Carrying Handloads, yes or no?

[buck460XVR]

And as I've discussed here at length I doubt that the defense will be able to establish that there is sufficient reason to believe that the remaining cartridges are the same -- when that is based on the self serving claim of the defendant whose interests are furthered by the remaining cartridges being the same.

As opposed to what? The self-serving claim of the prosecution that the remaining cartridges MAY not be the same? Who's interests are furthered by the remaining cartridges being different? How is that any different in factory than in handloads?

 

[buck460XVR]

You're free to believe my analysis or not, as you choose. I do not accept yours and instead will rely on my own professional judgment.

One thing the extensive coverage of the Zimmerman trial was to expose all of us to many different Criminal lawyers. There were several on multiple panels on every news station on cable. One thing that was very evident from this, is that Lawyers are very opinionated and feel very strongly about their opinions. Another thing that was very evident, was that many of them were wrong in their judgement....altho they were supposedly the cream of the crop in their field. It was also evident that many of their opinions were biased and based on subjective thinking. They were just human, it is understandable. Again...... I have no problem with what other folks use in their SD firearms. I hope they are as comfortable in their decision as I am in mine.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Really? Not a single case? You can't think of a single case where GSR testing was developed from a defendant's handloads, and admitted at trial?

It's not that I can't think of a case. I searched a legal data base I subscribe to of all reported decisions published by every state and federal court in the United States. I did multiple searches using various search parameters (both Boolean and natural language).

What we are really looking for in order to have something reliable to be able to cite in other cases is a published decision of a court on the question.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And as I've discussed here at length I doubt that the defense will be able to establish that there is sufficient reason to believe that the remaining cartridges are the same -- when that is based on the self serving claim of the defendant whose interests are furthered by the remaining cartridges being the same.

As opposed to what? The self-serving claim of the prosecution that the remaining cartridges MAY not be the same? Who's interests are furthered by the remaining cartridges being different? How is that any different in factory than in handloads?

It is the burden of the party offering the evidence to convince the judge of its admissibility. As to the question regarding factory ammunition, I outlined that multiple time in posts above.

 

[ReloaderFred]

This whole argument comes up every year or so, and what it boils down to is each person will make a decision that they will live by if they ever have to use deadly force. Only that person, and their legal representative(s), will be bound to defend whatever that decision has been.

I made my decision while still working in my chosen career in Law Enforcement, where I testified as an expert witness on firearms on the witness stand. After being grilled by attorneys on both sides of the issue, I decided to limit the questions as far as ammunition is concerned in any case that might concern my own use of deadly force. With that said, if I happen to run out of factory ammunition, and I'm still able to fight back, I'll use whatever I have at my disposal to try to win the battle, and let the chips fall as they may, but all my carry handguns are loaded with factory ammunition. It's my choice, and only I have to defend it.

Hope this helps.

Fred

PS: These discussions usually solve nothing, and only result in hard feelings between the posters. This will be my only post on the issue, since I see no sense in continuing with it.

 

[longdayjake]

I think it is worth bringing this issue up every year or so. Especially as time goes by and new cases can be presented to justify either side of an argument. The thing about the law is that it is fluid and evolving with each judicial decision. Years ago, before carrying was as widely accepted as it is today, courts may have looked at handloads differently as they do today. As handloading becomes all more common, courts will have to adjust the way they accept evidence in relation to handloaded ammo.

We're talking about the rules of evidence that apply to the introduction of expert opinion testimony based on exemplar testing. Those rules apply in the same way in all types of cases -- criminal and civil.

Yes, you are correct in that the written rules of evidence apply equally. However, precedent shows that the standards for admission are different for civil and criminal cases. The standard for a criminal defendant to get evidence admitted is a lot less strict than in a civil case. How do I know this? I wrote a brief about it. The rules say one thing. Precedent often says another.

 

[zxcvbob]

The sad thing is, every time someone asks about what bullet or powder to use for loading self-defense ammo, instead of just asking "are you sure you want to do that?" and linking one of these thread (and then answering the original question) the thread is immediately derailed into yet another rehash of this and it never gets back on track.

