Police Grade Ammo For Civilians?

[Arsyx]

Hopefully, this topic hasn't been discussed before. I have very bad luck with the search feature of the forum...

I've stumbled across websites that sell police grade ammo to civilians. They claim they can do it because the sales of it is prohibited by the companies, not by law. However, if I loaded my home defense handgun with something like say... Federal +P+ bonded hollow points and eventually had to defend myself with them what kind of trouble can you get in? After all it's not a law..and even Cheaper Than Dirt sells police overstock. Could I have a law suite on my hands by the ammo maker?

 

[legion3]

No its a company policy not a law...
A law suit from the manufacturer? I doubt it, plenty of others will sue you before they would.

 

[Arsyx]

Good point Legion, I think the last thing we want is the BG family suing me for shooting their knife wielding crack head son who broke into my home with super dooper cop bullets the world we live in...

 

[DMK]

However, if I loaded my home defense handgun with something like say... Federal +P+ bonded hollow points and eventually had to defend myself with them what kind of trouble can you get in? After all it's not a law..and even Cheaper Than Dirt sells police overstock.

The reason companies restrict sales of these ammos to civilians is due to the high pressures (Hornady does the same thing with 5.56 LEO only vs .223 civilian TAP). They are worried you'd try to shoot this ammo in some old or cheap gun that is too weak to take it, the gun would grenade and you'd try to sue them.

If you ever had to defend yourself with it and the DA gives you trouble about it, your lawyer would just point out that it's used by the police for good reason.

 

[Arsyx]

Well, I am a fan of expensive guns ha. Chances are I'd have it in a Browning Hi-Power MKIII or a Sig P229 DAK.

 

[Coronach]

You can and will be sued if you ever shoot someone. However, due to the almost 100% certainty of being sued, you should cease to worry about the silly legal arguments and concentrate on the non-silly ones:

Silly legal argument: The ammo used by the defendant to shoot the plaintiff (or, the deceased) was too ___(insert adjective here)___.

Non-silly legal argument: The defendant had no legal justification to shoot the plaintiff (or, the deceased).

People have opined for years that if you use police ammo, hunting ammo, hollow points, ball ammo, handloads, factory loads, what the local cops use, what the local cops don't use, etc etc etc, you will be sued. I have yet to hear of a successful legal argument based soley upon type of ammo used, provided the ammo was legally owned (and, perhaps not even then).

I have heard of lots of successful suits based upon the merits (or lackthereof) of the shooting. That is far more important than the type of ammo used (once you separate out the terminal effects of the ammo).

Mike

 

[Cosmoline]

There's no law against it. The "LEO only" is as noted for covering the maker in case you put a .38 +p+ in some old wheelgun and it falls apart. In that case the ammo is for LEO's not because it's extra deadly but because of the idiotic restrictions in many departments that you couldn't shoot .357 magnum. Never mind that many if not most depts by the 1970's used revolvers intended to be chambered in .357 magnum. THis is also why you see old service revolvers on a magnum frame chambered in special only.

I have some of the +p+ rounds and they're OK for slightly less recoil and performance out of a magnum frame revolver. Other than that there's not a whole lot of point to them other than scaring antis.

 

[Hawk]

I find the whole "LE only" thing more than a little baffling - I still have the better part of a case of Federal civvie "gold box" .40 HST with the same catalog number (P40HST2) as shown on Federal's web site for "Law Enforcement" but conspicuously absent from their civilian listings.

The box is gold with no LEO markings on the boxes or case. I don't know if it was once civvie then moved to LEO due to poor sales or what. Nevertheless, there doesn't appear to be any shortage of the civvie stuff.

In contrast, the .40SW EFMJ differs between LEO and civvie in bullet weight and catalog number. I thought all .40S&Ws were of a single pressure so presumably a .40+P EFMJ isn't the reason for the difference.

Sometimes I wonder if it isn't just marketing and possibly an excise tax thing - guess I'll find out when I go to buy the next case.

As noted by others, I wouldn't stress over repercussions over the use of LEO ammo. I'd stop short of carrying mall ninja ammo but that's just me.

 

[W.E.G.]

