MMCSRET
Member
All the sound legal advice I read in this thread is worth exactly what I paid to get it!!!!!!!!!!!!
All the sound legal advice I read in this thread is worth exactly what I paid to get it!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you cite a single instance in which an attorney on this board has recommended against the use of JHP ammunition, other than for the purpose of ensuring adequate penetration in a low powered round such as a .32ACP? I cannot.Posted by CoRoMo: Well since I've been a member here, attorneys who are fellow THR members have repeatedly warned about the consequences of using hollow points, FMJ, +P, and handloaded ammo in a CCW. I'm not sure if there is an ammo category that hasn't yet been attached to a legal ramification.
Kleanbore said:As has been said several times, it doesn't matter.
The discussion here is not about the Bias case.Posted by 1858: The details ALWAYS matter and they simply don't add up in this [the Bias} case.
That is your prerogative, but it it shows a very great misunderstanding of how the law functions.Until relevant information is presented regarding the use of handloads in defensive situations, I won't give any credence to Massad Ayoob, retired lawyers or anyone else.
Please don't ask me to back up something that I didn't say.Posted by Kleanbore
Can you cite a single instance in which an attorney on this board has recommended against the use of JHP ammunition...
..
Can you cite a single instance in which one of our attorney members has recommended against the use of FMJ loads...
..
Can you cite a single post in which one of our attorney members has ever recommended against the use of +P loads...
Posted by CoRoMo, in response to "Can you cite a single instance in which an attorney on this board has recommended against the use of JHP ammunition...?
Can you cite a single instance in which one of our attorney members has recommended against the use of FMJ loads...? Can you cite a single post in which one of our attorney members has ever recommended against the use of +P loads...?:
Please don't ask me to back up something that I didn't say.
You are right--it's a judgment call.Posted by pintler: factory rounds are more expensive. Maybe that's not a lot of money, if you buy one box of carry ammo and use it for years. I sort of do that for snubbies; I bought several boxes of Nyclads years ago, and I practice with lead reloads. For autos, though, I like to run quite few of my actual carry loads through them. Failing to do that adds a (slight) risk of having a malfunction during a fight. You can say I should just buy a lot of factory rounds for my autos, but that's money I can't use to, e.g. buy training.
And that's what I did - IMHO, for me, those hundreds of dollars were better spent paying for force on force shoot/no shoot simunition training - because, having been shot in that training, and shooting when I shouldn't have in that training - I'm much more likely to make better decisions if, God forbid, I'm in an actual situation someday. Overall, I think that reduces my legal risk more than buying factory ammo.
And as much as you think you would like to see one, neither such an example nor the lack of one is in any way relevant, precedential, or predictive, as you have been told numerous times over the last six months.Posted by 357 Terms: You have not ONE time presented a case of a SD shooting in which a defendants reload data was not presented in a court of law!
Yeah, we agree, we've probably said it all, as stated here:My personal opinion is that neither one of you has anything more to add to this discussion!
Posted by Kleanbore:Posted by fiddletown in response to 357 Terms: I have answered [the questions]. Kleanbore has answered them. Kleanbore, Sam1911 and I have answered them in this thread. We have answered the question multiple times in multiple ways. If after all of that, someone doesn't understand, I guess there's nothing we can do.
Ah yes, that thread. I remember it now. Four pages with eighty four posts on the subject of reloads for CCW.
That was six months ago.
A lot of very carefully crafted, thorough explanations were provided then. One could probably use them as raw material for an NACDL white paper on the subject.
What I had forgotten was that our friend 357 Terms repeatedly made the very same irrelevant and nonsensical arguments then as now, over and over and over, without indicating that he or she ever understood the subject matter at all.
I have to conclude either that he or she is lacking something that would be necessary for most laymen to gain at least some understanding of the principles involved, or that he or she just likes to be argumentative.
If it is a case of the former, I give up. I do not know of any other way to explain the subject matter.
If it is a case of the latter, it is not worth carrying on a conversation with him or her.