Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Why You Should Avoid Handloads for Concealed Carry

Nope, I gotta know it's got powder in it, I the primer doesn't dud, I got the rest handled, the chips can land where they may.

A. No
B. Probably not.

I've moved on from being actively involved but I was able to dig up a couple things I knew I'd run across before and thought I'd drop here for consideration by anyone inclined to peruse them. Do with them as you will.

First, my caveat and my bona fides. My caveat: I’m a lawyer, but I’m not your lawyer. What follows is commentary based upon my education and experience, but it is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, go hire a lawyer licensed in the applicable jurisdiction. As for my bona fides: I am an attorney and I’ve been practicing in litigation for almost fifteen years as of this writing. I am licensed in the Arkansas state and federal district courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. I’ve been studying firearms laws in earnest since ~2007.

One of the most contentious and misunderstood of all topics that I have ever run across in gun forums is the issue of using handloads or reloads as self-defense rounds. Opinions and emotions run high, with one side screeching that “a good shoot is a good shoot,” and the other shrieking that “an overzealous prosecutor will hang you.” In my opinion, neither side is true, and both positions stem from fundamentally misunderstanding the underlying questions.

One of the common fallacies that I see in The Handload Debate stems from a misunderstanding of our legal reporting system. All too often, I see posters claiming that someone needs to “show them the case” in which something has happened, either supporting or condemning the idea of using handloads. In and of itself, a request for “The Case” (presumably one with precedential value on the use of handloads) is neither unusual nor inappropriate. If I’m going to make a claim as to the legal contours of a thing or an act, I can reasonably be expected to back that up. Nonetheless, it’s important to understand that, depending on how the demand for The Case is phrased, that can be an impossibly tall order. In the United States, we have 50 independent state judiciary systems (each of which may include courts at the city, county and state levels), the District of Columbia, and a federal judiciary system overlaid on top of all of that. What’s more, not every case is reported, either in the news or in our legal reporter system. One of the things that lawyers do is extract legal principles from seemingly disparate cases, and apply those principles to the case at hand. A lawyer’s best case is one that will be “on point” with all of the legal issues presented by the one he’s arguing, and in his favor. For example, if I were defending against a challenge to a zoning law that prohibited shooting ranges within 1000 feet of a school, the first case I want is one in which (1) a zoning law; (2) prohibiting shooting ranges within 1000 feet of a school (3) was upheld by (4) the US Supreme Court, or my state supreme court. Conceptually speaking, the further a case is from those four points, the less precedential value it has to me. In defending such a case, I might wind up using Heller and McDonald (2A cases, but not zoning), some zoning cases that have little to do with the 2A, and a couple having to do with the city’s police power.

Still, let’s take a brief look at how The Case might conceptually come into existence. In order for there to be a useful opinion out there, The Case has to have been tried and appealed, and an appellate court has to have issued an opinion on that issue. Those are the very broad strokes. More specficially, here’s the necessary chain of events to produce The case for purposes of The Handload Debate:

1. Someone has to:

a. use handloads

b. in a shooting.

2. As a result of that shooting, either a civil case or a criminal case (or both) has to have been initiated;

3. The case(s) initiated in step 2 have to go to trial without a settlement or plea deal being reached;

4. In the course of those cases, there must be a dispute over evidence related to the handloads (otherwise, the appellate court likely won’t talk about that evidence)

5. The case has to have been appealed by someone (and in criminal cases, the State rarely gets to appeal);

6. In that appeal, someone has to claim that the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of the handload-related evidence constituted reversible error; AND

7. The appellate court has to actually discuss the issue of the admissibility of the handload-related evidence in its opinion.

If any one of the above is lacking, there’s no useful appellate opinion for us to dissect. This constellation of necessary events has left us in a position that there is, in fact, very little in discoverable case law to illuminate the pitfalls of using handloads for SD. My Westlaw account allows me to search all federal and state courts in the U.S., and I’ve run a bunch of searches over the years.

