as the firing of a round destroys that evidence.
Applies equally to factory ammo, is my point, which you have failed to grasp. And I think that lawyer is a dumbass.
It absolutely does NOT apply equally. That this has to be rehashed is troubling as I'm trying to identify where you are having the disconnect. Do you know what an exemplar is in legal terminology? You understand that exemplars for factory ammo can be (indeed, are) easily obtained and uniformly tested to look for incongruities with what is forensically found at a scene? (In fact I've been told at least the major factories keep exemplar lots of their old stuff PRECISELY for this purpose.) This IS NOT the case with handloaded ammo. That last statement is not an opinion BTW but a statement directly related to actual trial conditions. Oh, and "is a dumbass" is pretty cryptic. Please feel free to elaborate, specifically, on how a lawyer who explained the issues he faced set forth by the prosecution (you DO realize HE wasn't the one throwing handloads under the bus but rather it was his job to try to fight the prosecution on the issue, right?) is being a dumbass.
Here is something else going completely over your head. All your screwy "precedent" claims to show is that the ballistics of your reloads cannot be established "with certainty" after the shooting, which would actually tend to work in your favor in the tinfoil scenarios proposed. How can they claim to prove you were using evil nasty reloads in that case?
I would give a more full answer to this but the easy one is obvious...it sure as hell didn't work out in the "favor" of Daniel Bias, did it?
Look, your contrarian stance and tone are a bit bewildering. Perhaps you've come by this honestly in dealing with some who (and I'm rehashing again since I went down this road earlier in the thread) would try to convince you that only a fool would carry handloads and that doing so is tantamount to Russian Roulette. I have
repeatedly stated that it is my opinion that those who posit such an argument are at best being overwrought and at worst basically fear mongering. I believe that. I also know, for a fact, that the issue has been put to the test in a real court (not some forum where people are throwing opinions about from their keyboards) and it came out very badly when handloads played a pivotal role in the forensic evidence. Hell, it may NEVER happen again...ever. It damn sure did happen at least once.
