Handloads as defense ammo

[ran]

Just wondering what the consensus is on using reloads for defense ammo. I get the best groups with the bullets I cast, but I'm not sure I should depend on them...

[goodspeed(TPF)]

That's a big enn ooh for using reloads for self defense. I imagine your bullets will poke a hole just like any other similarly loaded bullet, but do you want your handloads scrutinized in a court of law should you ever have to use them in a self defense scenario? Probably a good idea to use what your local Law Enforcement agency uses (or ANY Law Enforcement agency for that matter). And how much more accurate can your home brew be at 15 ft compared to some Cor-Bon or HydraShocks? Really?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This has been discussed into the dirt. Before we get the usual 1000's of posts - might a good member search on the topic and post the numerous threads.

Then the OP can read those before we start anew.

Here's a summary:

1. Do handloads have legal issues? Big fight
2. If they are solids, will they overpenetrate and give you problems if you zap someone else. HPs are recommended.
3. Group size probably isn't that important as compared to the debateable legal risks if you use reloads.

So, someone list the threads, please.

[stargazer65]

Here's a bunch of good threads on this topic:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...archid=3511648




Some of them get quite dramatic too!

[SIGSHR]

Massad Ayoob has said "NO!" to using reloads for self defense for the reasons listed. If there is someone who knows more about the subject than him, I would like to know who that is. Find a good factory load, see what the loacl PDs and State Police issue, develop a reload that matches them in recoil and accuracy, practice with them, use the factory ammunition for the Real Thing.

[CraigC]

Massad Ayoob has said "NO!" to using reloads for self defense for the reasons listed. If there is someone who knows more about the subject than him, I would like to know who that is. Find a good factory load, see what the loacl PDs and State Police issue, develop a reload that matches them in recoil and accuracy, practice with them, use the factory ammunition for the Real Thing.

All due respect to Massad Ayoob but he has also yet to prove it to be a viable concern. In the last discussion on the subject, one case was presented where it was brought up but it was a minor issue. A suicide if I remember right.

I also wouldn't choose my self defense load according to what local police use. Preferring to use my own reasoning and judgement.

[Jart]

Here's one:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=359253

All due respect to Massad Ayoob but he has also yet to prove it to be a viable concern. In the last discussion on the subject, one case was presented where it was brought up but it was a minor issue. A suicide if I remember right.

The Bias case? Got the husband charged with murder - probably not minor from his point of view.

An Ayoob post from another forum:


Cases Where Handloads Caused Problems in Court
As promised, here are the sources for records for any who feel a need to confirm the cases I have referenced previously where handloaded ammunition caused problems for people in the aftermath of shootings.

As I have noted in this thread earlier, and as the attorneys who have responded to this matter have confirmed, local trials and results are not usually available on-line. However, in each case, I have included the location where the physical records of the trials are archived.

NH v. Kennedy

James Kennedy, a sergeant on the Hampton, NH police force, pursued a drunk driver whose reckless operation of the vehicle had forced other motorists off the road. The suspect ended up in a ditch, stalled and trying to get underway again. Advised by radio that responding backup officers were still a distance away, and fearing that the man would get back on the road and kill himself and others, Kennedy approached the vehicle. At the driver’s door, the suspect grabbed Kennedy’s Colt .45 auto and pulled it towards himself. It discharged in his face, causing massive injury.

The reload in the gun was a 200 grain Speer JHP, loaded to duplicate the 1000 fps from a 5” barrel then advertised by Speer for the same bullet in loaded cartridge configuration.

This was the first case where I saw the argument, “Why wasn’t regular ammunition deadly enough for you,” used by opposing counsel. They charged Kennedy with aggravated assault. They made a large issue out of his use of handloads, suggesting that they were indicative of a reckless man obsessed with causing maximum damage.

Defense counsel hired the expert I suggested, Jim Cirillo, who did a splendid job of demolishing that argument and other bogus arguments against Kennedy at trial, and Kennedy was acquitted.

This case dates back to the late 1970s. The local courts tell me that the case documentation will be on file at Rockingham County Superior Court, PO Box 1258, Kingston, NH 03843. File search time is billed at $25 per hour for cases such as this that date back prior to 1988.

