mattsbox99
Hunter
Probably because body armor stops hollow points better than it stops FMJs.
Carry Ammo, reloads or factory
- Thread starter Rex Driver
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
Aqualung
Blackhawk
I've seen this subject come up on different forums, and it usually gets heated. It always comes down to someone quoting Massad Ayoob and basing their argument against using handloads exclusively on his "preachings"...and yes, I used that term specifically.
I've seen the cases that he references in the single article he wrote on the matter and the cases cited were instances where the loads in question deviated from the normal characteristics of comparable factory ammunition. The one case cited the suicide of a woman using a .38 with super-low-power target loads made up by her husband. The issue was that the charge was so weak that the resulting residue of the nearly-contact wound was similar to that of a shot from farther away.
I don't happen to remember the details of the second case that Mr. Ayoob cited, but it too, didn't focus on the load as part of the crime (or increasing the lethality/intent of the shooter).
Now, is Mr. Ayoob wrong? Who knows what any defense or prosecuter going to do? In this age of Law and Order, no one can say "that'll never happen". My mixed feelings about Mr. Ayoob's teachings aside, I admit that he is very knowledgable about many gun-related topics and is advising on the side of caution. He's presenting that it's a possibility that it might be made into an issue. Followers of his take this as the absolute gospel on the matter, neglecting all other common sense.
There are hundreds of personal defense loads out there...let's pick a .45acp JHP for the sake of discussion. If your loads are loaded to similar performance qualities of the factory-offered .45 JHPs, then handloading shouldn't be an issue, even if the load is tailored a bit for accuracy or operation. This is the common sense approach, in which "commonality" is shown in the fact that there is a serious lack of actual court citations where handloaded rounds were an issue.
Where handloaded ammunition may become a factor is if the loader has super-firewalled loadings with modified-from-specification bullets (extra cuts for more explosive expansion, etc) that are stored in boxes labeled .45acp++++P(Nuke) Super Death Dealers - Use for hunting down and killing people only.
The argument against handloaded information requires Intent to really grow teeth. A prosecuter must prove intent that the load was specifically worked up to cause more damage than a comparitive factory offering. Handloads worked up to perform accurately, operationally and energy-wise (i.e. measured w/chronograph) in relation to factory specifications do not indicate intent to inflict more damage. Working up the Super Death Dealers *might* offer some hint of intent.
To me, that's the Common Sense approach.
Now, after all that, what do I load in my PD weapons? Factory. But only because I'm still new enough to the reloading game (experience-wise) that I'm still just a *tiny bit* surprised that they go off when I drop the hammer on my loads
Aqualung
I've seen the cases that he references in the single article he wrote on the matter and the cases cited were instances where the loads in question deviated from the normal characteristics of comparable factory ammunition. The one case cited the suicide of a woman using a .38 with super-low-power target loads made up by her husband. The issue was that the charge was so weak that the resulting residue of the nearly-contact wound was similar to that of a shot from farther away.
I don't happen to remember the details of the second case that Mr. Ayoob cited, but it too, didn't focus on the load as part of the crime (or increasing the lethality/intent of the shooter).
Now, is Mr. Ayoob wrong? Who knows what any defense or prosecuter going to do? In this age of Law and Order, no one can say "that'll never happen". My mixed feelings about Mr. Ayoob's teachings aside, I admit that he is very knowledgable about many gun-related topics and is advising on the side of caution. He's presenting that it's a possibility that it might be made into an issue. Followers of his take this as the absolute gospel on the matter, neglecting all other common sense.
There are hundreds of personal defense loads out there...let's pick a .45acp JHP for the sake of discussion. If your loads are loaded to similar performance qualities of the factory-offered .45 JHPs, then handloading shouldn't be an issue, even if the load is tailored a bit for accuracy or operation. This is the common sense approach, in which "commonality" is shown in the fact that there is a serious lack of actual court citations where handloaded rounds were an issue.
Where handloaded ammunition may become a factor is if the loader has super-firewalled loadings with modified-from-specification bullets (extra cuts for more explosive expansion, etc) that are stored in boxes labeled .45acp++++P(Nuke) Super Death Dealers - Use for hunting down and killing people only.
The argument against handloaded information requires Intent to really grow teeth. A prosecuter must prove intent that the load was specifically worked up to cause more damage than a comparitive factory offering. Handloads worked up to perform accurately, operationally and energy-wise (i.e. measured w/chronograph) in relation to factory specifications do not indicate intent to inflict more damage. Working up the Super Death Dealers *might* offer some hint of intent.
