Self Defense Ammo Law

[Good Ol' Boy]

This threads intended purpose is to explore whether or not there is any history of cases that show prejudice towards particular ammunition in self defense situations. Or, if anyone knows current statutes (if there are any) on such situations.

I know there are several lawyers on here so without sounding like a cheapskate I wonder if one or more might chime in. My particular curiosity is FMJ's versus HPJ's. I have heard that since FMJ's tend to not do as much damage as "defense" rounds that it could make a difference in a courtroom. I have heard that with a lot of modern JHP's prosecutors have shown or claimed 'premeditated intent' by carrying such rounds.


Any informative input would be appreciated.


Mods, if this doesn't fit the "legal" criteria feel free to close or delete this. Just trying to get a worthwhile discussion going that I am personally unfamiliar with....

 

[Red Wind]

The majority of American Police Departments use hollow points to cut down on the over penetration factor among other things.

Today,I believe the large majority of CCW holders are also using hollow points for self defense situations for the same reason.

 

[WardenWolf]

Unless you're using Black Talons (which have an undeserved bad reputation), or are in a state like New Jersey that bans use of hollowpoints, it won't make a lick of difference what style of bullet you choose to shoot them with. Hollowpoints are in common use now by both police and civilians, and unless you're using something really off the wall like incendiary, you'll be fine..

The only thing that you should worry about is using handloads. While some would dispute it, many, many lawyers will tell you that it's a legal minefield because a prosecuting attorney could argue that you loaded your own rounds specifically to be more lethal than factory ammo, thus showing a desire to kill. Absurd? Yes. But that type of argument has been known to sway a jury. Stick with factory ammunition.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

In my opinion carrying FMJs for defense borders on the irresponsible. Even an FMJ .380 will grossly overpentrate and endanger people and property beyond the intended target. They are much less likely to stop an attacker and are arguably more likely to result in loss of life because so may more hits are going to be needed to incapacitate.

Mike

 

[slumlord44]

So my cap and ball revolver would be considered hand loaded and could cause a problem in court? Kidding but not really.

 

[GRIZ22]

Wardenwolf, hollowpoints are not banned in NJ. Where they are possessed is the issue. You can legally possess hollowpoints from place of purchase to home, range, or hunting in NJ. Your can transport them from home to and from the range or hunting. There is no law on legal use but where they are possessed. Almost all enthusiasts that keep a handgun loaded with hollowpoints. They are legal in your home.

Possession of hollowpoints is an additional charge if you are transporting a gun illegally.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

In my opinion carrying FMJs for defense borders on the irresponsible. Even an FMJ .380 will grossly overpentrate and endanger people and property beyond the intended target. They are much less likely to stop an attacker and are arguably more likely to result in loss of life because so may more hits are going to be needed to incapacitate.

Mike

In my opinion, missing the bad guy entirely endangers people and property far more than overpenetration does.

No matter how you cut it, most shots fired miss their target. A bullet which misses the bad guy entirely has far more energy down range than one which hits and "overpenetrates".

 

[Frank Ettin]

So my cap and ball revolver would be considered hand loaded and could cause a problem in court? Kidding but not really.

We will not get into the issue of handloaded ammunition for self defense in this thread.

If anyone is interested in that topic, it's already been discussed extensively on this board. See the thread entitled Carrying Handloads for Self Defense and also following the links set out in that threard.

 

[JoePfeiffer]

If possible, I'd appreciate it if people could steer back to the original stated purpose of the thread: is anyone aware of any case law in which the prosecution made a particular point of the ammunition carried? And did it appear to make a difference in the end?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[TimSr]

Not so much ammo itself, but the effects of ammo choices, mostly in the case of unintended targets. You are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, and where it ends up. If your bullet goes through the wall of the house behind the target you missed, and kills or injures somebody inside, you might regret using FMJ ball ammo instead of hollow points. "Overpenetration" is not about bullets passing through your target and continuing onwards. It's about passing throw barriers that might shield innocents from the 75% of your rounds that miss the intended target.

 

[M-Cameron]

i suppose if you want to be "super safe".....you can find out what brand of ammo your local Citys PD is carrying.....

it would be kind of hard for a prosecution to claim you are carrying "super blood thirsty cop killer rounds"........when that is what your PD is also carrying.

however, the chances of it being even being brought up is slim, and any competent defense lawyer should have it thrown out.

 

[highlander 5]

If your worried about hp ammo why not Magsafe or similar ammo type.
There's another brand out there but I can't remember the name of it,shot suspended in liquid teflon.