The other problem with insisting on The Case is that the requestor can set an impossibly high bar. As I saw it phrased in one internet dispute: “I still have not seen a case where an unquestionable defensive shoot led to a conviction for wrongdoing because of the equipment used.” That statement overlooks several very important points. Two of them are: (1) someone involved in an SD shooting doesn’t get to decide whether his or her case will be “unquestionable,” and (2) the use of handloads could complicate the process of determining whether the SD shoot was lawful (“unquestionable”) or not.

So, with that out of the way, let us turn to The Peculiar Problem of Handloads. From a legal perspective, the essential problem with using handloads in SD scenarios is an evidentiary one. It’s not a ballistics problem. I’m confident that a good handloader can load accurate, reliable rounds with sufficient ballistic performance. That’s not the problem. The problem is that using those rounds could complicate evidentiary matters, should the handloader ever be involved in a shooting.

For purposes of this discussion, I’m going to use the Federal Rules of Evidence for my examples. Each state has its own Rules of Evidence and there are variations in them between states. Then there are court rulings in each state which build upon those variations. I could do a 50-state survey of every state’s rules of evidence, but I won’t. The result would be a much longer treatise than is desirable for purposes of this discussion. Using the Federal Rules as a starting point gives us all common ground from which to work.

Within The Handload Debate, I often see one internet poster attempting to discredit another poster’s claim by saying things like “that was a murder case, not a negligent discharge,” or something similar. The problem with that attempt is that it overlooks that the same rules of evidence apply to most cases, regardless of the case’s underlying nature. In every jurisdiction of which I am aware, there are:

1. Rules of Civil Procedure;

2. Rules of Criminal Procedure;

3. Rules of Evidence; and

4. Various other rules not relevant to this discussion.

As you might surmise from the titles, the Rules of Criminal Procedure apply to criminal cases, and the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to civil cases. The Rules of Evidence, though, are non-specific in that they apply to both civil and criminal cases. For example, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states the scope of the rules: “These rules apply to proceedings in United States courts. The specific courts and proceedings to which the rules apply, along with exceptions, are set out in Rule 1101.”Fed. R. Evid. 1 (a) (West). When we turn to Rule 1101, just to clarify exactly which courts, proceedings and exceptions are out there, we find that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to proceedings before: United States district courts, United States bankruptcy and magistrate judges, United States courts of appeals, the United States Court of Federal Claims; and the district courts of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Fed. R. Evid. 1101 (West). They apply in civil cases and proceedings, including bankruptcy, admiralty, and maritime cases, criminal cases and proceedings, and contempt proceedings. Id. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the case is murder or self-defense, battery or breach of contract, the same Rules of Evidence apply. A court will apply the same rules on admissibility in a self-defense case as it would in a murder case. Before I’m done with this discussion, we’ll have to hit on two main evidentiary concepts: (1) lay testimony versus expert opinions; and (2) hearsay. It’s all interrelated, I promise.

First, opinion testimony – As a general rule, lay (non-expert) witnesses may only testify to facts, but not to opinions. Fed. R. Evid. 701. Experts may testify to opinions based on scientific of technical, or other specialized knowledge. Id. Thus, a lay witness could testify “The bad guy with the knife was about 6 feet away from the shooter when the shooter fired,” but not to something like “the stippling pattern, penetration and lack of unburnt powder at the wound site, are consistent with a gunshot from about 6 feet.” The first is a fact, while the second is an opinion. Hold onto that idea for a moment.

Second, hearsay – The Federal Rules of Evidence say this: “‘Hearsay’ means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801 (West). To put it another way, it’s an out-of-court statement, offered into evidence to prove “the truth of the matter asserted” in the statement itself. What is the “truth of the matter asserted?” It’s the facts contained in the out-of-court statement. For example, if Bob Smith testifies that Larry Jones said, “I [Larry Jones] was in Kansas City, Kansas, at 1:00 p.m. on August 1, 2016,” that statement is generally inadmissible to prove that Larry Jones was in Kansas City, Kansas, at 1:00 p.m. on August 1, 2016.