NJ V. Bias

This is the classic case of gunshot residue (GSR) evidence being complicated by the use of handloaded ammunition, resulting in a case being misinterpreted in a tragic and unjust way. On the night of 2/26/89, Danny Bias entered the master bedroom of his home to find his wife Lise holding the family home defense revolver, a 6” S&W 686, to her head. He told police that knowing that she had a history of suicidal ideation, he attempted to grab the gun, which discharged, killing her. The gun was loaded with four handloaded lead SWC cartridges headstamped Federal .38 Special +P.

Autopsy showed no GSR. The medical examiner determined that Lise Bias had a reach of 30”, and the NJSP Crime Lab in Trenton determined that the gun in question would deposit GSR to a distance of 50” or more with either factory Federal 158 grain SWC +P .38 Special, or handloads taken from his home under warrant for testing after Danny told them about the reloads. However, the reloads that were taken and tested had Remington-Peters headstamps on the casings and were obviously not from the same batch.

Danny had loaded 50 rounds into the Federal cases of 2.3, 2.6, and 2.9 grains of Bullseye, with Winchester primers, under an unusually light 115 grain SWC that he had cast himself, seeking a very light load that his recoil sensitive wife could handle. The gun had been loaded at random from that box of 50 and there was no way of knowing which of the three recipes was in the chamber from which the fatal bullet was launched.

We duplicated that load, and determined that with all of them and particularly the 2.3 grain load, GSR distribution was so light that it could not be reliably gathered or recovered, from distances as short as 24”. Unfortunately, the remaining rounds in the gun could not be disassembled for testing as they were the property of the court, and there is no forensic artifact that can determine the exact powder charge that was fired from a given spent cartridge.

According to an attorney who represented him later, police originally believed the death to be a suicide. However, the forensic evidence testing indicated that was not possible, and it was listed as suspicious death. Based largely on the GSR evidence, as they perceived it, the Warren County prosecutor’s office presented the case to the grand jury, which indicted Danny Bias for Murder in the First Degree in the death of his wife.

Attorney John Lanza represented Danny very effectively at his first trial, which ended in a hung jury. Legal fees exceeded $100,000, bankrupting Danny; Attorney Lanza, who believed then and now in his client’s innocence, swallowed some $90,000 worth of legal work for which he was never paid.

For his second trial, Bias was assigned attorney Elisabeth Smith by the Public Defender’s office. Challenging the quality of evidence collection, she was able to weaken the prosecution’s allegation that the GSR factor equaled murder, but because the GSR issue was so muddled by the handloaded ammo factor, she could not present concrete evidence that the circumstances were consistent with suicide, and the second trial ended with a hung jury in 1992. At this point, the prosecution having twice failed to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge threw out the murder charge.

It was after this that I personally lost track of the case. However, I’ve learned this past week that the case of NJ v. Daniel Bias was tried a third time in the mid-1990s, resulting in his being acquitted of Aggravated Manslaughter but convicted of Reckless Manslaughter. The appellate division of the Public Defender’s office handled his post-conviction relief and won him a fourth trial. The fourth trial, more than a decade after the shooting, ended with Danny Bias again convicted of Reckless Manslaughter. By now, the state had changed its theory and was suggesting that Danny had pointed the gun at her head to frighten her, thinking one of the two empty chambers would come up under the firing pin, but instead discharging the gun. Danny Bias was sentenced to six years in the penitentiary, and served three before being paroled. He remains a convicted felon who cannot own a firearm.

It is interesting to hear the advice of the attorneys who actually tried this case. John Lanza wrote, “When a hand load is used in an incident which becomes the subject of a civil or criminal trial, the duplication of that hand load poses a significant problem for both the plaintiff or the prosecutor and the defendant. Once used, there is no way, with certainty, to determine the amount of powder or propellant used for that load. This becomes significant when forensic testing is used in an effort to duplicate the shot and the resulting evidence on the victim or target.”

He adds, “With the commercial load, one would be in a better position to argue the uniformity between the loads used for testing and the subject load. With a hand load, you have no such uniformity. Also, the prosecution may utilize either standard loads or a different hand load in its testing. The result would be distorted and could be prejudicial to the defendant. Whether or not the judge would allow such a scientific test to be used at trial, is another issue, which, if allowed, would be devastating for the defense. From a strictly forensic standpoint, I would not recommend the use of hand loads because of the inherent lack of uniformity and the risk of unreliable test results. Once the jury hears the proof of an otherwise unreliable test, it can be very difficult to ‘unring the bell.’”

