|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 25, 2013, 08:02 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2013
Posts: 178
|
zxcvbob,
Thank you for appreciating my humor. I can just hear a lawyer telling me in the aftermath, "You will keep your mouth shut, and if I do direct you to speak, you will not use the opportunity to ask the police lab people if you can please have your lead back." 40-82 |
July 25, 2013, 02:41 PM | #52 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
The issue of using reloads for self-defense has been hashed and rehashed around here. That's why I put together An Archive Regarding Reloads and Self-Defense. If you're interested in seeing how some of the arguments play out, that's a good place to start.
Most of the objections to the use of reloads for SD or carry are legal, rather than ballistic or performance, in nature. There's a fairly specific constellation of conditions under which things can get pretty ugly for an SD shooter who uses reloads. In short, I'd call it a very low probability that it will ever become an issue for most shooters. However, for the unlucky guy in whose case the use of reloads does become an issue, that decision could turn out to be extremely costly.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; July 25, 2013 at 02:48 PM. |
July 25, 2013, 04:42 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: SC
Posts: 2,743
|
Quote:
|
|
July 25, 2013, 05:50 PM | #54 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
With that said: Daniel Bias, for starters. His case is an example of how using handloads can significantly complicate your defense.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
July 25, 2013, 10:05 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2013
Location: Douglasville, Ga
Posts: 4,615
|
http://www.gunforums.net/forums/gene...mas-ayoob.html
check this post, it might change how you think.......probably not though. i'm still with the handloads. but it def shows that it can become an issue in court, especially in this new political climate against guns and the ppl that love them. |
July 26, 2013, 07:18 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: SC
Posts: 2,743
|
I expect that once someone was convicted for using reloads, the reload question would become a primary point of prosecution.
|
July 26, 2013, 09:54 AM | #57 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Since using reloads isn't illegal in any state of which I am aware, nobody can "be convicted for using reloads." However, they still have the potential to significantly complicate one's defense, and increase legal fees accordingly.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
July 26, 2013, 01:54 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: SC
Posts: 2,743
|
Wording problem. See if we can avoid mincing "convicted on the weight of having used reloads".
|
July 27, 2013, 01:38 AM | #59 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 14, 2013
Posts: 81
|
cast lead bullets.
if a bullet cast drom lead was unsuitable for self defense, no company would sell bullets of cast lead labeled or advertised for self defense. I believe buffalo bore alone would loose 50 percent of their sales. |
July 27, 2013, 05:39 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,705
|
In previous posts I never insinuated that reloads wouldn't be effective or have ever been called into question in a trial. I simply want to avoid any and all legal problems that could effect the rest of my life. A lawyer is free to throw almost anything into a trial to sway the outcome and I just don't want to be on the darkside of that situation.
I'm sure we will all agree that almost any bullet can cause major damage and you are free to use whatever you want for whatever you want within the constraints of law. I fear things like the civil suit after a shooting where a lawyer can distort a situation however he wants, to get you to pay a survivor or his family for the rest of your life.....over something you did to save your own life. I have seen guys selling reloads at gun shows, where they loaded hollow base wad cutters upside down to do more damage and thought the lawyers would love that one in court. |
July 27, 2013, 01:18 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 1,057
|
I don't think I agree with some of the legal hypothetical aspects of this thread. I mean if the use of cast bullets or hand loads could be used against someone, then so could the selection of commercial ammunition who's slogan is "Accurate, Deadly, Dependable." or "Hydra-Shock Hollow Point", or "High Performance Ammunition" these are just 3 examples I pulled off of boxes of SD ammo in my safe.
Why are there no hypothetical theories about how this marketing could be used against someone? It seems to me, if we are really that concerned about it, we better just start carrying ammo that is marketed as "Non-Lethal".
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason |
July 27, 2013, 05:51 PM | #62 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
Marketing/slogan issues, on the other hand, are more a matter of jury perception. Issues could arise from using "Mankiller 3000" ammunition, or something marketed as "extra deadly," but those are jury perception problems, not evidentiary problems. Those potential issues just were not the topic of this thread. Assuming comparable ballistic performance, I'll take something marketed as "reliable and accurate" over something marketed as "insanely deadly" for this very reason. Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
July 27, 2013, 06:05 PM | #63 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 2, 2013
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 788
|
Quote:
Use of my own handloads for defense comes down to quality and performance issues where I trust my ability, and have for years, over any similar factory made product. Then there's the old axiom about it being better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6. Having thought on this a bit, if I were ever in such a case where the prosecution was attempting to try me on the basis of using a handload, I would demand that my attorney request a recess so that I could guide him through a specific and relevant series of questions to ask me, allowing elaboration where possible, and I would take the stand and deal with the prosecutions feeble knowledge they were trying to use against me. Old Stony, living in Texas you should know that in a shooting deemed justifiable by LE, you can't be tried in a civil court for "damages". |
|
July 27, 2013, 06:35 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Using handloads is not in-and-of-itself a legal problem. It really only becomes an issue if you need to admit gunshot residue tests into evidence to defend yourself. It is potentially a big problem there; but that means all the stars are aligning against already.
I consider it a non-problem when defending myself within my home. Outside the home I'd rather use factory ammo if it's available.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
July 28, 2013, 05:16 AM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,705
|
Right or wrong in a shooting situation, you will probably still lose. Justice is very expensive in this country and no matter what side of the situation you are on it can cost you everything you own. This is one reason I take the lawyer situations very seriously. Theoretical situations are one thing, but reality can be very different.