To me, that's the Common Sense approach.
Now, after all that, what do I load in my PD weapons? Factory. But only because I'm still new enough to the reloading game (experience-wise) that I'm still just a *tiny bit* surprised that they go off when I drop the hammer on my loads
Aqualung
Single article? Mas has been writing about this topic for over 20 years. I know because I wrote him a letter on the subject back in the '80s. (At the time, I disagreed with him, you might be interested to know, and I sounded a lot like many of the posters in this thread. I've since come to see his logic on the issue.)Aqualung":159b6u1q said:
Exactly. Can you imgaine what, say, Rear-end Jesee Jackass or Rear-end Al Sharktank or someone of that ilk might do with this issue? Facts don't matter to such people, only what they think they can get away with preaching in front of a TV camera.
But if your handloads are so "similar" in performance to some factory ammunition, why not use the factory load and simply remove the issue as a factor that could cause you trouble? That, to me, is the "common sense approach."
Here's a rare case where the handload makes sense. If you are hunting or target shooting or plinking or engaged in some other lawful recreational activity using handloaded ammo, and you are unexpectedly called upon to use that firearm for SD, I don't think there's much anyone could say about it.flatgate":162883vn said:
That's very different from deliberately loading up a carry gun being toted solely for SD with homebrews and sallying forth. Or even from using them in your castle defense piece.
There's one other somewhat legitimate reason someone could give for wanting to use handloads for SD--something that might be sympathetic to a jury. No one here has mentioned it yet.
gmaske
Bearcat
I don't have a problem with using my hand loads for carry. They are loaded from published data with bullets that are also available in factory loads. I personally think the whole argument about using factory vs hand loads is blown way out of reasoning.
Aqualung
Blackhawk
Snake45":weqf5asc said:
Let me rephrase..."single article I read on the subject from him". I don't claim to have read all he's written on the issue.
Snake45":weqf5asc said:
Doesn't matter what happens in public. What can be argued in a Court and proven? You edited out my arguments about proving intent.
No one is denying the possibility of the issue arising. However, the possibility of it happening does not necessarily absolutely, positively, no-crapola mean that it's going to happen.
What makes this topic become such a hotbed is that the followers of Mr. Ayoob take his word on this matter as an absolute certainty, just because he advises that it's a possibility. His message is that something can happen and his followers translate that into this will absolutely happen without fail. And that anyone considering that the risk isn't as absolute as the followers believe is an affront to Mr. Ayoob's knowledge in the matter...and, of course become insulted.
Snake45":weqf5asc said:
Because performance is more than power alone.
When breaking it in, my P90 had misfires on factory ammo...didn't matter what brand. Never misfired on my handloads...so, prudence dictates I load it up on my handloads to guarantee that it'll go off (despite my disclaimer in my first post about being surprised). I haven't fired factory ammo out of it since. DISCLAIMER: I will grant you that it is not my current defense weapon...I have others that fill that space at any given time.
Accuracy can also be an issue. If you can work up a load that allows you to shoot better groups, than you get with factory offerings, that's an argument *for* using handloads for defense, because your ultimate responsibility is to give yourself every edge in not missing your target.
Much of the argument comes down to a person's mindset in terms of confidence. Many folks don't trust mass-manufactured ammunition to protect their lives. If a person isn't confident in his or her gear, then the battle is partway lost. Even Mr. Ayoob will subscribe to that. Many folks would be more confident in their ammunition because they sized and inspected each case, seated each primer, measured each charge and seated each bullet. That's opposed to relying on some machine that is possibly checked at a 25% QC rate.
Snake45":weqf5asc said:
I was done with pop quizzes when I graduated college. Bring it out, even if it might weaken your argument. We're in a discussion, not a competition.
Now...back to the discussion
No matter what, a gun owner who defends himself will be painted as a bloodthirsty vigilante regardless of the choices he makes. The entire case will be brought up and the gun owner needs to look at the issue as a whole and represent himself as responsible in all aspects. If a gun owner has proven himself to have made responsible, calculated descisions and presented them as his case as responsible, this one factor of ammunition won't break the defense...especially if the gun owner can justify his reasoning behind his choice of ammunition. However, if his justification is that he had to make up the most kick-azz, blow-up-the-sonuvagun, man-killer rounds ever seen, then he might be in a bit of trouble
The whole issue comes down to risk assessment. Each person who takes the responsibility of self defense with a firearm has to asses each risk within the responsibility. His or her descisions are based on the risks that are considered, and everyone will assess those risks differently. Right? Wrong? Who knows? Nothing is absolute and everything is situational.
