Quote:
|
If the question is using handloads, I assume that means you can actually produce those handloads. So isn't that the real problem used against a person in court, regardless of using them or not?
|
Actually, there have been two potential issues raised.
One is that certain facts surrounding the load selection and development might be used to help establish state of mind--to indicate that the shooter may have had some predisposition toward harming someone. Fact of the matter is, choosing an exotic factory load that is advertised as causing maximal tissue damage could be introduced for the same purpose.
The other is the likelihood that scientific forensic trace evidence from hand loads would not be admitted in court. If the lack of gunshot residue on someone who had been shot were to be used by the prosecution to try to prove that the distance of the shot indicated against justifiability (too long=apparent lack of imminent danger), but the loads used would not have left GSR even at a shorter range, the inability of the defense to use that evidence could prove critical.
As has been previously stated, those factors would not prove very important if there were ample evidence supporting the shooter's claim of self defense. But in cases in which the evidence supporting the shooter's claim is sparse, either one or both just might matter a lot.
Does this help?