Legal problems with reloads

[ludwig1138]

It seems to me that the ammo manufacturers are taking advantage of the fact that most of us are afraid of the legal ramifications of using reloads for selfdefense.

I saw the quote above in another thread. Are there some legal problems with using reloads for SD?

[VaFisher]

Some say there are because a lawyer can make more out of a case because you reloaded ammo for that purpose. I say self defense ammo is just what it is and nothing more can be said either way if you make it or buy it it's all the same reason behind it.

[remshooter]

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.

[Sevens]

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.

[sanson]

I also would not let the threat of prosecution determine what loads I choose. If you check the stats, reloading supply sales are at an all-time high

[45Marlin carbine]

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

[Al Norris]

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.

[Rimrod]

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.

This was about the same time many rural PD's stopped allowing their officers to use reloads.

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]

Marlin Carbine--

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

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.

[Alleykat]

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.

[crazylegs]

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

[newerguy]

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.

[Gewehr98]

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?

[FALPhil]

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.

[Musketeer]

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.

[FALPhil]

musketeer wrote:
People are in jail now for shoots that should have been clean that took place in pro-gun jurisdictions.

Really? What are their names and/or what are the case cites? I collect miscarriages of justice.

[Musketeer]

Really? What are their names and/or what are the case cites? I collect miscarriages of justice.

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

[BillCA]

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.

[ludwig1138]

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.

[45Marlin carbine]

or say 'I took care to ensure the loads matched factory specs'.

[FALPhil]

Harold Fish is an 'iffy' case.

- The dead guy had a long history of violence
- The dead guy was 'homeless'
- The dead guy was unarmed, but there were dogs with a history of aggression involved
- The M.E. said that the wounds indicated the dead guy was in a "defensive position when shot" - whatever that means...
- There were no witnesses, and Fish did not testify
- Arizona law did not allow deadly force as a self defense at the time of the shooting (this has been amended), and Fish was found guilty and sentenced under the law (which is not the same as justice)
- The judge refused to instruct the jury on the principle of jury nullification

This is probably a miscarriage of justice. In my mind, the dead guy was a violent psycho with no business out among society.

However, I do not think that the use of handloads would be an issue in this case. In fact, as near as I can tell, ammo did not come up at all.

[ShootingNut]

eithe way, reload or factory, blowing a BG away will unfortunetly put you through Hell. The way our justice system is slanted towards the criminal, and lawyers will defend them to the end even knowing they were the purpetraitor.

[Rimrod]

I think I remember the thread newerguy is referring to, which is odd since I can't remember anything else. We also hashed out the Harold Fish case. While we are not lawyers here, not all of us anyway, we are a cross section of the community which is what juries are made of. Given the evidence presented in both cases I would have voted guilty for both defendants if I was on their juries.

There were too many discrepancies in the Fish case and it sounded as if he over-reacted out of fear and did kill the other guy without justification. Besides, as I recall his case was about him using a 10mm cannon, not reloaded ammo.

If I'm not mistaken the case newerguy is talking about was in an article by Masaad Ayoob, go figure. He was using it as an example of why you shouldn't use reloads for self defense but that wasn't what the case was even about. After reading the facts of the case, as Mr. Ayoob had presented them, it sounded like the guy murdered his wife. Apparently the readers mind was supposed to wander off while reading the story and buy into the load of B.S. that Mr. Ayoob was trying to pass off. Which my mind always did when reading one of his articles.

During both of these discussions someone had asked for proof of a case where a person was punished for using reloads/handloads and there never was one offered.

[Musketeer]

There were too many discrepancies in the Fish case and it sounded as if he over-reacted out of fear and did kill the other guy without justification. Besides, as I recall his case was about him using a 10mm cannon, not reloaded ammo.

I put forward Fish to counter the argument that a good shoot is a good shoot and is doubly so in a pro gun state. Good point on the 10mm "cannon." Fish was vilified by the prosecution for using something more powerful in order to kill people. Jurors mentioned that as part of the reason for their guilty verdict. If he was vilified for his gun choice and jurors bought into it what do you think they would have done regarding hand loads?

If I'm not mistaken the case newerguy is talking about was in an article by Masaad Ayoob, go figure. He was using it as an example of why you shouldn't use reloads for self defense but that wasn't what the case was even about. After reading the facts of the case, as Mr. Ayoob had presented them, it sounded like the guy murdered his wife. Apparently the readers mind was supposed to wander off while reading the story and buy into the load of B.S. that Mr. Ayoob was trying to pass off. Which my mind always did when reading one of his articles.

During both of these discussions someone had asked for proof of a case where a person was punished for using reloads/handloads and there never was one offered.

Obviously you never read the article. You also have a clearly preconceived notion regarding Ayoob... "go figure."

The case revolved around a guy who had reportedly loaded light hand loads for his wife/girlfriend to use in their revolver. The cases though were stamped 38 +P. The defendant said that she committed suicide with the gun using the light reloads in them, which threw minimal powder. Prosecution argued that the cases were marked 38 +P so that is what they were. The judge refused to allow any testing of the defendants reloads and did not allow reloaded ammunition to be used as a reason that there was not a significant amount of powder residue on the victim, which would normally be the case in a suicide. Note, the jury wasn't even allowed to HEAR this as a reason. Reloads as a topic were barred from the trial.

This was not a case of someone vilified for using reloads, this was a case where the forensic evidence could not be duplicated because reloads were used according to defense but not allowed for consideration by the judge and prosecution. Since there was no way to otherwise account for the lack of powder on the victim except for being shot at further than suicide distances his conviction was pretty much a slam dunk.

Beyond the vilification issue this points out clearly that the forensics issue comes into play. You could have all the ammo in the world loaded and on your shelves but if the court refuses to admit it then some other factory ammo that would be loaded in your brass will be the standard on which you are judged. If your story does not jive with the forensic evidence your credibility will suffer, and so may you!

[stinger]

A clean shoot is a clean shoot...

Of course, I live in a free state.