Why is hearsay inadmissible? In simplest terms, because the Rules of Evidence say so: “Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.” Fed. R. Evid. 802 (West). As to the reasoning behind that, and to make a long story short (which may seem really strange coming from a lawyer), our court system doesn’t think it’s reliable, at least not when compared to sworn testimony in court. However, the general rule that hearsay is inadmissible is riddled with exclusions and exceptions, so Larry’s statement (above) may be admissible for purposes other than proving that Larry was in KC, or it may be admissible because it’s some kind of damning admission on Larry’s part. The exception to the hearsay rule that I think is relevant to this discussion, though, is “records of a regularly conducted activity,” more commonly known as the “business records exception.” Fed. R. Evid. 803. Under certain conditions, records of regularly conducted activities (which are technically hearsay) are admissible to prove the truth of the matters contained in the records. To sum up: (1) Out of court statements are hearsay and are generally inadmissible; and (2) business records can still be admitted, if the appropriate conditions can be met. Here’s the rule on regularly conducted activities: “A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis [may be admissible] if: (A) the record was made at or near the time by--or from information transmitted by--someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and (E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.” Fed. R. Evid. 803.

Let’s stop here for an example, because one of the reasons I carry factory ammunition rests on being able to subpoena somebody else’s business records, should I need to. Let’s say that I buy a rifle from Gus Gunseller, an FFL. Unbeknownst to me, at the exact same moment that Gus and I are filling out a whole bunch of paperwork for this sale, my Evil Twin Brother (who sounds just like me) is 100 miles away, making a phone call from one of the few remaining pay phones in the country, arranging to sell a pound of cocaine to an undercover DEA agent. As a result of my brother’s activities, I find myself with one whopper of a controlled substance charge. Fortunately for me, Gus’ business paperwork always includes something like the following line, “On July 17, 2016, Spats McGee appeared at my place of business at 123 Smokepole Avenue, Oil Trough, Arkansas, at 1:14 p.m., and I verified his identity using two different forms of government-issued identification, each of which contained a photograph bearing Mr. McGee’s likeness.” Gus always signs that document. Unfortunately for me, Gus passes away before I can get to trial. As part of my defense, I really want to introduce Gus’ paperwork as evidence, right? Heck, yeah! Why? Because if I can establish that it was a “business record,” I can use it to establish “the truth of the matter asserted,” which means that I can use it to show that I was, in fact, at 123 Smokepole Avenue at the exact time the phone call to the undercover DEA agent was made, 1:14 p.m. Getting that document in to prove that I couldn’t have made the call will do wonders for my defense.

I can almost hear some of you saying, “But, Spats, what in the world does this have to do with handloads?!?” Well, what if there were some kind of scientific evidence that might require the use of load data? Just like Gus’ paperwork, records of how someone loaded certain batches of rounds are hearsay. Accordingly, unless you can lay the foundation to get them in under the “regularly conducted activity” listed above, those records are inadmissible. The simple fact that they were created by someone who is now being scrutinized for shooting another human being makes them somewhat suspect in the eyes of the courts.

Let’s take a look at the case of Daniel Bias. This case has been discussed extensively, and I’m certainly not the first to write about it. I didn’t attend the trial, and I haven’t read the trial transcript. Nonetheless, I’ve read a variety of articles about it, and the legal principles appear sound. To make a long story short, Mr. Bias’ wife was killed in an incident involving handloads. One critical question was the distance from the barrel to the entry wound. The distance from the end of a barrel to an entry wound can be determined through the use of science related to Gun Shot Residue (“GSR”). In order to get that in front of a jury, though, you have to have expert opinion testimony. That means that Rule of Evidence 702 governs it: “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702(emphasis supplied). To paraphrase: if scientific or specialized knowledge will help the jury, an expert's opinion is admissible if: (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. You have to have all three to get the testimony of the shooter's expert in front of the jury.

