Originally Posted by Waders
Originally Posted by DocRocket
Sonofabitch. Ayoob had it right, after all.

Who'd a thunk it?


Well...no.

Sorry, but the fact that one lawyer tried to make handloads an issue in a court case doesn't prove a thing. To the contrary, the fact that it's only been tried in one, single case tends to prove the opposite.

I'm a criminal defense attorney and am very good friends with our county's elected prosecutor. We were sitting around one day with several other lawyers and got to talking about the Factory Load v. Handload thing and whether using handloads exposed the shooter to more risks regarding prosecution/conviction/civil suit.

One attorney astutely pointed out that, if he could pick the shooter's ammo, and then go after the shooter in court, he would prefer that the shooter use factory ammo. His reasoning was factory self-defense loads are tested against multiple other options. They are tested and re-tested. Their performance is analyzed and re-analyzed. Only when the company has decided that it has produced the "perfect" killing round does it mass produce it and sell it to the public. So when Joe Citizen buys that ammo, he is purposely buying ammo designed to do the most harm to the other guy. That decision shows more planning and evil intent than the guy who handloads and would say in court "Oh, I loaded those rounds because I got the bullets on sale and they shoot good in my gun. No, I've never tested them for stopping power or tissue damage. I just got good groups with them and have a bunch to shoot up."


I find this line of reasoning fascinating on several fronts. For instance:

The ammo companies would send an army of attorneys to attack that premise. How could they not? The self defense market (and I think you'd agree) is a huge one where, as you yourself point out, vast amounts of resources are spent on R&D as well as, and this is a HUGE deal with what your friend posited, marketing. A case where a DA went after FACTORY rounds specifically marketed as SELF DEFENSE ammunition could rock the entire industry if it went badly.

And then there is the law enforcement problem. I'd say the vast majority of what is marketed to civilians as SD ammo is in use by at least some LE agency somewhere. And even if not the "idea" being posited about "the perfect killing round" would immediately come under no small amount of scrutiny. Is LE to be expected to go back to low powered ball ammo in the wake of such a judgement? Or would they somehow effectively argue something along the lines of "If WE shoot bad guys with this stuff to defend ourselves that's just different than when John Q does it.".

What do you think? It's an interesting angle you've set forth.

If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.