 

[Lj1941]

Convinced

I have followed this thread for quite a while. There are some good arguments both pro and con on whether or not a person should carry handloads for personal defense. I have decided that the advantages of using hand loads are overweighted by the possible consequences of their use. I will carry the best factory defense load possible from this day forward.I would rather take free advice offered on this forum than have to pay an attorney in the unlikely but possible event that I have to use deadly force.Thank you Frank for your input .Your input was the deciding factor for me!

 

[Frank Ettin]

...However, precedent shows that the standards for admission are different for civil and criminal cases. The standard for a criminal defendant to get evidence admitted is a lot less strict than in a civil case. How do I know this? I wrote a brief about it. The rules say one thing. Precedent often says another.

Do you have some of the citations from your research still handy? I'd like to have then available in my library. If you do, please send me a PM.

And it would be interesting to see how that would play out in a criminal case involving GSR testing. As I've noted, my research did not find any reported cases (i. e., in our jargon that means a formal decision published by the court making the ruling) on the question.

 

[rugerman]

I've been reloading (rifle & pistol) since the early 70's, most of my guns have NEVER fired a factory round. I always carry my reloads, in every thing that I shoot that can be reloaded for (exception- 22 rimfires)

 

[buck460XVR]

I think it is worth bringing this issue up every year or so. Especially as time goes by and new cases can be presented to justify either side of an argument. The thing about the law is that it is fluid and evolving with each judicial decision. Years ago, before carrying was as widely accepted as it is today, courts may have looked at handloads differently as they do today. As handloading becomes all more common, courts will have to adjust the way they accept evidence in relation to handloaded ammo.

I gotta agree. Altho I may not agree with some folks here, I respect their opinions and enjoy the different point of view. If there ever is solid evidence contrary to what I believe, I hope they don't hesitate to come here and show/tell us.

 

[beatledog7]

The only rounds I've ever had fail to fire were factory rounds.

I do carry factory rounds in my usual CCW, but some day (even though I practice with them sparingly and most often use a handload designed to be very close) I'm going to run out of my favorites, and they are hard to find. I'll start carrying handloads when they're gone, and I won't worry a bit about what some prosecutor has to say about them.

My logs are sufficient to show beyond a doubt that everything I handload is semi-hot or less; nothing I load is in any way sinister or designed to go through an inch of steel of rip limbs off or any such nonsense as that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by parisite: As I've said here in the past, a justified shooting is a justified shooting, no matter the ammunition.

Regardless of whether you or someone else has said it before, that is a true statement. It is unimpeachable.

The problem arises when it comes to establishing after the fact whether a shooting was justified. Without a sound and video record from beginning to end, with multiple perspectives, that can be difficult to address, and subject to great uncertainty.

Gunshot residue (GSR) evidence is routinely used in shooting investigations.

On some occasions, it may be important to the defender as a defendant to introduce GSR pattern test evidence from exemplar ammunition of the type used in a shooting. Such evidence may be critical to countering other forensic evidence and/or unfavorable eyewitness testimony.

The applicable rules of evidence, whether derived from Frye v. US or Dow v. Merrell Dow or something else, depending upon the jurisdiction, and within jurisdictions, possibly depending upon whether the question relates to criminal culpability or civil liability, will mitigate very strongly against the introduction of such evidence if the ammunition used had not been assembled by a third party under controlled conditions, and the assembly records kept under independently controlled custody. That is something that some, but not all, experts understand. I have been trained in that field.

Many people do not understand that, and still others seem to refuse to accept it. Let us hope that they never learn it the hard way.

I understand the advantages of hand loaded ammunition. Given a choice, however, I will not carry it for self defense. It is a very simple matter of objective risk management.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by PJSprog: The OP asked "Are there any legal ramifications if you defend yourself with hand loads?" The lack of case citation suggests that the answer is no. Anything else is pure speculation, which only serves to further the unsupported fear-mongering surrounding this issue.

