordinary folks see the world.
However, it's been my experience that I give some of my non-shooting acquaintances the willies. I know that they are troubled that I think and talk about some of the things we discuss on these Forums -- like shooting people and wound channels and training to fight with guns, etc. This is very troubling stuff to a whole lot of folks out there. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. A lot of people aren't real comfortable with us. Remember the sheep, sheepdog and wolf model. The sheep don't much like the sheepdog because he's too much like the wolf.
Ordinarily I don't care what people think of me. But when some of those people are going to be deciding if I go to jail or go home, I do begin to care. And it's certainly been demonstrated over and over again at trials that how members of a jury perceive witnesses and the defendant can have a lot to do with the outcome. Remember that some members of your jury might have doubts about whether private citizens should even have guns.
And it's not about whether you intended to shoot someone. It's about whether a jury is likely to believe your story that you were in fear for your life and were therefore justified in using lethal force in self defense. It's about tactics at trial and the use by a prosecutor of certain factors to dispose the trier of fact against the defendant, to cast doubt on the defendant’s integrity or credibility. Lawyers do that.
At a trial, at the end of the presentation of evidence, each side gets to argue what the trier of fact should infer from the evidence. So a prosecutor might argue that a trier of fact should infer certain things about your character and disposition for violence from the evidence that you carried handloaded ammunition. The prosecutor might further argue that the trier of fact should conclude that you are a gun nut, and that from such inference, the trier of fact may have doubts about your claim that you were in fear of your life and absolutely needed to shoot. And when the prosecutor is finished with you, the jury will have pictures in their minds of you in your garage late at night concocting “super lethal man-killer bullets” and itching for a chance to try them out on human flesh.
So Suzy Soccermom now asks herself, as she sits on your jury deciding whether to believe your story about what happened when you shot that nice gang member, why stroe bought ammunition wasn’t lethal enough to satisfy your perverted bloodlust. Remember, Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was good.
Sometime I think that we all spend too much time hanging out with like minded folks -- shooters and gun hobbyists. We tend to forget how some ordinary folks see the world.
However, it's been my experience that I give some of my non-shooting acquaintances the willies. I know that they are troubled that I think and talk about some of the things we discuss on these Forums -- like shooting people and wound channels and training to fight with guns, etc. This is very troubling stuff to a whole lot of folks out there. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. A lot of people aren't real comfortable with us. Remember the sheep, sheepdog and wolf model. The sheep don't much like the sheepdog because he's too much like the wolf.
Ordinarily I don't care what people think of me. But when some of those people are going to be deciding if I go to jail or go home, I do begin to care. And it's certainly been demonstrated over and over again at trials that how members of a jury perceive witnesses and the defendant can have a lot to do with the outcome. Remember that some members of your jury might have doubts about whether private citizens should even have guns.
If this is the case, as you suggest, then show me a case where someone was convicted for a good shoot because of the type of ammo that was used.
I keep hearing this argument about the liability of HP ammo and yet no one has even come forth with any real world data to even suggests it exists, let alone is prevalent.