Ms. Smith had this to say, after defending Danny Bias through his last three trials. I asked her, “Is it safe to say that factory ammunition, with consistently replicable gunshot residue characteristics, (would) have proven that the gun was within reach of Lise’s head in her own hand, and kept the case from escalating as it did?”

She replied, “You’re certainly right about that. Gunshot residue was absolutely the focus of the first trial. The prosecution kept going back to the statement, “It couldn’t have happened the way he said it did’.”

The records on the Bias trials should be available through:
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 will find 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
Disposition: Cross-pet. Denied.
N.J. 1995.
State v. Bias
142 N>J> 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table)


TN v. Barnes

The decedent attacked Robert Barnes and his young daughter with a large knife and was shot to death by the defendant with SJHP .38 Special reloads from a Smith & Wesson Model 36. The distance between the two at the time of the shooting became a key element in the trial, and a misunderstanding of that distance was a primary reason he was charged with Murder. The evidence was messed up in a number of ways in this case, and I do not believe the reloaded ammo (which the prosecution did not recognize to be such until during the trial) was the key problem, but it definitely was part of a problem in reconstructing the case. We were able to do that without GSR evidence, and Mr. Barnes won an acquittal. In this case, I believe the use of factory ammo, combined with proper handling and preserving of the evidence by the initial investigators, would have made the defense much easier and might well have prevented the case from ever being lodged against him.

The records of TN v. Barnes are archived under case number 87297015 at:

Criminal Justice Center
201 Poplar
Suite 401
Memphis, TN 38103

Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems

A man attempted to disarm and murder Corporal Randy Willems of the Davenport, IA Police Department, screaming “Give me your (expletive deleted) gun, I’ll blow your (expletive deleted) brains out.” Willems shot him during the third disarming attempt, dropping him instantly with one hit to the abdomen from a department issue factory round, Fiocchi 9mm 115 grain JHP +P+. The subject survived and stated that the officer had shot him for nothing from a substantial distance away. GSR testing showed conclusively that the subject’s torso was approximately 18” from the muzzle of the issue Beretta 92 when it discharged. Randy was acquitted of criminal charges in the shooting at trial in 1990. Two years later, Randy and his department won the civil suit filed against them by the man who was shot.

I use this case when discussing handloads because it is a classic example of how the replicability of factory ammunition, in the forensic evidence sense, can annihilate false allegations by the “bad guy” against the “good guy” who shot him. The records of State of Iowa v. Corporal Randy Willems are archived in the Iowa District Court in Scott County, Davenport, Iowa. Those from the civil suit, Karwoski v. Willems and the City of Davenport, should be at the Iowa Civil Court of Scott County, also located in Davenport, Iowa.

A final word: I did not research the above and place it here to placate lightweight net ninjas. I did it because three recent Internet threads led me to believe that a number of decent people had honest questions about the real-world concerns about using handloads for self-defense, and were possibly putting themselves in jeopardy by doing so. For well over a decade, certain people have been creating an urban myth that says, “No one has ever gotten in trouble in court because they used handloads.”

This is now absolutely, and I hope finally, refuted.

Respectfully submitted,
Massad Ayoob

[Tom2]

Hmm. Wonder what the outcome would be if you shot a bad guy with a cap and ball revolver? They only shoot "handloads" that you assemble each time you load the gun. Does that mean that they would make an issue of that? "You used Elephant brand powder?! Were you planning on hunting elephants?"

[CraigC]

Every case cited above would be a wonderful argument against handloading at all, for any reason or purpose. The Bias case particularly, where the result would've been the same if it were a sporting gun kept around the house for field use or if she had intentionally loaded it with handloads herself. Like the 629MG I keep loaded with a moderate handload. Only the Kennedy case is a viable example indicating what 'could' happen if you were to intentionally use handloads for self defense.

One case.

[Jart]

I'm betting the listing wasn't exhaustive but even if it was, we all make our own choices given our own level of risk tolerance.

Personally, I remove firing pin blocks from 1911s, have no issue with pinning grip safties and remove mag interlocks from BHPs.