Can I argue that I thought the two positives cancelled each other out?

Or how about this one, "I just assumed the ammunition was more accurate because it was for police. I bought it because I was concerned about safety of bystanders"

 

[jahwarrior]

the only case i've ever heard of involved winchester's now infamous Black Talon ammo. after a lot of bad press (mostly from NYC), winchester pulled it, and renamed it Ranger. talons are still available online and at gun shows; i bought a box of 9mm in september. the rangers are marketed as "law enforcement only," which means civilians will pay top dollar. i'ts all just clever marketing, IMO. there is no difference between LE and civilian ammo.

 

[Crimp]

We need to have Federal or Speer mark some ammunition: "For CCW Only!"

 

[jakemccoy]

For somebody who's trying to end your life, your first priority should be to end their life before they end yours. Equip yourself with the best practical means to do so. The marketing name for the ammo should not be a consideration. Any decent lawyer can make the name of the ammo a non-issue.

 

[mikeb3185]

mossad ayoob jsut discussed this i combat handguns gun rag (feb 2008) in reference to the ranger sxt

essentially if it is the best choice for le isnt it the saem for the citizen

 

[stevereno1]

I have some of the EVIL black talon LEO rested ammo in my g-17 right now. They only put that on the box to keep from assuming any liability in court. there is no law against having the law enforcement only ammo in your carry gun, your home defense gun, or hunting gun. I would advise however, to NEVER, EVER!!! use a handload, or a load that your buddy made for your 1911 etc.. for a carry round. that in itself could cost you your freedom in a liberal court. USE ONLY FACTORY AMMO IN YOUR CARRY GUN!!!! handloads for everything else if you want.

 

[Arsyx]

Wasn't there a time when H&K was slapping law suites on civilians who were purchasing their LEO ammunition?

 

[Soybomb]

I have some of the EVIL black talon LEO rested ammo in my g-17 right now.

You really should buy some new ammunition, winchester's newer rounds are better than the black talon plus you'll be able to practice with it at a more affordable rate.

the only case i've ever heard of involved winchester's now infamous Black Talon ammo. after a lot of bad press (mostly from NYC), winchester pulled it, and renamed it Ranger. talons are still available online and at gun shows; i bought a box of 9mm in september. the rangers are marketed as "law enforcement only," which means civilians will pay top dollar. i'ts all just clever marketing, IMO. there is no difference between LE and civilian ammo.

We share the same basic idea but view the motivation diffently. For a while black talons had a reputation for being evil teflon coated kevlar penetrating cop killer bullets. While it was of course all bunk, it also makes a great sounding excuse to get your ammo making company sued by a shooting victim. Now their big bad scary round is marked leo only, if you get shot with a criminal don't blame winchester, they never intended for them to have it.

The short story is don't worry what the box says, its legal, use it if you like it.

 

[Jeff White]

Wasn't there a time when H&K was slapping law suites on civilians who were purchasing their LEO ammunition?

When did HK ever make any ammo?

Jeff

 

[Outlaws]

You can and will be sued if you ever shoot someone. However, due to the almost 100% certainty of being sued, you should cease to worry about the silly legal arguments and concentrate on the non-silly ones:

Not in the free state of AZ. Neither the criminal or the family can sue if it was a good shoot.

Police Grade Ammo For Civilians

Last time I checked we have access to more and better ammo than what LEO's are given and told to use.

 

[Jeff White]

Not in the free state of AZ. Neither the criminal or the family can sue if it was a good shoot.

Yeah right.....The same way that firearms manufacturers are protected by the lawful commerce in firearms act.....oops, wait...New York City and Gary, Indiana are suing...How did that happen?? It happened because those laws don't forbid the court clerk from accepting the suit. All they do is provide the protected party with a legal means to have the suit dismissed. If a judge decides that The suit should continue, then guess what....you're in court. If you lose, you may be able to have the verdict overturned on appeal, using the law as grounds for the appeal. But you can and probably will still be sued. The law in the free state of Arizona doesn't do what you think it does. We have the same law in Illinois. But it isn't any kind of blanket immunity from civil action resulting from your actions in self defense. If the guy you killed in self defense finds an attorney who thinks he can can convince a judge that your actions were sufficiently outrageous that they shouldn't be protected by the law and he files suit, then at the minimum you're going to be out a few thousand dollars even if your attorney gets the suit dismissed on the grounds it violates the law protecting you from legal action.