For example I once sold a guy some stuff I was collecting. He wrote me a check on sat and stopped payment on Monday. He refused to return my property and I sued him in small claims court where he didn't show up and I got a judgement. Unknown to me at the time he had a silemt business partner that was a lawyer and they sued me over the situation. Long story short, I ended up spending $20,000 in lawyer fees and I finally had to agree to drop it all or face unending more legal bills. My lawyer even told me the guy could drop his suit and start it all over again later and we could go through it again. I never got my property back and the law just called it a civil matter. I'm just using this to illustrate some of the legal things that can be done to people, that did nothing wrong. In the case of a shooting, a guy can lose everything he has worked for his whole life just defending himself ...whether it was a righteous shooting or not. Either way you lose.... |
July 28, 2013, 08:10 AM | #66 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
Underlined section -- In the scenario you've presented, if you're already in trial and just discovering that your handloads are an issue, your attorney has probably already messed up. That's something he or she should have discussed with the prosecutor and the crime lab technicians long before trial. As for taking the stand, I'm not sure exactly what you'd plan on testifying to, but the judge makes the decision as to whether a particular piece of evidence is relevant. Also, precisely what makes you think the prosecution's knowledge of firearms is necessarily feeble? Even if the prosecutor's knowledge is feeble, he or she gets to visit with crime lab experts before trial, and gets to put them on the stand. Quote:
Quote:
ETA: I mentioned in an earlier post that I would go back and dig up another old post of mine on this topic. Here it is: Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; July 28, 2013 at 08:17 AM. |
||||||
July 28, 2013, 11:27 AM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,930
|
I personaly know a person that used a hand load for self defense in the home. It was effective. One shot bad gun dead where he was hit. It went through his neck, and seved his spinal chord at the bottom of the brain stem.
Note this was an inside the home SD event. The bad guy had been harassing the woman that lived there. And had been served with a restraining order. He had a club, and was as he said "going to kill every person in the house." Case went before a Grand Jury. Unanimous deciscion was Justifiable Homicide. He was then immune from civil liability claims made by the bad guys estate. Two days afterwards his gun, and the remaing ammo were returned. This was one of the clear cut cases. I myself carry handloads for woods defense. Store bought premium stuff for carry on the streets.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you. |
July 28, 2013, 04:06 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,270
|
I have read the archives in the past.The point that I took away was that some forensic evidence may be inadmissible in court.
An example might be the ballistics expert in the Zimmerman case that said the forensics supported Zimmermans story. My personal preference would be to use the same 200 gr swc 45 ACP handload for everything. But I think I would prefer to be able to use ballistic evidence in my defense,also. |
July 29, 2013, 06:13 PM | #69 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: March 2, 2013
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 788
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 29, 2013, 07:49 PM | #70 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's the statute: Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. Last edited by Spats McGee; July 29, 2013 at 07:57 PM. |
|||||||
July 29, 2013, 08:39 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 6, 2013
Posts: 178
|
Spats McGee,
I looked up the posts you referred to by yourself and Pax from the earlier thread on the same subject. I find it more than a little chilling to realize how little I knew about the subject. Thank you for your efforts. I feel compelled to comment on your defense of lawyers. I've had a fair amount of experience in suing government agencies in property rights cases, and I imagine in several government agencies, I'm viewed as far worse than a garden variety felon. Government lawyers hate to lose. I see the practice of the law as a profession that tends to polarize people. It attracts the brightest and the best(of which you can be clearly counted), individuals who put everything on the line in the pursuit of justice. Practice of the law can also wear down too many normal enough people who are too willing to use their talents to work for causes that they know are wrong because they can't turn their back on billable hours. I'm not talking about defense attorneys defending career criminals; in that case, they're defending the principals of the Constitution and everyone's right to a fair trial more than the individual they happen to represent at the moment. The practice of the law is a moral whirlpool and not everyone has the strength to fight the currents. |
July 29, 2013, 11:09 PM | #72 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 2, 2013
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 788
|
Well, Spats, keep on disagreeing with yourself! It's amusing, and obviously, moderator status gives you the right to do that! Specifically, I wasn't going to take the time to search for a "statute" number while knowing Texas law. Any Texas CCL holder should be completely clear on this issue. The statute is quite clear with NO precedent to think otherwise even though you still wanna play "what ifs." You seem to be trying to make a case for a civil liability lawsuit before a criminal court has even tried a defendant which can't even occur without said person being charged with homicide.
Quote:
|
|
July 30, 2013, 06:00 AM | #73 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
July 31, 2013, 11:05 PM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,270
|
My angle/question is not about whether handloads are legal for SD.
If I am involved in an SD shoot,I have admitted"Yes,I shot him".If he dies,its a homicide.Then,I am in court trying to convince a jury it is a justifiable homicide.(see Zimmerman). If I use a factory load,forensics can testify"Powder burns,etc of a Fed Hydra Shok as used in this case indicate the distance......etc" That may be very helpful in proving my case. If I use a handload,I get no ballistic help,as I understand it. Am I wrong? |
July 31, 2013, 11:11 PM | #75 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 2, 2013
Location: Heart of Texas
Posts: 788
|
LOL Spats! My background is in design and engineering and I would feel comfortable on the stand countering any expert witness or any prosecutor who might decide to make it an issue procedurally or otherwise. Obviously, I'm not an attorney. Here's hoping that you aren't either!
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|