But I'd never load Xtreme Shock in a defensive handgun. I'd use handloads before I'd use tesla ninja ammo, even if XSshock is factory.

That one case where handloads were an agreed issue, I believe, exceeds (by one) the number of cases where removed firing pin blocks have been an issue in court - but try asking about the practice and you'll be beseiged by warnings.

I'd conjecture that those that handload regularly have a greater risk tolerance for handloads in a defensive firearm and those that routinely remove firing pin blocks think they're golden as well. Those with low risk tolerance will do neither.

[jim n iowa]

I don't believe any one will be convicted of protecting your self, family, or property by using reloaded ammo. It has never happened, and has been a very mute issue if admitted to court, which I doubt was ever admitted on the sole strength that a person protected themselves by using reloaded ammo. Think about it, you protected your self with a black powder muzzel loader, that is reloading. Even though we have a lot better ammo available to the average person, (if you can find it). I would trust my 30+ years of reloading for my personal defence as opposed to buying assembly line produced ammo. Take a ccw coarse, there are no restraints on using reloads in the coarse.
Jim

[45_Shooter]

I prefer to use factory ammo for personal defense even though I feel it is mostly a rip off in price and can duplicate the loads myself for considerably cheaper.

I don't want any more variables than there has to be if I have to explain to a court my part in some kind of unfortunate event involving a firearm. I want the situation to be a replicable as possible so as to corroborate my account. I feel in general using reloads for self defense would be a moot point, but as Jart pointed out, there are documented cases where it complicated the legal proceedings unnecessarily.

[Frank Ettin]

Here we go again.

First, here are links to a couple of threads discussing the matter at length:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261157

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283823

Second, I'm a lawyer retired after over 30 years in practice. I therefore have some first hand understanding of how the legal system works. And I will not use handloads for self defense.

[1] First, we really have to get over this "a good shoot is a good shoot" business. If you are on trial after a self defense shooting, someone doesn't think it was a "good shoot." Either the DA decided that he had something to prosecute or the grand jury concluded that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that you did it. There is a dispute about whether the shooting was justified, and determining whether it was a "good shoot" is now going to be up to the judge and/or jury.

[2] As a lawyer, I have seen how juries can be influenced by any number of factors. We know for example, from post verdict juror interviews that at least some of the jurors in the Harold Fish case were troubled by his use of JHP ammunition. Of course the notion that there was "something wrong" with Mr,. Fish for using that sort of ammunition was planted in the minds of the jurors by the prosecutor, and not effectively dealt with by the defense. And since JHP ammunition is more effective, we still recommend its use for self defense and hope, if the need arises that our defense will be able to deal with the issue. Nonetheless, the Harold Fish case is an example of how something like the kind of ammunition used in a self defense encounter can affect the thinking of members of a jury. (Mr. Fish won a new trial on appeal, but he still has gone through an awful ordeal and is still in prison.)

[3] And of course, the use of handloaded ammunition isn't going to be the only issue. No capable and ambitious prosecutor is going to pursue a possible self defense shooting case if all he has is the fact the you used handloaded ammunition. If you're on trial at all, the prosecutor believes he has enough factors, and the evidence to prove those factors, to overcome your claim of justification.

[4] I can't not believe that a skillful prosecutor, having decided to prosecute you after a shooting which you claim was in self defense would fail to make whatever use he felt he could of the fact that you used handloaded ammunition (or a gun from which you removed a safety device or modified the trigger by making it very light). Any capable prosecutor is going to, first of all, be excluding from the jury anyone who has any interest in, or knowledge of, guns. If he can get some folks on the jury who are a little afraid of guns, so much the better. A least a few of such jurors are likely to be uncomfortable with the fact that you handload your own ammunition, or the you have tinkered with your gun, or the mere fact that your hobby is guns or shooting. Some of the jurors may even have personal doubts about whether a private citizen should even be allowed to have a gun.

[5] Remember also that a plea of self defense is different from most other defenses to a criminal charge. In general, the common defense to a criminal charge is essentially, "I didn't do it, and you can't prove that I did." But when you plead self defense, the first thing that you have effectively done is admitted that you did it. You must essentially say, "I shot the man." And the essence of the claim of self defense is, "But I was justified in shooting him."