Aqualung
You missed the point. Jesse and Al might not (or might) influence what happens in court, but their public caterwauling might very, very well influence whether there will BE any court or not. They and their kind care nothing for truth or justice, just for their "cause" and their own aggrandizement. Could their whining about "special hand-made ***er-killer bullets" turn a no-true-bill situation into a trial? Are you willing to bet that it wouldn't? It's so easy to make the whole issue simply disappear.Aqualung":2o79lm8u said:
No, it's more fun to see if anyone here can think that far ahead. And you're actually on the right track. :wink:
And a good one, too. I can tell you've given this matter some thought, and are interested in bringing some common sense to bear on the topic. (At least you're not insulting people I consider my friends.) I enjoy discussing things with a reasonable person. :wink:
Aqualung
Blackhawk
Snake45":15kdwqo6 said:
I give Mr. Ayoob a *lot* of respect for his extensive knowledge. My personal opinions are based on my (admittedly) limited readings of some of his articles and an interview or two I've seen of his.
It seems to me that he's his own biggest fan, and that he feels he's the know-all, guru of everything tactical and firearm related. Please note that I'm not disputing what he knows, merely my perseption of how he presents himself in the sharing of that knowledge. I find arrogance annoying. In what I've read and viewed, humility wasn't something that he expressed. It's a foible of mine against him, but I don't discount what he has to say because of it.
My personal (and possibly flawed, admittedly) opinion of Mr. Ayoob aside, I find it more disconcerting that so many people "genuflect at the Altar of Ayoob" (Not an implication toward you, Snake! [see note below]) and don't consider any alternative other than his teachings/advice. Their reasoning is "Because Mas says so!" and that's it...like there's no arguing against it...and then get indignant when someone has another opinion. They take it as a personal affront if somone disagrees. Call it guilt-by-association of his "disciples" (read as: "blind followers"), but it turns me off. Again, still not a question of the knowledge, merely the presentation.
Of course, the same can be said about many of the followers of Jeff Cooper, Elmer Keith and others.
NOTE: Snake, you seem to have a relationship with Mr. Ayoob and I'm not one to debate the extent or details of that. Your discourse on this topic has identified you as someone who has also put a good deal of thought into it, as opposed to the "blind follower I described.
It seems to me that it's boiling down to this. There's no argument that there's a possibility of handloads being an issue. The discussion argument here is the addressing of that issue. Just as "perception is reality" works with the libs spouting off emotionally-charged, factless drivvel, it will also work with a prepared and responsible gun owner who presents himself as such. And, in the end, the gun owner will have the facts on his side.
Of course, these are the same people who have brought us "Global Warming".
Like so many other things, it's a judgement call based on what risks each individual gun owner/ self-defense proponent is willing to shoulder. The point I'm making in this discussion is not that there isn't a possibility, but it's not the foregone conclusion that it's made out to be (based on the interpretation of one teacher's advice).
I'm about discussed out on this matter. It's been educational.
Aqualung
On Day One of LFI-I, Ayoob gives a great definition of "arrogance:" "Arrogance is a word used by people who are unaccustomed to dealing with high levels of self-confidence in others." :lol:Aqualung":3m3a0hjl said:
Seriously, though, Ayoob considers himself not so much an "expert" on the matters of interest to him, but a serious student of these things. (An attitude, I've found, that is more common the higher up you go in the field of any given endeavor. The real experts in anything are humbled by what they don't know, and are quick to tell you that.) Ayoob has spent the last 40 years or so studying, learning, and testing what really happens in the real world of interpersonal violence, and in its aftermath. He's had the unique opportunity to pick the brains of the best, and he's learned from them all. And there's nobody that he considers himself "too good" to learn something from. (Hell, I think he even picked up a thing or two from me, maybe.) He has a quick and adaptive mind, one ready and willing to spot and adopt a new, useful idea. This in itself is a pretty rare thing in my experience, as it seems to be human nature to hold on to the old and reject the new in any field of study.
The real Mas Ayoob might not come across well in his writings, but he's one of the smartest, sharpest people I've ever met. He cares about people and he's got a great sense of humor. I'm proud to call him my friend.