 

[Spats McGee]

This threads intended purpose is to explore whether or not there is any history of cases that show prejudice towards particular ammunition in self defense situations. Or, if anyone knows current statutes (if there are any) on such situations.

I know there are several lawyers on here so without sounding like a cheapskate I wonder if one or more might chime in. My particular curiosity is FMJ's versus HPJ's. I have heard that since FMJ's tend to not do as much damage as "defense" rounds that it could make a difference in a courtroom. I have heard that with a lot of modern JHP's prosecutors have shown or claimed 'premeditated intent' by carrying such rounds.


Any informative input would be appreciated.


Mods, if this doesn't fit the "legal" criteria feel free to close or delete this. Just trying to get a worthwhile discussion going that I am personally unfamiliar with....

The case of Harold Fish immediately comes to mind. It's not about FMJ vs. JHP, but the fact that Mr. Fish carried a 10mm did come into play.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Thank you for that McGee. It reads to me like the ammo was touched on along with the caliber though?


".... the prosecutor made a huge deal of Fish using a 10mm Kimber pistol and Federal hollow point ammunition to protect himself, convincing at least some on the jury that the large caliber gun and the somehow extra-deadly bullets were indications of malice. "

 

[Spats McGee]

Yeah, I had forgotten about that part.

 

[WardenWolf]

Wardenwolf, hollowpoints are not banned in NJ. Where they are possessed is the issue. You can legally possess hollowpoints from place of purchase to home, range, or hunting in NJ. Your can transport them from home to and from the range or hunting. There is no law on legal use but where they are possessed. Almost all enthusiasts that keep a handgun loaded with hollowpoints. They are legal in your home.

Possession of hollowpoints is an additional charge if you are transporting a gun illegally.

That's mere semantics and the subject of this thread is self-defense. They're effectively banned because you cannot legally carry them for self-defense, and even using them to defend yourself in your home would be questionable; it wouldn't take much of a stretch for a prosecutor to claim that a weapon used for self-defense in the home was effectively carried, regardless of whether the ammo is legal to store in your home or not.

 

[Frank Ettin]

That's mere semantics...

No it is not. Indeed, semantics, i. e., the meanings of words, is fundamental to an understanding of law. The "tools" of law are words, Understanding how words are used and what they mean is necessary to the understanding of law.

...even using them to defend yourself in your home would be questionable; it wouldn't take much of a stretch for a prosecutor to claim that a weapon used for self-defense in the home was effectively carried, regardless of whether the ammo is legal to store in your home or not.

Really now? Can you cite some law to support that, or is it just something you made up?

 

[WardenWolf]

Frank, no offense, but could you be a little less rude? It's pretty simple logic.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The case of Harold Fish immediately comes to mind. It's not about FMJ vs. JHP, but the fact that Mr. Fish carried a 10mm did come into play.

The 10mm issue in the Fish case was bad lawyering more than anything else. Some slandering of the 10mm by the prosecutor with no response by the defense attorney. Could have easily been countered by talking about the FBI, multiple police forces, or the fact that Fish carried a 10mm while backpacking primarily for animal defense. Instead there was no response. Only one juror indicated in post-trial interviews to being influenced by the condemnation of the 10mm. There was so much more wrong with the case including the assailant's violent history being excluded and the horrible law AZ had at the time putting the burden of proof on the defendant to prove self-defense.

 

[Tom488]

They're effectively banned because you cannot legally carry them for self-defense

You can not possess them outside your home. There's nothing in NJ statutes specifically prohibiting their use within one's home/on their property. How would one be charged with violating 2C:39-3f, when 2C:39-3g(2a) expressly PERMITS the possession within the home/on one's own property?

it wouldn't take much of a stretch for a prosecutor to claim that a weapon used for self-defense in the home was effectively carried

What does "carried" mean? NJ laws speak of possession, and locations where that possession occurs. It is legal to possess a firearm in your home/on your property. It is legal to possess HP ammunition in your home/on your property. Assuming the circumstances of a SD shooting are found to be within the realm of justifiable use of deadly force, exactly what do you believe an actor would be charged with regarding the use of HP ammunition?

 

[Spats McGee]

The case of Harold Fish immediately comes to mind. It's not about FMJ vs. JHP, but the fact that Mr. Fish carried a 10mm did come into play.

The 10mm issue in the Fish case was bad lawyering more than anything else. Some slandering of the 10mm by the prosecutor with no response by the defense attorney. . . . Instead there was no response.