[6] Because of the nature of a self defense plea, how the jury sees you can be very important. You will want them to be willing to accept your claim that you were justified in performing an act that is generally, in good society, repugnant -- an act of extreme violence against another human being resulting in the injury or death of that human being. He may have been a criminal with a long history of violence, BUT in most cases any evidence to that effect will be inadmissible.

[7] Yes, we know that the jury is supposed to decide on the basis of the evidence, not how they feel about you. But we also have to accept the fact that a juror's emotional perception of a witness will affect the credibility and weight given to his testimony. I've had jurors tell me in post verdict interviews, that they didn't trust this witness or that they believe that witness because of personal characteristics of the witness that they either thought ill of or thought well of. That is the real world.

[8] 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 handloaded yourself the ammunition you used. Indeed, I'd expect a prosecutor to conjure up for the jury the image of you up late at night in your garage quietly assembling special super killer bullets.

[9] 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 store bought ammunition wasn’t lethal enough to satisfy your perverted blood lust. Remember, Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was good.

[10] And yes we know that there don't seem to be any cases that illustrate all this. But then again, how many defensive uses of a gun result in the gun being fired? And how many defensive shootings result in a trial (many are in fact clean cut "good shoots")? And of those that go to trial, in how many has the defendant (claiming self defense) used handloaded ammunition (or a gun with a safety device removed or with a super light trigger)? I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who keep and/or carry guns for self defense use stock guns and factory ammunition. In other words, the sorts of case we'd be looking for just doesn't happen often enough to be on radar.

[11] In the event of your having to use your gun for self defense, there will be things you can't control and those that you can. You really can't control how a violent encounter will unfold. You can control how you prepare and what your tools will be. It is, however, true that a prosecutor might try to use just about anything against you, like using JHP bullet or having had extensive training. But somethings, while they may have a downside in court, can give you an advantage on the street -- like training and JHPs. But something may have a downside in court without any countervailing advantage -- like handloaded ammunition or certain gun modifications (when guns that would be suitable without modification are available).

[12] Personally, I'd like to stack the deck as much in my favor as I can. And the less I may need to explain, the better. If I wind up on trial after a self defense shooting, my lawyer is going to have to deal with any number of factors that the DA thinks will help him put me in jail. I don't want to give my lawyer any more problems than he already has (and his problems are my problems).

[13] Everyone gets to make his own decision, but I will not use handloads for self defense, nor will I use a gun which has had a safety device disabled or with a super light trigger. I feel that I can provide for my defense without burdening myself with those sorts of legal wild cards.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Fiddletown sums it up so well. What he says also correlates very closely with the jury simulation research on weapons issues. I talked about such in my Polite Society presentation that Mas mentioned in his blog and I will be mentioning an upcoming article for Pax.

[CraigC]

I understand the "possibility" but so far, it is unfounded. We can come up with lots of reasons to believe the old wives tale but can't support it with legal precedent. The fact remains that when the theory, which is all it is, is challenged with a "prove it", it falls flat on its face. The end result is people keep repeating something they've heard without any firsthand research or even considering the possibility that it may be false. With the absolute lack of evidence supporting the theory, you may just as well say that a prosecutor would use any conceivable way to demonize you for using the most effective factory ammo available that is "designed to kill people". You may as well worry yourself to death about the sky falling.

As far as what a prosecutor may or may not use against you, I'd sure as hell rather use a moderate handload with cast bullets than factory Black Talons.

On the flipside, are there any examples where the shooter DID use handloads and it was NOT held against them?

[Jart]

Originally Posted by Mas Ayoob

A final word: I did not research the above and place it here to placate lightweight net ninjas. I did it because three recent Internet threads led me to believe that a number of decent people had honest questions about the real-world concerns about using handloads for self-defense, and were possibly putting themselves in jeopardy by doing so. For well over a decade, certain people have been creating an urban myth that says, “No one has ever gotten in trouble in court because they used handloads.”

This is now absolutely, and I hope finally, refuted.

Apparently not.

Originally Posted by CraigC

I understand the "possibility" but so far, it is unfounded. We can come up with lots of reasons to believe the old wives tale but can't support it with legal precedent.

I may have missed something. If all anybody is trying to prove is that handloads have actually been an issue in court (as opposed to say, an automatic conviction), what is wrong with the Ayoob cases?