A
Anonymous
What no one has mentioned yet in the discussion is the complete ABSENCE of cases where a court has accepted a handloader's word or written record for what load was in the gun at the time of the shooting.
I've been having this same tired discussion on forums for something like half a decade now, and no one has yet found a case where it was accepted.
Why is it so important? Because self-defense shootings often occur at "powder burning distance," and gunshot residue patterns on the opponent's clothing or body can confirm your account of the incident. In the case some have mentioned here (NJ v. Daniel Bias) the court refused to accept evidence of a light load that would not deposit GSR at a certain short range. Nor would the court allow the remaining rounds in the gun to be analyzed, since the prosecution effectively argued that the handloader might have had a different load in the "fatal" chamber than the remaining ones.
For the party requesting a case citation, it would be State of New Jersey versus Daniel Bias. Last I knew the trial transcripts were archived at The Superior Court of New Jersey/Warren County/313 Second Street/PO Box 900/Belvedere, NJ 07823. Those who wish to follow the appellate track of this case willf ind it in the Atlantic Reporter. 142 N.J. 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table).
Supreme Court of New Jersey
State
v.
Daniel N. Bias
NOS. C-188 SEPT. TERM 1995, 40,813
Oct 03, 1995
State V. Bias
142 N>J> 572, 667 A.2d190 (Table)
For the party who wanted to hear about it from "a real, live lawyer," they are free to contact Attorney John Lanza and Attorney Elisabeth Smith. Both of these "real, live (and very skilled) lawyers" defended him in his multiple trials. Both told me that if the gun had been loaded with factory ammunition, they were convinced the case never would have come to trial. (Began as a murder charge, ended with a manslaughter conviction and a bankrupt defendant.)
I would like to congratulate poster Aqualung for his comment in this thread, quoted immediately below:
I compliment him for recognizing that it was indeed a suicide, because in other such debates, I've seen folks who want to win an argument throw poor Bias under the bus and claim, "Aw, he murdered his wife anyway." There was no motive, no violent history, and no evidence except the gunshot residue testing, which the state did with hot +P ammo because Bias' light handloads were in +P casings, thus obviously giving a false result to the test. I've seen others do the same in regard to Harold Fish, because they apparently can't bear the reality that jurors said they convicted him in part because he used hollow point bullets and that awful, too-powerful 10mm Kimber. Good to see no one doing that here, either.
The Bias case was not a self-defense shooting, but the point at issue is one of admissibility of evidence, not whether the defense theory is self-defense or failed suicide prevention. This is probably why no one has been able to come up with a case where a court DID accept the defendant's word or records as to what was in his loads, to allow proper gunshot residue evidence testing to confirm his story.
There is also, of course, the argument the other side may use that "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for this defendant, and his malice was so great that he made his own extra-lethal killer bullets." That was used against the police sergeant defendant in State of NH v. James Kennedy. Kennedy won, but the criminal trial still ruined his career. Documents in re NH v. Kennedy are archived at the Rockingham County Superior Court, PO Box 1258, Kingston, NH 03843.
Those who ask for caselaw on this don't seem to realize why they won't find any: there is nothing in the discussion that qualifies as an appellate issue. Because the prosecution bears the burden of establishing mens rea (literally, "the guilty mind," either criminal intent or gross negligence) the prosecution is allowed broad latitude in establishing criminal intent. As to the gunshot residue issue, no court would approve of a rape suspect dropping a vial of his blood at the lab for testing and saying, "Take my word for it, it's really mine." The courts are likewise most unlikely to take the handloader's word for what was in the gun when gunshot residue testing to determine distance becomes a pivotal issue in the case.
I hope the above information is helpful and adds perspective to the discussion.
Wishing all a happy and prosperous new year,
Massad Ayoob
I've been having this same tired discussion on forums for something like half a decade now, and no one has yet found a case where it was accepted.
Why is it so important? Because self-defense shootings often occur at "powder burning distance," and gunshot residue patterns on the opponent's clothing or body can confirm your account of the incident. In the case some have mentioned here (NJ v. Daniel Bias) the court refused to accept evidence of a light load that would not deposit GSR at a certain short range. Nor would the court allow the remaining rounds in the gun to be analyzed, since the prosecution effectively argued that the handloader might have had a different load in the "fatal" chamber than the remaining ones.