In a case like Bias, the defense wants to get expert testimony into the record that Mr. Bias used light handloads, the result of which is to make the GSR look like the shot came from further than it actually did, as compared to standard factory loads. If I were the prosecutor in that case, I’d likely file a Motion in Limine to exclude evidence based on the handloading defendant’s load data records. I’d argue that the data is inherently unreliable, having been created by the defendant himself, and that any expert testimony based on that would also be unreliable. (Who in the world has more motive to fabricate evidence than a murder suspect, right?) And any expert opinions based on that unreliable data would be flawed, right? If I win the Motion in Limine, the jury will never hear about the handloaded ammo. If the State’s experts base their testimony about distance on the wrong ammo, they may come to the wrong conclusion, one which the defense may be unable to rebut.

Now, let’s change the facts up just a little. Let’s suppose that Mr. Bias had used low recoil rounds made by a well-established ammo company, WellKnownAmmo, Inc. WKA uses standard manufacturing processes, and keeps good records, which include the load data for its low recoil rounds. If the defendant in this case wants to put on expert GSR testimony and uses WKA’s load data, what’s the prosecutor going to say? The records were not created or maintained by the defendant, so they’re not “naturally suspect,” the way a handloading defendant’s load records are. Defense counsel can subpoena the records to show that the rounds used were loaded as stated in the records. (Remember the discussion above about “business records” and the “truth of the matter asserted?”) Defense counsel can call in the folks that calibrate the loading machines, to testify as to calibration and accuracy, if need be. And this can all be done without the Defendant ever taking the stand. The Defendant may need to testify, but if I were the Defendant, I’d want to keep my options open, if possible. I’d want someone to come from the factory and tell the jury that WKA has produced 12 bazillion rounds in whatever caliber, and that they’re all consistent with X, Y, and Z, within a tolerance of itty-bitty. With those factors in play, I’d expect the State’s firearms expert to testify that the GSR evidence is consistent with my story. If necessary, I’d put on my own expert to show that with rounds of X, Y, and Z, and a tolerance of itty-bitty, that the GSR has to show that things happened exactly as I claimed. If necessary, I can have my expert test other rounds in that caliber from WKA, and if I’ve got a guy from WKA who will testify about the 12 bazillion rounds loaded to X, Y, and Z, with a tolerance of itty-bitty, I can probably establish the evidentiary foundation necessary to let me expert talk about those tests in front of the jury.

What I don’t have to do in all of that is risk having my expert’s opinion excluded for having been based on records that I (a criminal defendant) created.

There are a lot of moving pieces here. I know that. However, it’s as much about the stakes as the odds, right? The odds of ever having to use the gun I carry are extremely slim, but if I ever do have to, the stakes are incredibly high: The lives of myself and my family. The Peculiar Problem of Handloads is similar. The odds of handloads ever developing into a real legal problem for someone involved in a SD shooting are very low. If it does, however, the stakes are very high. The use of handloads can muddy the evidentiary waters, causing incorrect conclusions from investigators, experts, and the prosecutors who rely on them. In turn, that could lead to incorrect criminal charges, or necessitate the hiring of additional experts on the defense side to head off whatever problems may have been caused. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t have tens of thousands of dollars to hire extra experts for my criminal defense. Heaven forbid that I’m ever involved in a shooting, but I don’t want the waters muddied. I want the evidence to be as clear and simple as I can make it.


This 2nd one obviously has some overlap but I've found it so thought it might as well be included.


There have been pages and pages of discussion on this subject. Much of the material has been repetitive. We will try to summarize the salient points here.

To start out, we will emphasize that there is nothing unlawful about the use of hand-loaded ammunition in any jurisdiction of which we are aware. The issues have to do primarily with evidence that may be needed for a defense of justification that may, depending upon the circumstances, be required after a self-defense shooting.