I really hate to put it quite this way, but that statement indicates a lack of understanding of the principles of both legal principles and risk analysis.

We have a sticky in ST&T that touches on that concept. If it is not sufficiently clear, we can try to address that.

 

[357 Terms]

If it is not sufficiently clear, we can try to address that.

I think this thread has been trying to address the issue, what seems clear is the argument against using handloads is based on speculation, pure and simple.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 357 Terms: ....what seems clear is the argument against using handloads is based on speculation, pure and simple.

Mr. Terms, you have repeated that assertion over and over ad nauseum over the last several years.

Debating it with you is not productive, but for the benefit of others:

• The use of GSR evidence is routine in shooting investigations.
• As a matter of law, it is up to the defender to present evidence of justification.
• Witness testimony and other evidence sometimes contradict the account of the defender.
• GSR test evidence of the defender's ammuntion can, within limits, establish the distance at whaich a shooting took place, which can, of course, come into question and which can have a lot to do with the way the defendant's credibility is assessed by the triers of fact.
• If the defendant used handloaded ammuntion, his chances of getting test results or expert witness testimony regarding same admitted into evidence are virtually zero, due to legal precedents that address admissibility of evidence and of expert testimony.

None of that is "speculation."

 

[RealGun]

Kleanbore - I understand the advantages of hand loaded ammunition. Given a choice, however, I will not carry it for self defense. It is a very simple matter of objective risk management.

Then smaller .357 Magnums cannot be carried with anything more than off-the-shelf .38 Spl in many people's hands, because my own experience is that such a gun requires custom ammo to be reasonable to shoot .357 Magnum in a small, lightweight platform. I was of the school that carried only commercial SD ammo until I acquired a Ruger SP101 3+" in .357 Magnum. If I had a short .44 Magnum, I would likely have the same issue, however then I would have to fight the .44 Mag stereotype and explain why I needed a "cannon" or didn't choose to shoot .44 Special.

 

[357 Terms]

If the defendant used handloaded ammuntion, his chances of getting test results or expert witness testimony regarding same admitted into evidence are virtually zero, due to legal precedents that address admissibility of evidence and of expert testimony.

Zero chances?...zero?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RealGun: Then smaller .357 Magnums cannot be carried with anything more than off-the-shelf .38 Spl in many people's hands, because my own experience is that such a gun requires custom ammo to be reasonable to shoot .357 Magnum in a small, lightweight platform.

I don't know how that relates to the evidentiary question, but I see no reason to carry anything other than factory .38 ammunition in a light .357. That's what I carry when I carry a revolver. Heck, that's what I keep in an L-Frame in the house.

If I had a short .44 Magnum, I would likely have the same issue, however then I would have to fight the .44 Mag stereotype and explain why I needed a "cannon" or didn't choose to shoot .44 Special.

Why would the necessity for any such explanation ever arise?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 357 Terms: Zero chances?...zero?

Essentially, yes.

For anyone who may be interested in learning why, here is an excellent explanation written by an attorney.

 

[Sam1911]

If the defendant used handloaded ammuntion, his chances of getting test results or expert witness testimony regarding same admitted into evidence are virtually zero, due to legal precedents that address admissibility of evidence and of expert testimony.

Except that that really hasn't held up to scrutiny, as Ken has pointed out now in two threads.

And now that I think it is clear to all that the Bias case does not in any way validate the idea, (despite the claims made by someone in the popular press) and there don't seem to be any other cases to point to where what we're saying COULD happen, DID happen, this is simply a truism. A legal practice good idea. A reasonable bet, but not a solid one.

When you look at just how far down the "rabbit hole" the case has to go -- how many factors have to turn against you, from the very basic question of being arrested and prosecuted in the first place, to you needing GSR testing to prove your self-defense claim, all the way to the ruling by a judge that he's not going to allow handload testing for GSR purposes when several judges in Bias DID, then the extreme amount of warning and alarm and anxiety over the matter appears to be a tempest in a [strike]teacup[/strike] raindrop.