Jeff

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Last time I checked we have access to more and better ammo than what LEO's are given and told to use.

It will depend on the department. Some can't afford the some of the best or higher end ammo and instead just use good ammo. For many depts, the choice isn't what ammo is best, but who will give the dept. the best deal for comparable performing ammo. Some provide top notch ammo.

Then there are the departments that have specialty ammo that is loaded to their specs, not standards off the shelf specs. Your local police may use Speer Gold Dots, but the loading they use may be hotter or colder than the same round offered on the civilian market simply because the department wanted the ammo loaded to a level for their perceived needs.

Of course, there is the issue of what is truly the best ammo or not. There is a lot of waffling at the better end of the scale as to which is or is not best. Also, some depts will choose rounds that they feel are best for their needs, even though that decision seems a bit off. For example, our local SWAT guys shoot Hornady TAP 35 gr. .223 from their AR15s. They go with the really light varmit loads not because they are proven as the best stopper or because they are known to penetrate barriers (neither of which is true), but because they want to preclude the possibility of errant shots overpenetrating walls and injuring or killing non-combatants or friendlies. Their needs for .223 ammo does not match my needs.

 

[Outlaws]

Yeah right.....The same way that firearms manufacturers are protected by the lawful commerce in firearms act.....oops, wait...New York City and Gary, Indiana are suing...How did that happen?? It happened because those laws don't forbid the court clerk from accepting the suit. All they do is provide the protected party with a legal means to have the suit dismissed. If a judge decides that The suit should continue, then guess what....you're in court. If you lose, you may be able to have the verdict overturned on appeal, using the law as grounds for the appeal. But you can and probably will still be sued. The law in the free state of Arizona doesn't do what you think it does. We have the same law in Illinois. But it isn't any kind of blanket immunity from civil action resulting from your actions in self defense. If the guy you killed in self defense finds an attorney who thinks he can can convince a judge that your actions were sufficiently outrageous that they shouldn't be protected by the law and he files suit, then at the minimum you're going to be out a few thousand dollars even if your attorney gets the suit dismissed on the grounds it violates the law protecting you from legal action.

Jeff

Well you can think your thing, and I will think my thing. I don't know about your state/city law, but out here gun owners are not the bad guy. Technically I could be sued, but it wouldn't last 10 minutes in court. The law is very cut and dry. If someone is committing a criminal act while they are injured/killed, you are not liable.

Your response about gun manufactures is a bit flawed because they are not immune from lawsuits when they actually produce a defective product, they are immune from people suing for the sake of trying to bankrupt them and/or hold them criminally/financially liable for crime committed with their product. BIG difference.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/12/00712.htm&Title=12&DocType=ARS

Non liability for damages that result during a criminal act

A. In any civil action, a defendant is not liable for damages that the plaintiff incurs if the plaintiff is harmed as a result of the negligence or gross negligence of any defendant while the plaintiff is attempting to commit, committing or fleeing from a felony criminal act.

B. In a civil action a defendant is not liable for damages that the plaintiff incurs if the plaintiff is harmed as a result of the negligence or gross negligence of the defendant while the plaintiff is attempting to commit or committing a misdemeanor criminal act and the act directly relates to the defendant or the defendant's property.

But it isn't any kind of blanket immunity from civil action resulting from your actions in self defense.

Well it is. If you were not convicted of a crime, you are not responsible for anything that came of the criminal.

In fact, the Arizona Department of Public Safety has it listed even more reader friendly in their CCW instructor book.

E. Nonliabilty for Civil Damages Sustained in Criminal Act
1. Arizona has a special statute, A.R.S. § 12-712, that bars a criminal from recovering for damages sustained by the criminal as a result of the negligence or gross negligence of any person while the criminal is committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing the scene of a felony criminal act, or from a victim as a result of the negligence or gross negligence of the victim while the criminal is committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor criminal act against the victim or the victim's property.