For the party requesting a case citation, it would be State of New Jersey versus Daniel Bias. Last I knew the trial transcripts were archived at The Superior Court of New Jersey/Warren County/313 Second Street/PO Box 900/Belvedere, NJ 07823. Those who wish to follow the appellate track of this case willf ind it in the Atlantic Reporter. 142 N.J. 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table).
Supreme Court of New Jersey
State
v.
Daniel N. Bias
NOS. C-188 SEPT. TERM 1995, 40,813
Oct 03, 1995
State V. Bias
142 N>J> 572, 667 A.2d190 (Table)
For the party who wanted to hear about it from "a real, live lawyer," they are free to contact Attorney John Lanza and Attorney Elisabeth Smith. Both of these "real, live (and very skilled) lawyers" defended him in his multiple trials. Both told me that if the gun had been loaded with factory ammunition, they were convinced the case never would have come to trial. (Began as a murder charge, ended with a manslaughter conviction and a bankrupt defendant.)
I would like to congratulate poster Aqualung for his comment in this thread, quoted immediately below:
Aqualung":uf7yv8wj said:
I compliment him for recognizing that it was indeed a suicide, because in other such debates, I've seen folks who want to win an argument throw poor Bias under the bus and claim, "Aw, he murdered his wife anyway." There was no motive, no violent history, and no evidence except the gunshot residue testing, which the state did with hot +P ammo because Bias' light handloads were in +P casings, thus obviously giving a false result to the test. I've seen others do the same in regard to Harold Fish, because they apparently can't bear the reality that jurors said they convicted him in part because he used hollow point bullets and that awful, too-powerful 10mm Kimber. Good to see no one doing that here, either.
The Bias case was not a self-defense shooting, but the point at issue is one of admissibility of evidence, not whether the defense theory is self-defense or failed suicide prevention. This is probably why no one has been able to come up with a case where a court DID accept the defendant's word or records as to what was in his loads, to allow proper gunshot residue evidence testing to confirm his story.
There is also, of course, the argument the other side may use that "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for this defendant, and his malice was so great that he made his own extra-lethal killer bullets." That was used against the police sergeant defendant in State of NH v. James Kennedy. Kennedy won, but the criminal trial still ruined his career. Documents in re NH v. Kennedy are archived at the Rockingham County Superior Court, PO Box 1258, Kingston, NH 03843.
Those who ask for caselaw on this don't seem to realize why they won't find any: there is nothing in the discussion that qualifies as an appellate issue. Because the prosecution bears the burden of establishing mens rea (literally, "the guilty mind," either criminal intent or gross negligence) the prosecution is allowed broad latitude in establishing criminal intent. As to the gunshot residue issue, no court would approve of a rape suspect dropping a vial of his blood at the lab for testing and saying, "Take my word for it, it's really mine." The courts are likewise most unlikely to take the handloader's word for what was in the gun when gunshot residue testing to determine distance becomes a pivotal issue in the case.
I hope the above information is helpful and adds perspective to the discussion.
Wishing all a happy and prosperous new year,
Massad Ayoob
NCMountains
Bearcat
The one thing I have found in court is that jurys are never predictable no matter how much you as the prosecution or defense try to seat the best juror for your case.
I think it is a crap shoot as to how you will be dealt with if the situation ever arises. My bottom line is that common thinking has gone out the window so muddled by attorneys and THEIR interpretation of law and how they convolute a basic and straight forward set of facts and mold them to a jury to go 180 degrees in the other direction.
With that said would I still load rounds to carry for self defense....in a heart beat if need be. The old saying I rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 holds true.
Each person here must evaluate their own personal feelings toward the matter and act or as pun goes "load" as they see fit.
If I sat on a trial where a citizen used handloads even if they were overloaded and proven to be to defend themself or property from deadly harm my vote is not guilty no matter what.
I simply believe in defense of self; others; or property with what ever force you are theatened with and if they means the perp has their head split open like a canoe then so be it. That message would send to any other hopeful perp that this guy's house we will skip for a less......let's say confrontational victim.
I think it is a crap shoot as to how you will be dealt with if the situation ever arises. My bottom line is that common thinking has gone out the window so muddled by attorneys and THEIR interpretation of law and how they convolute a basic and straight forward set of facts and mold them to a jury to go 180 degrees in the other direction.
With that said would I still load rounds to carry for self defense....in a heart beat if need be. The old saying I rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 holds true.