We often hear the statement "a good shoot is a good shoot". That's true enough, but it would be more accurate to say "a shooting will either be judged to have been justified, or it will not". One can be convicted of having used deadly force without justification even if he or she, having had no part in causing a violent encounter, and having had no alternative, employed deadly force quite appropriately and only as a last resort to defend his or her life--if the evidence available after the fact to support a defense of justification is, on balance, insufficient.

The question of whether to carry hand loads involves a number of legal issues. We have worked with attorneys to address the issue for our members.

Defending the Self Defense Case

If one does employ deadly force against another and claims self defense, he or she will have to provide at least some evidence on each of the elements of self defense for a jury to be given instructions to consider whether the act was justified or not.

If enough of the evidence is unclear or contradictory, the case could ultimately hinge upon any one piece of evidence, or upon the absence of any one piece.

The Potential Importance of Gunshot Residue Evidence

In some instances, testimony about, and other evidence relating to, the distance at which a shooting took place may become crucial to the triers of fact. Gunshot residue patterns are routinely used to estimate the distance (or at least to establish whether the distance was likely to have been less than or greater than a particular threshold). Should that evidence differ from the account given by the defender, his or her credibility and other judgments regarding the case may come into question.

The Rules of Evidence

Under some such circumstances, it may prove crucial to the defense to be able to put into evidence its own test results based on the ammunition used by the defender. Under the rules of evidence, the prosecution has the right to object to the introduction of such evidence, and they can be reasonably expected to do so if the evidence would benefit the defense. The decision rests with the trial court judge. For various reasons, depending in part upon the purpose for which the evidence is to be introduced, those results, if challenged, will be most unlikely to be admitted into evidence if the ammunition used was assembled by the defendant. That is the crux of the issue at hand.

In any trial court, civil or criminal, the judge is the gatekeeper of evidence, and appellate courts typically afford the judge a high degree of deference when it comes to determining which evidence gets in, and which is excluded.

For purposes of this discussion, we will stick with the Federal Rules of Evidence. While most of these cases are governed by state law, many states use the Federal Rules as a model, and they'll give us some common ground from which to work.

Generally speaking, all relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402.

If it's relevant and not otherwise excluded, it gets in. If it's not relevant, it doesn't.

But (and this is very key to our discussion here) GSR is specialized enough that it is considered "expert testimony. That means that Rule 702 governs it:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
So, if scientific or specialized knowledge will help the jury, an expert's opinion is admissible if:

(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

You have to have all three to get the testimony of the shooter's expert in front of the jury. If the prosecutor files a Motion in Limine prior to trial, asking that the evidence be excluded, he or she will simply argue that the opinion of the handloading defendant's expert is based on unreliable data. Specifically, what the prosecutor is saying is that, because the data belongs to the defendant, it is inherently unreliable. It is reasonable to assume that there's a good chance that nobody was around when the cartridges were loaded, so there's no independent witness. If there is a witness, it's probably a good friend of the defendant. As a result, any data on which the opinion is based is suspect.

If the motion in limine succeeds, there can be no mention of the defendant's expert at trial, and the jury will never hear about it.

Precedence

There have been those who, apparently believing that a case involving a trial that concerned charges about a particular type of crime must be cited for a legal conclusion to be drawn, have insisted on seeing an actual self defense case that was decided on the basis of the use of hand loaded ammunition. That belief simply does not reflect the way the law works, and anyone who insists on believing that it does does so at his own peril and would benefit from a consultation with an attorney.

All trial attorneys know that. They face precedence questions from seemingly unrelated cases all the time. The precedence issues at hand here have to do with the use of gunshot residue (GSR) patterns to establish distance, which can apply in any kind of shooting case, and the rules of admissibility for forensic scientific trace evidence, which do apply in all kinds of cases involving such evidence.