 

[RealGun]

RealGun: Then smaller .357 Magnums cannot be carried with anything more than off-the-shelf .38 Spl in many people's hands, because my own experience is that such a gun requires custom ammo to be reasonable to shoot .357 Magnum in a small, lightweight platform.

Kleanbore - I don't know how that relates to the evidentiary question, but I see no reason to carry anything other than factory .38 ammunition in a light .357. That's what I carry when I carry a revolver. Heck, that's what I keep in an L-Frame in the house.

It "relates" directly to the OP. What you carry does not relate to the "evidentiary" question either, does it. Does it need to?

You aren't loading a .38 Spl. It's a .357 Mag. The model SP101 is also available in .38 Special, and if that is what someone wants, they should buy it instead.

If I had a short .44 Magnum, I would likely have the same issue, however then I would have to fight the .44 Mag stereotype and explain why I needed a "cannon" or didn't choose to shoot .44 Special.

Kleanbore - Why would the necessity for any such explanation ever arise?

Because carrying such a gun can be, in my opinion, interpreted as aggressive rather than defensive.

 

[buck460XVR]

Except that that really hasn't held up to scrutiny, as Ken has pointed out now in two threads.

And now that I think it is clear to all that the Bias case does not in any way validate the idea, (despite the claims made by someone in the popular press) and there don't seem to be any other cases to point to where what we're saying COULD happen, DID happen, this is simply a truism. A legal practice good idea. A reasonable bet, but not a solid one.

When you look at just how far down the "rabbit hole" the case has to go -- how many factors have to turn against you, from the very basic question of being arrested and prosecuted in the first place, to you needing GSR testing to prove your self-defense claim, all the way to the ruling by a judge that he's not going to allow handload testing for GSR purposes when several judges in Bias DID, then the extreme amount of warning and alarm and anxiety over the matter appears to be a tempest in a [strike]teacup[/strike] raindrop.

...add to that, the fact that none of the anti-handload crowd has EVER been able to give an example of where the use of handloads, in a legitimate SD scenario, has been the reason for a bad shoot conviction, tells me that zero cases outta thousands means the probability of it happening is improbable.

Except for the could happens, might happens. Kinda like crossing' a road. You don't cross a road when ten semi's are barrelin' down on you @ 70 MPH, you wait till the traffic has cleared, because there is a 100% chance you will get hit. If you can not see a vehicle in any direction your chances are now 100% that you won't get hit.....by a vehicle. There's always the chance of a meteor. Don't laugh. The probability of that happening using actual data, is greater than goin' to jail for using handloads.

 

[weemsf]

I am a reserve deputy, an armed Chaplain in fact. I use Department Ammo in my personal defense guns for both my wife and I. That means Speer Gold Dot. I bought several boxes of each caliber I needed some time back. The Department issues me one box in 40 S&W for my issued duty weapon and we are responsible for our own backup gun's ammo. We are given 60 rounds of 223/5.56 for our patrol rifles.

If we expect to be covered under the department's insurance, we must be using approved ammo. I understand that the average person does not have these same concerns. However, if you can obtain the same brand ammo as your local PD is carrying, it would be a wise decision in my opinion.

I, like many of you, reload. If I run out of my issue ammo, and there are still bad guys around, I will use whatever I have to stay alive and deal with the consequences afterward.

 

[PJSprog]

I really hate to put it quite this way, but that statement indicates a lack of understanding of the principles of both legal principles and risk analysis.

Well, your opinion is noted. I, too, hate to put it quite this way, but your statement indicates a lack of understanding of the question at hand.

Are there any?
No one in this thread - not you or Frank or anyone else - has been able to provide a single example of any legal ramifications from the use of handloads. That is the point of my statement. Yet somehow it's the rest of us who don't understand? We can speculate for days, as we've done here, as to the possibilities and potential risks of anything. But it seems to me that if after 100 years of reloading there are no cases to cite any negative legal consequences, then this is all purely unfounded speculation.

I stand by my statement until you can prove it otherwise.