Each person here must evaluate their own personal feelings toward the matter and act or as pun goes "load" as they see fit.
If I sat on a trial where a citizen used handloads even if they were overloaded and proven to be to defend themself or property from deadly harm my vote is not guilty no matter what.
I simply believe in defense of self; others; or property with what ever force you are theatened with and if they means the perp has their head split open like a canoe then so be it. That message would send to any other hopeful perp that this guy's house we will skip for a less......let's say confrontational victim.
volshooter
Buckeye
I only read the last page of this post.
I stoke with the round that is most accurate. I feel that is the most important issue.
I stoke with the round that is most accurate. I feel that is the most important issue.
I thought I should take the time to read the whole thread before I chimed in to back up Snake45 in this mess, but Mas has already come in to clear the air.
This is just the issue as I recall it in previous threads on various gun forums in the past 4 years or so.
I worked as a paralegal and legal investigator from 1988 until 2007, and although most of my work was in complex litigation I did do some work in criminal defense trials and in wrongful death cases brought against police officers and armed civilians.
The point of that preface is only to say that my experience in law and in court rooms is that nothing is ever cut-and-dry in a court room. And anything that can muddy up the truth often will. Seeing the muddy issues involved in carrying my own handloads for personal defense, and knowing a little bit about the legal process, I choose to use factory ammo.
If I only had access to handloaded ammo that would be one thing. And with the current situation going on with hoarded ammo and ongoing shortages that may face some people. But the majority of us have, or should have had, access to very good personal defense ammunition.
I carry my handloads when I'm out hunting or target shooting. But my carry ammo is either Federal HST or Speer Gold Dot ammo, which I buy in case lots.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I did take LFI 1 with Mas back in ~1990 at Tri-County gun club in Sherwood, Oregon. But I kind of doubt he'd know me if we met on the street. Although he might remember the local founder of OFF (Oregon Firearms Federation), with whom I am good friends.
I will say, too, that I am like Snake in not wanting to look up old information, too. If its at my finger tips, sure, no problem. But if I have to spend 30 minutes to several hours looking for something just to pacify people who refuse to believe something I had spent a long time studying in the past to learn, then I am not going to do it either.
Its one thing to find some load data in my various loading manuals for someone.... but looking up legal cases? Forget that. There's a reason I don't do that work anymore....
This is just the issue as I recall it in previous threads on various gun forums in the past 4 years or so.
I worked as a paralegal and legal investigator from 1988 until 2007, and although most of my work was in complex litigation I did do some work in criminal defense trials and in wrongful death cases brought against police officers and armed civilians.
The point of that preface is only to say that my experience in law and in court rooms is that nothing is ever cut-and-dry in a court room. And anything that can muddy up the truth often will. Seeing the muddy issues involved in carrying my own handloads for personal defense, and knowing a little bit about the legal process, I choose to use factory ammo.
If I only had access to handloaded ammo that would be one thing. And with the current situation going on with hoarded ammo and ongoing shortages that may face some people. But the majority of us have, or should have had, access to very good personal defense ammunition.
I carry my handloads when I'm out hunting or target shooting. But my carry ammo is either Federal HST or Speer Gold Dot ammo, which I buy in case lots.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I did take LFI 1 with Mas back in ~1990 at Tri-County gun club in Sherwood, Oregon. But I kind of doubt he'd know me if we met on the street. Although he might remember the local founder of OFF (Oregon Firearms Federation), with whom I am good friends.
I will say, too, that I am like Snake in not wanting to look up old information, too. If its at my finger tips, sure, no problem. But if I have to spend 30 minutes to several hours looking for something just to pacify people who refuse to believe something I had spent a long time studying in the past to learn, then I am not going to do it either.
Its one thing to find some load data in my various loading manuals for someone.... but looking up legal cases? Forget that. There's a reason I don't do that work anymore....
Maybe I'm just dumb but I fail to see where either of the cases cited has anything to do with me and/or how I choose to defend myself.....Meaning that I'm not a cop who may or may not be violating "policy" by using handloads, nor am I in the same situation as the guy who was accused (be it falsely or not) of murder (or assisting in a suicide).
In other words, I'm just an old guy who chooses to defend himself and his family while using the most effective means that I know....so it seems to me that as far as "case law" goes, we are compairing apples to oranges here.
Still aint seen no case law that involves a citizen using reloads for SD.