The rules of admissibility cited above are based upon US Supreme Court rulings. The rules pertaining to evidence regarding expert witness testimony in criminal trials in many states are based on a SCOTUS ruling involving a civil trial that concerned pharmaceuticals. The rules in many other states stem from a SCOTUS ruling more than four score years ago that had to do with polygraph test results. Neither had to do with hand loads, ammunition, or self defense claims, but either of them will govern the admissibility of relevant forensic scientific trace evidence of any kind in any kind of trial, civil or criminal.

One important point that is often overlooked is that the rules of evidence for criminal trials in Federal courts and in most state courts are the same rules of evidence that apply in civil matters. That is one of the reasons that attorneys may point to a civil matter in reference to the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence in a criminal matter.

Finding specific precedent involving hand loads is really unnecessary. The fact that precious little exists, for reasons discussed below, does not diminish the predictive value of precedent in other cases involving expert testimony, even if such cases do not specifically involve self-defense shootings or hand loads.

It is important to understand how difficult it is to find a case involving such particularized facts. In order for a case involving hand loads to have any value for our discussion:
(1) The defendant would have to be charged with a crime;
(2) The use of hand loads would have to be an issue of contention at trial, and the evidence excluded (if the evidence is not excluded, then the defendant cannot raise that issue on appeal);
(3) The defendant would have to be convicted (because the prosecutor almost never gets to appeal);
(4) The defendant would have to raise the admissibility of the hand load evidence on appeal;
(5) The court hearing the appeal would have to render a decision in which the question of admissibility is actually discussed; AND
(6) The appellate court would have to publish the decision.

If any one of those factors is absent, then it becomes quite likely that that: (a) attorneys on this board or elsewhere will never hear about the case; or (b) there won't be enough of the right information in the decision to offer any guidance on the issue.

For these reasons, attorneys must base their judgment on other predictive information. That is not unusual in the practice of law.

What to Ask an Attorney

Those who remain dubious, and especially those whose knowledge of legal principles and whose background may be insufficient to enable them to understand these concepts are advised to consult with their own experts.

Note: the question to ask is not "can one be convicted for using handloads?". The answer to that is, of course, no. The use of handloads is, of course, perfectly legal, and whether a shooting is lawfully justified has nothing to do with the kind of ammunition used. The question to ask is, "is it possible that evidence concerning the distance indicated by GSR patterns might influence the outcome of a trial in which a shooter claims self defense?".

One should understand that very few trial lawyers will be able to give a good answer to that question without consulting a specialist. The fact is, defending the self defense case is a specialty. So, for that matter, is understanding the rules of admissibility of forensic evidence and related expert witness testimony.

Summing Up: The Risk Question

The question of whether to carry ammunition that one has assembled, or ammunition that has been assembled by a friend or associate, is a personal one. It should be made with a full understanding of the risks involved.

One cannot point to the frequency of actual occurrences, or the lack of same, to assess the risks, One cannot point to the frequency of actual occurrences or the lack of same to assess the risks, for very good reason. First, most people do not carry hand-loaded ammunition for personal protection. Of those who do, very few have ever faced the necessity to fire their weapons for self defense. Still fewer have been charged or prosecuted.

Of the exceedingly small number of persons who have been prosecuted, we are not aware of any who have had a need to support their cases with gunshot residue test evidence.

That explains the lack of relevant examples. But that lack does not provide a good basis for risk assessment.

The risk question is one involving conditional probability—that is, the likelihood that issues will arise after one has been involved in a defensive encounter.

Some of the above is so important that it bears repeating: should one ever be forced to discharge a firearm in self defense, (1) it will be up to the defender to produce at least some evidence of justification; (2) the evidence and testimony available after the fact may well be incomplete and possibly contradictory; (3) gunshot residue pattern evidence is a routinely accepted method of estimating the distance involved in a shooting; (4) differences in witness testimony and/or other evidence may cast doubt upon the defender’s account of that distance; and (5) under those circumstances, it may become very important for the defender to be able to introduce GSR test evidence of the ammunition used.

