It's either a risk to use handloads or it's not. We've got a couple of lawyers and at least one well-known expert witness who says it's a risk and explained why.
Quote:
|
You cannot say definitively that every court in which evidence of this type is tendered will find it inadmissible.
|
Saying a thing is a risk is not the same thing as saying definitively that it will be a problem in every court, it's saying it could be a problem in some courts--maybe even in most courts. In the same vein, arguing that it could be admissible in some courts doesn't disprove the claim that it could be a problem in other courts.
Quote:
|
One can not say NEVER when you talk about reloads or anything else not being used as evidence.
|
Saying a thing is a risk is not the same thing as saying that reloads will NEVER be used as evidence, it's saying that there can be problems with getting reloads used as evidence and in this case it's also saying that in some documented cases that fact has played heavily against a favorable outcome for the defendant. In the same vein, arguing that reloads may sometimes be used as evidence doesn't disprove the claim that there can be (and have been) problems with getting reloads used as evidence.
It's pretty well accepted that in some cases it won't be an issue. That's the nature of risk. Sometimes a risk doesn't materialize to a genuine problem because risks are probabilistic in nature.
Moreover, I think we can all see that under certain circumstances, even if it becomes an issue it might be favorably resolved even if the risk does "bite".
Neither of those things precludes the fact that the risk exists, nor does it address the more pertinent point--not onlydoes the risk exist, it's an UNNECESSARY risk that can be eliminated easily and at very little cost.