For those of you who are truly concerned about such things, I'm thinking that it might be wise to do some serious research on the next candidates that are running for your local District Attn'y job....'Cause that's the guy who will ultimately decide whether you get hassled or not.
Just my 02...no offense meant to anyone.
DGW
In other words, I'm just an old guy who chooses to defend himself and his family while using the most effective means that I know....so it seems to me that as far as "case law" goes, we are compairing apples to oranges here.
Still aint seen no case law that involves a citizen using reloads for SD.
For those of you who are truly concerned about such things, I'm thinking that it might be wise to do some serious research on the next candidates that are running for your local District Attn'y job....'Cause that's the guy who will ultimately decide whether you get hassled or not.
Just my 02...no offense meant to anyone.
DGW
NCMountains
Bearcat
Your exactly correct on this. The only other side to this is the lawsuit for wrongful death which is not a criminal matter and has nothing to do with a DA's decision to drop or not.
That would be a civil charge brought against one. My thing is this, if a jury is too stupid to recognize anytime a gun is fired at someone, that it is deadly force then they should have never been picked and shame on a DA for not using the ability to remove that juror. Now jurors lie to get on a trial too. I have done special investigations on such. It happens.
The question in court should be simple, "Did the perp's actions deserve that force?" If you have a scenario of you going to the gas station to fill up your car and while at the pumps you are approached by a perp with either a knife or handgun and they display it and indicate bodily harm and you pull your gun with your handload (not factory) and kil them, should you be cahrged? Hell no! You should get the key to the city for dropping a POS.
If you have a great DA and we do where I live and deal with them constant due to my work, he would never charge the victim regardless of whether it is a factory round or some hopped up handload.
When fired at a person a bullet is meant to kill, not incompacitate or slightly injure. This is not the old west where you "wing'em" and then let them go. In LE we are taught center mass until the threat is no longer a threat. A threat is someone that ceases to move!
That would be a civil charge brought against one. My thing is this, if a jury is too stupid to recognize anytime a gun is fired at someone, that it is deadly force then they should have never been picked and shame on a DA for not using the ability to remove that juror. Now jurors lie to get on a trial too. I have done special investigations on such. It happens.
The question in court should be simple, "Did the perp's actions deserve that force?" If you have a scenario of you going to the gas station to fill up your car and while at the pumps you are approached by a perp with either a knife or handgun and they display it and indicate bodily harm and you pull your gun with your handload (not factory) and kil them, should you be cahrged? Hell no! You should get the key to the city for dropping a POS.
If you have a great DA and we do where I live and deal with them constant due to my work, he would never charge the victim regardless of whether it is a factory round or some hopped up handload.
When fired at a person a bullet is meant to kill, not incompacitate or slightly injure. This is not the old west where you "wing'em" and then let them go. In LE we are taught center mass until the threat is no longer a threat. A threat is someone that ceases to move!
DGW1949":3w7bv7uq said:
sturmenater
Bearcat
I use reloads
Not a bad idea. Similarly, those of you who insist on loading handloads might see about securing a letter from your local DA, on state letterhead, stating that he or she sees no issue with using handloads for self-defense and promising that he or she will never make an issue of that.DGW1949":1tgzoroj said:
Maybe I should offer a prize to the first one who can post a scan of such a letter. In the meantime, I'll be waiting for you here. And I won't be holding my breath. :lol:
Rex Driver
Bearcat
Snake45":1atp9h8w said:
Snake, with all due respect I submit that you would never get a local District Attorney (or in Va. Commenwealth Attorney) to write a letter of any type making such definitive statements. We all know that in the adversariel practice of the law that no such statement could or would be made in light of new case law that happens all of the time.
Snake, I defy you to get a statement by a DA, on letterhead stating that he or she would never make an issue out of shooting and killing an uninvited person inside of your house.
Snake, as I once stated, I am a retired cop with 26 years and understand all of the legal possibilities of owning a gun, let alone being forced to use one in the act of self defense. I use the same personal logic in carrying my hand loads everyday as I do when I do my own brakes, and pull out of my driveway every morning. I understand the real and possible risk factor involved in each and every action. I also understand that I will not live my life in fear of what can possibly be done by a jury in a court of law or a rogue District Attorney such as a Mike Wilfong in Durham NC.
Snake, this is the great thing about living in this country (at least up to now) the ability to make personal decisions and not having to make these decisions based on the reasons and fears of the other person.