It is at that point that the issues of admissibility outlined above become critical.

It is not possible to predict with any certainty how likely it is that one will ever need to be able to introduce such evidence. However, should the need ever materialize, the potential consequences of not being able to use that evidence could be extremely severe.

The question becomes one of whether to mitigate that risk or to accept it without mitigation.

And that dissertation shows exactly what is wrong with this country & the convoluted thinking that is drowning it.

MM

Huh, never would've guessed you for a lawyer.

Novel length posts aren’t nessecary to make a point.

No, but that was the best explanation of that side of the argument I have ever read. Pretty compelling, IMO.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

!!!!!!!!!!!!

It sure ends the debate!!!

Hmmm...the man who graduated law school and passed the bar has donated some serious effort to break down the issue for everyone. His post was detailed, accurate, and informative. In in his office, it would have cost you around $150. In return for his generous efforts he is mocked and dismissed out of hand with no reference to the substance of his post. Really?

I'd love to see how you treat him when you walk into his office after having shot someone in self-defense. No doubt you'll be a first class butt-kisser as you try to chisel him into handling your case for free...


For those who live in Arkansas: PM Guyandarifle, get his actual name and phone number, and enter it in your wife's phone. Tell her to call him if you are ever led away in handcuffs.

I have to agree, Waders. I appreciate the time Guyandrifle took to post that. And I would also point out that the length, detail, and clarity of his posts on the matter are pretty good confirmation that he is who he says he is.

so can you cut the bullchit legal mumbo jumbo, and show me a case?

that of course, was tongue in cheek, but the best point to take from the long and detailed post, was to get a good attorney licensed and experienced in the jurisdiction where YOU live. Laws and customs vary widely from State to State, from town to town.

That right there was pretty funny!

I'll add that as risk mitigation goes, this (carrying factory ammo) comes with relatively little cost.

Never takes more than 30 seconds to be annointed of that fact.

Lol.

Not to distract from a lot of valuable things you said before your closing, but I think at the end you're not quite putting all the pieces together.

The total Risk = The Probability times The Consequences, you can't look at those two variables in isolation

It doesn't matter that we can't predict the probability with certainty, if we can agree that it's an extremely low number, therefore the total Risk should be pretty low even though the consequences could be very high.

I think the actual question is: Is the Risk as defined above actually high enough to worry about mitigating it?

If people have different answers to that question, it doesn't bother me at all.

I'd sorta like to know what an attorney's area of practice and local reputation are, before I recommend them for self defense cases.

You completely missed the point of my post, & that surprise me a little, but not completely since you are an attorney as well
My point is that the law(yers) have been allowed to distort the law such that a simple case of self defense has been allowed to deteriorate in such a convoluted way that if the act was done with a rock instead of a gun we'd be talking about whether the person picked an excessively large rock, or one that was too sharp or of an especially tough & hard material, yadda, yadda, yadda.

If self defense is justified, why are we arguing about & parsing the details of the weapon used?

Convoluted & beyond all reason & common sense. And absolutely nowhere called for in the Constitution. Just made up ideological & warped reasoning BS as made up by lawyers. Obviously guy& a rifle is playing the hand dealt, so no intent to criticize him directly.

But the point is that a simple case should not need a dissertation like that convoluted reasoning requires.

If one is determined to have acted in self defense, does it really matter whether the weapon (or rounds) was a 22 or a 20mm cannon & why does it matter where the ammo came from? It shouldn't; but we allowed ourselves to be convinced that it does & tilts the scales to having to prove one's innocence. At least that's my view of the world.

MM

Maybe that is a way to quantify it in a corporate sense, but it doesn't translate well to personal risk. On a personal level, consequences carry more weight than probability, IMO.

After all, that's why we're going armed in the first place.

The consequences of a head on collision are pretty severe, but that doesn't stop too many people from driving, because they figure the probability of it being them is low enough. I think the same kind of analysis goes into most everything we do.

Agreed

Same in SC!