Your flipside would be interesting - given the rarity of DGUs generally, I'd expect cases involving handloads to be pretty rare - I have no hard numbers but I'd guess less then 10% of CCH holders even handload at all.

I'd be tempted to say the odds are so vanishingly small that it wouldn't matter about handloads or safties but if one conducted oneself based on probabilities, one wouldn't carry a weapon to start with.

Hmmm.
Odds aren't long enough to leave the weapon at home but are long enough to stuff it full of handloads.

Not being argumentative here - my attitude with FPBs prohibits that, but I'm not seeing where Mas didn't do exactly what he said he did in re: proof.

[batmann]

Personally, I ask the question----Why take a chance? I have a Mountain Gun and an Alaskan and I keep them stroked with Cor-Bon 165 gr SD loads in .44 Spl. IF I ever need to use one of them, I want everything in my favor that can be done.

[HankB]

I'm old enough to remember when factory ammo WAS seriously lacking - and how Lee Jurras and "Super Vel" changed all that. Now, I really don't see handloads as an issue unless you're dipping them in rattlesnake venom or something, but today, IMHO, there is no ballistic need to go to handloaded ammo; there's plenty of good stuff on the market.

But if ammo IS going to be an issue, note that ANY ammo can be made an issue; police departments have been criticized for using hollow points, or using FMJ.

* Use JHP, and you're using "Dum Dums, banned by the Hague Accords."

* Use FMJ, and you're using "Military style warfighting ammo."

* Use the same ammo police do, and you're a "Walter Mitty Cop Wannabe."

etc. etc.

The important thing is, if you get hauled into court, be SURE your own lawyer knows your reasoning, and will be ready to shoot down the opposition's arguments if they bring ammo choice up in court.

[OldMarksman]

We can come up with lots of reasons to believe the old wives tale but can't support it with legal precedent.

Legal precedent? No, there have apparently been no court decisions that would bind or influence courts in subsequent trials on this issue. No one has suggested as much. Not very relevant, in my view.

The fact remains that when the theory, which is all it is, is challenged with a "prove it", it falls flat on its face.

"Prove it?" Do you mean, show results from prior cases? First of all, there are relatively few justified homicides, and very few homicides, whether justified or not, in which anyone has used handloads. That doesn't mean that the use of handloads might not have some influence on the outcome of a case today or tomorrow.

If homicides involving handloads happened frequently, one might be able to show some kind of correlation among the data. But there are a lot of variables, and there are very few cases to examine. Too many unknowns and too few equations, so to speak.

By way of example, if one were analyzing airline safety, there are thousands and thousands of flights each day, day in and day out, and there are therefore enough data to determine whether or not this or that kind of failure is likely. In the early days of manned space travel (I'm dating myself here), one could not base decisions on how prior events had happened, because there were not enough actual data. To a large extent that's still true today. One had to use logic, reason, and cause-and-effect analysis. That's what one has to do in the case of the question at hand.

By the way, I know directly and indirectly of a number of instances in which people have said something along the lines of "show me a case where someone has been [(charged, indicted, convicted, found non-compliant, whatever)] because of [(blank)]". Whether there had been such cases was not something one could readily determine--you can't Google to find an analysis of every factor that has come up in every grand jury procedure or trial court or out-of court settlement or plea. And the issues at hand were relatively uncommon, to boot. But the lack of data did not help at all later when those people were faced with explaining their own actions.

With the absolute lack of evidence supporting the theory, you may just as well say that a prosecutor would use any conceivable way to demonize you for using the most effective factory ammo available that is "designed to kill people".

True. I'll stay away from the ones that have the most provocative packaging and descriptions.

I hope this helps.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by CraigC

I understand the "possibility" but so far, it is unfounded. We can come up with lots of reasons to believe the old wives tale but can't support it with legal precedent....

First of all, it's hardly a matter of old wives tales. It's a matter of professional judgment. I don't know what your line of work is, but for over 30 years I made my living exercising my professional judgment in connection with legal issues. I guess I was reasonably good at it. If I wasn't, I doubt that I could have retired at age 59.

In the practice of law one must often make judgments and try to predict the results of something that hasn't happened before or happens so infrequently that there is no good exactly similar past experience for guidance. (The term "legal precedent" really doesn't fit here. "Legal precedents" are rulings of courts of appeal on matters of law that are then binding on other courts in similar applications. We're dealing here with matters of trial tactics and jury psychology.)