No response by the defense? Do you happen to have access to a trial transcript? I'm actually not being snarky here. I have just never seen one, and I'd love to read it.

As for bad lawyering, . . . It's easy to armchair-quarterback that one, but trials are a gamble.

Could have easily been countered by talking about the FBI, multiple police forces, or the fact that Fish carried a 10mm while backpacking primarily for animal defense.

Countered? What was there to be countered? I don't believe that there was any dispute as to whether Fish carried a 10mm.

So what if he carried it "primarily" for animal defense? He still carried it.

Only one juror indicated in post-trial interviews to being influenced by the condemnation of the 10mm. There was so much more wrong with the case including the assailant's violent history being excluded and the horrible law AZ had at the time putting the burden of proof on the defendant to prove self-defense.

Why would the assailant's violent history make any difference? The question, if I remember correctly, was whether Fish's use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. If the assailant's violent history wasn't known to Fish, he couldn't have used it in assessing the threat level, and needn't have been told to the jury to assess the reasonableness of his actions.

Horrible AZ law . . . . the burden is on the defense to prove SD in every state in which SD is an affirmative defense.

 

[basicblur]

If possible, I'd appreciate it if people could steer back to the original stated purpose of the thread: is anyone aware of any case law in which the prosecution made a particular point of the ammunition carried?

If I'm not mistaken, in the Trayvon Martin case did the prosecution not bring up the following points:
1. The particular type of ammo used by George Zimmerman (Sellior & Bellot 9mm HP).
2. The fact that he was carrying a round in the chamber.
3. The fact that he "topped off" the magazine after chambering a round.

I'd also note GSR entered the picture, but using hand loads vs. factory loads has already been discussed ad nauseum, and as Frank pointed out, will not be discussed in this thread.

I'm no lawyer / expert, but I've been a student of Mas Ayoob's teachings for over 30 years. I often point out to new shooters that learning how to use the gun is the easy part (at least for this old country boy) - they better learn the legal ins / outs.

My warnings usually fell on deaf ears until the Trayvon Martin trial opened a LOT of eyes.

We have a new area gun shop that opened not long before Zimmerman went to trial, and they had the TV in the shop on the trial whenever it was on.

The owner (whose eyes were finally opened) remarked to me how amazed he was at everything we consider SOP the prosecutor tried to hang Zimmerman with.

Why he was amazed is beyond me...I'd had numerous conversations regarding such topics, and even mentioned to him he might want to carry a few of Ayoob's books in the shop.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It's pretty simple logic.

No, it is not a matter of logic. You apparently don't understand what "logic" is.

Logic doesn't work without data or evidence. Logic is a process for examining data and forming conclusions based on that examination of data. For those conclusions to be meaningful, both the data must be correct and complete and the process must be sound.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

1. Logic: 1. a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference* and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning….
   
   
2. Analysis: 1.: separation of a whole into its component parts…
   
   2…
   3...
   4 a : an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations b : a statement of such an analysis...
   5 a : a method in philosophy of resolving complex expressions into simpler or more basic ones
   b : clarification of an expression by an elucidation of its use in discourse…
   ​
3. Interpretation: 1: the act or the result of interpreting : explanation…
   
   2: a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style...
   3: a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information…​
   _____
   
   
   *Inference: 1: the act or process of inferring (see infer): as
   
   a : the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former
   b : the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty
   ​
   2 : something that is inferred; especially : a conclusion or opinion that is formed because of known facts or evidence
   
   3 : the premises and conclusion of a process of inferring...

Without legal authority or evidence supporting your conjecture that:

....even using them to defend yourself in your home would be questionable; it wouldn't take much of a stretch for a prosecutor to claim that a weapon used for self-defense in the home was effectively carried, regardless of whether the ammo is legal to store in your home or not....

you can't get there by "logic."

 

[denton]

I don't believe that there is a single correct answer to the original question.

A friend with many years of LE experience in California reports that the question of ammunition type, including whether they are handloads, almost always comes up at discovery in that state.

Another friend who specializes in gun cases here in Utah tells me that he has not yet seen the question raised.

Two different states, apparently two different typical responses, as seen by people with experience in those states.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

I'm sure it varies state by state, I was looking for anything in general.

We've already established (going off the reliability of McGee's link) that the Fish case did mention ammo type. So that's a start.

The only other worthwhile suggestion in this thread so far might be the Martin case. But I've yet to find anything on the net quoting any kind of argument from the prosecution about ammo type, and I've been searching/reading for the last hour.


Regardless I feel like we're still on the right track for the most part, despite a few comments.