 

[Jeff White]

Believe whatever you want....don't come whining on THR if it happens to you.

Here is the Illinois law:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

The truth is, if a plaintiff can convince a judge that a suit should go forward, then the suit will go forward. Ask an attorney if you don't believe me.

Too many people think these laws protect them from being sued. All they do is make it harder for the plaintiff to sue. It doesn't mean that they can't.

Jeff

 

[sniper350]

Right on Jeff..............

I have to smile everytime I read someone post........... a good lawyer will do this or do that ............and Justice will always prevail.

Never sat in a court room ..........and watched case after case being stuck to the average Joe. The written law has nothing to do with your family having to spend Tens of thousands of dollars getting 12 bleeding heart liberals to see the light when it comes to the use of "deadly force". Oh. and that's a small figure .............depending on the charges ........you could spend hundreds of thousands on legal fees proving you did absolutely nothing wrong. And who returns that money when you are found inocent of all charges -- no one !! Ask the college kids that were charged with Rape not too long ago. How soon people forget :banghead:

Ask your self why are some people charged and others are given a walk, when self defense is the issue. PERCEPTION becomes reality..........and if the public "perceives" you as being "evil" because you were using the deadliest ammo around [ possibly because you couldn't wait to kill someone ] ......... then you are going to court ......and your family goes along for the ride -like it or not !!!.

This silliness that justice has anything to do with being in the "right" ..........is for the people who like to watch Adam-12 reruns.

JF.

 

[jakemccoy]

Jeff wrote:

"Yeah right.....The same way that firearms manufacturers are protected by the lawful commerce in firearms act.....oops, wait...New York City and Gary, Indiana are suing...How did that happen?? It happened because those laws don't forbid the court clerk from accepting the suit. All they do is provide the protected party with a legal means to have the suit dismissed. If a judge decides that The suit should continue, then guess what....you're in court. If you lose, you may be able to have the verdict overturned on appeal, using the law as grounds for the appeal. But you can and probably will still be sued. The law in the free state of Arizona doesn't do what you think it does. We have the same law in Illinois. But it isn't any kind of blanket immunity from civil action resulting from your actions in self defense. If the guy you killed in self defense finds an attorney who thinks he can can convince a judge that your actions were sufficiently outrageous that they shouldn't be protected by the law and he files suit, then at the minimum you're going to be out a few thousand dollars even if your attorney gets the suit dismissed on the grounds it violates the law protecting you from legal action."

=====

That's pretty much the way a shooting is going to play itself out in victim-friendly states like Arizona.

However, we're really getting off topic. This thread is about the legal ramifications of using LE ammo versus non-LEO ammo. In a justified shooting, the type of ammo is not going to matter because so many other more pressing issues will overshadow that issue.

Anyway, using some lightweight ammo to leave your assailant alive to testify is the riskiest move of all. So, use the best legal ammo, whether it's LE ammo or not.

Arguments about public perception amount to shades of gray that may or may not count against you in court. If you're sitting here selecting ammo based on your prediction of the legal aftermath, you must also be thinking about possibly using the gun in the wrong situations.

Keep it simple: Use the best ammo that's legally available, don't worry about what the ammo is called, and don't intentionally point your piece at any human unless your life is threatened.

 

[Jeff White]

However, we're really getting off topic. This thread is about the legal ramfications of using LE ammo versus non-LEO ammo. My post above referred specifically to that topic.

Back when the PD I worked for carried S&W 5906s they issued Winchester 115 gr JHP +P+ ammo that was marked Law Enforcement Use Only on the box. I asked the Winchester Rep when he was in the office one time why it was restricted. He told me the only reason the boxes were marked that way was because they could be relatively sure that if a police department used it, it would be fired in a modern weapon and not in someone's old pot metal framed junker.

There is no legal consequence for using ammo that is marked LE Only in Illinois, unless that ammo is illegal under the state and federal laws against AP ammo.

In most cases the LE Only markings are to avoid liability to the manufacturer should someone blow his weapon up in his face with it as most of it is hotter then SAAMI spec for sporting ammunition.

Jeff