The thing is that people just very seldom use handloads for self defense applications. So there is no large body of data on how the use of handloads plays out at trial, because it hasn't come up enough. So, as we must often do, we must make our predictions based on basic principles and other evidence. And lawyers have a great deal of collective knowledge and experience with the ways in which various factors can influence how juries evaluate evidence and the credibility of witnesses. And we also have jury simulations studies as alluded to by Glenn E. Meyer.

It seems from your perspective, the only way to test this is for a high percentage of gun owners to start using handloads for self defense. That way in perhaps 50 years we may have enough data on actual legal results. Of course if those of us who counsel against using handloads were right about it being a bad idea in court, a lot of folks will have been disadvantaged in court proving our point.

But if you'd care to care handloads for self defense, be my guest. It won't be my problem.

Originally Posted by CraigC

On the flipside, are there any examples where the shooter DID use handloads and it was NOT held against them?

Not as far as I know. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect it's very rare that anyone carries handloads for self defense.

[CraigC]

I don't want to come across as a proponent of handloads for self defense. I just don't think the legal risk is as great as some would lead you to believe. Evidence would seem to indicate just that. My role is devil's advocate, I just think folks should put some thought into the subject before buying into an unsubstantiated fear.

If all anybody is trying to prove is that handloads have actually been an issue in court (as opposed to say, an automatic conviction), what is wrong with the Ayoob cases?

Nothing, if you look no further. However the fear, as it is commonly repeated, is that an enthusiastic prosecutor paints you as an evil scientist concocting doomsday devices in your basement. IMHO, the GSR cases are unrelated and do not justify that fear. If those handloads had been full pressure and generated enough GSR, it would be a non-issue. Either way, how do we know "which" factory loads produce enough GSR to preclude the same result? We don't.

Only the Kennedy case justifies that fear. One case.

It seems from your perspective, the only way to test this is for a high percentage of gun owners to start using handloads for self defense. That way in perhaps 50 years we may have enough data on actual legal results. Of course if those of us who counsel against using handloads were right about it being a bad idea in court, a lot of folks will have been disadvantaged in court proving our point.

Seems to me that if the fear were justified, there would be something in the last 100yrs to base it on. There is none.

The bottom line is, you say I should be afraid of "X" and I ask "why?". Your answer is, because I said so??? In effect, it is nothing but an unproven theory.


[QUOTE]I don't want to come across as a proponent of handloads for self defense. I just don't think the legal risk is as great as some would lead you to believe. Evidence would seem to indicate just that. My role is devil's advocate, I just think folks should put some thought into the subject before buying into an unsubstantiated fear.

If all anybody is trying to prove is that handloads have actually been an issue in court (as opposed to say, an automatic conviction), what is wrong with the Ayoob cases?

Nothing, if you look no further. However the fear, as it is commonly repeated, is that an enthusiastic prosecutor paints you as an evil scientist concocting doomsday devices in your basement. IMHO, the GSR cases are unrelated and do not justify that fear. If those handloads had been full pressure and generated enough GSR, it would be a non-issue. Either way, how do we know "which" factory loads produce enough GSR to preclude the same result? We don't.

Only the Kennedy case justifies that fear. One case.

...for over 30 years I made my living exercising my professional judgment in connection with legal issues.

Criminal law?

It's a matter of professional judgment.

Indeed!!!

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by CraigC

...I just don't think the legal risk is as great as some would lead you to believe....

How great do you think the legal risk is? On what do you base your assessment of the legal risk? Training and experience or a SWAG, perhaps?

Originally Posted by CraigC

...Evidence would seem to indicate just that...

And exactly what evidence is that? If it's the lack of cases, if the lack of cases is the result of gun owners very seldom using handloads for self defense, it indicates no such thing.

Originally Posted by CraigC

...IMHO, the GSR cases are unrelated and do not justify that fear...

Unless of course, in your particular case GSR evidence would be helpful to you by corroborating your testimony about how far away your assailant was when you shot him. If you used handloads, you will not be able to introduce such evidence.

[CraigC]

How great do you think the legal risk is? On what do you base your assessment of the legal risk? Training and experience or a SWAG, perhaps?

I think the risk is minute. What do I base it on? Exercising the muscle between my ears by studying what is in front of me. Lots of conjecture, little actual fact.

And exactly what evidence is that? If it's the lack of cases, if the lack of cases is the result of gun owners very seldom using handloads for self defense, it indicates no such thing.

Exactly! Far too many unknowns. In other words, your theory is no more sound than mine.

Unless of course, in your particular case GSR evidence would be helpful to you by corroborating your testimony about how far away your assailant was when you shot him. If you used handloads, you will not be able to introduce such evidence.

Why is that? Factory loads are no easier or harder to prove than handloads. How does the prosecution distinguish between the two? You cannot prove what the load used was. You can only compare the evidence to what you can replicate using whatever ammunition is leftover. In that case, it could be handloads or factory loads. As long as the results are repeatable, what's the difference? In that regard, factory loads have no more credibility than handloads. As long as they produce sufficient GSR relevant to the ranges involved. Handloads do not possess a magical ability to suppress all GSR. The above cases were only an issue because the loads were very light and did not produce sufficient residue.

Criminal law?

Again???

[sakeneko]

For those of us who aren't lawyers, it's usually best to listen to the legal experts on legal issues. What makes sense often bears little resemblance to what the law says. :/ If you don't want to be blindsided, best listen to the people who know.

I don't reload at present. If I did, I'd happily shoot reloaded ammunition at the range or when plinking. For target shooting or plinking, I'll shoot almost anything that isn't likely to be dangerous to me or the gun. (Since my gun is a Smith & Wesson steel revolver, it can handle a wide range of ammunition.)

For self defense, however, I carry top-of-the-line factory loaded hollow point ammunition, either .38 +P or .357 depending on whether I'll be in town or out in the country. Currently my revolver is loaded with Speer Gold Dot .38 +P 135 G "Short Barrel". It's widely used by law enforcement and considered one of the best rounds out there for CC revolvers.

[OldMarksman]

Lots of conjecture, little actual fact.

Ya know what? I have the great privilege to have worked with a brilliant man who had been a key player in the design of the Lunar Excursion Module. They had to make a lot of decisions, trading weight against strength, weight and volume against system redundancy and amounts of consumables on board, and evaluating various environmental risks that frankly involved little more than the unknown. They dealt with lots of conjecture and little actual fact. They had to. The success of the entire mission and the lives of the crew depended on them. And they succeeded, big time.

That is not at all unlike what an attorney faces when the conditions, subject matter, and risk factors in a compliance or trial issue involves uncommon issues and factors.

Fiddletown has been trying to explain that to you.

Exactly [the lack of cases is the result of gun owners very seldom using handloads for self defense]! Far too many unknowns. In other words, your theory is no more sound than mine.

Not true by any stretch. What it means is that, due to a paucity of data, one most employ sound reasoning and analysis in the absence of the correlation of actual data.

It doesn't take a lot of reasoning to conclude that under the rules of evidence, the admissibility of GSR data for handloads may be very problematical, and it doesn't take a lot of reasoning to conclude that that problem could influence the outcome of a trial unfavorably.

As long as the results are repeatable, what's the difference? In that regard, factory loads have no more credibility than handloads.

Oh yes they do, sir. Idependence of documentation, verifiable lot acceptance data, and ISO 9000-9001 process verification, are a few of the very important things inherent in factory loads that cannot be ascribed to hand loads. These will all be factors in the test for admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence.

Now, GSR may turn out to be important in only a very few cases. Also, factory loads for short-barreled guns have changed significantly since the Bias case occurred, and conclusions from that may not longer apply every time.

It is difficult to assess the likelihood that a problem might result from the use of handloads, and I, for one, believe that it is probably remote or perhaps even somewhat less than remote. However, I think everyone will agree that the potential consequence could be extremely severe, by any measure.

That means it is something to consider seriously.

Best to not tempt fate, I think...what's the point? What's the upside?

One thing I learned in working closely with attorneys for a little more than two decades is....well, sakeneko put it very well:

For those of us who aren't lawyers, it's usually best to listen to the legal experts on legal issues. What makes sense often bears little resemblance to what the law says. :/ If you don't want to be blindsided, best listen to the people who know.