Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Reloading For Self-Defense?

Some people are forever hunting witches and there are as many around today as there were in Salem, NONE! Some internet commando's have way too much time on their hands and ZERO real world experience in defensive shooting, any shooting besides their mouth in fact.

I have looked and asked on several occasions for just one cite, still have not seen one. Now as stated, civil litigation is a whole different bag of worms.

Similar thread on Ruger forum recently.
See Masad Ayoob's response about 1/2 way down.

Pete
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=73356&start=45

What no one has mentioned yet in the discussion is the complete ABSENCE of cases where a court has accepted a handloader's word or written record for what load was in the gun at the time of the shooting.
I've been having this same tired discussion on forums for something like half a decade now, and no one has yet found a case where it was accepted.

Why is it so important? Because self-defense shootings often occur at "powder burning distance," and gunshot residue patterns on the opponent's clothing or body can confirm your account of the incident. In the case some have mentioned here (NJ v. Daniel Bias) the court refused to accept evidence of a light load that would not deposit GSR at a certain short range. Nor would the court allow the remaining rounds in the gun to be analyzed, since the prosecution effectively argued that the handloader might have had a different load in the "fatal" chamber than the remaining ones.

For the party requesting a case citation, it would be State of New Jersey versus Daniel Bias. Last I knew the trial transcripts were archived at The Superior Court of New Jersey/Warren County/313 Second Street/PO Box 900/Belvedere, NJ 07823. Those who wish to follow the appellate track of this case willf ind it in the Atlantic Reporter. 142 N.J. 572, 667 A.2d 190 (Table).
Supreme Court of New Jersey
State
v.
Daniel N. Bias
NOS. C-188 SEPT. TERM 1995, 40,813
Oct 03, 1995
State V. Bias
142 N>J> 572, 667 A.2d190 (Table)

For the party who wanted to hear about it from "a real, live lawyer," they are free to contact Attorney John Lanza and Attorney Elisabeth Smith. Both of these "real, live (and very skilled) lawyers" defended him in his multiple trials. Both told me that if the gun had been loaded with factory ammunition, they were convinced the case never would have come to trial. (Began as a murder charge, ended with a manslaughter conviction and a bankrupt defendant.)

I would like to congratulate poster Aqualung for his comment in this thread, quoted immediately below:


Aqualung wrote:


I've seen the cases that he references in the single article he wrote on the matter and the cases cited were instances where the loads in question deviated from the normal characteristics of comparable factory ammunition. The one case cited the suicide of a woman using a .38 with super-low-power target loads made up by her husband. The issue was that the charge was so weak that the resulting residue of the nearly-contact wound was similar to that of a shot from farther away.



I compliment him for recognizing that it was indeed a suicide, because in other such debates, I've seen folks who want to win an argument throw poor Bias under the bus and claim, "Aw, he murdered his wife anyway." There was no motive, no violent history, and no evidence except the gunshot residue testing, which the state did with hot +P ammo because Bias' light handloads were in +P casings, thus obviously giving a false result to the test. I've seen others do the same in regard to Harold Fish, because they apparently can't bear the reality that jurors said they convicted him in part because he used hollow point bullets and that awful, too-powerful 10mm Kimber. Good to see no one doing that here, either.

The Bias case was not a self-defense shooting, but the point at issue is one of admissibility of evidence, not whether the defense theory is self-defense or failed suicide prevention. This is probably why no one has been able to come up with a case where a court DID accept the defendant's word or records as to what was in his loads, to allow proper gunshot residue evidence testing to confirm his story.

There is also, of course, the argument the other side may use that "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for this defendant, and his malice was so great that he made his own extra-lethal killer bullets." That was used against the police sergeant defendant in State of NH v. James Kennedy. Kennedy won, but the criminal trial still ruined his career. Documents in re NH v. Kennedy are archived at the Rockingham County Superior Court, PO Box 1258, Kingston, NH 03843.

Those who ask for caselaw on this don't seem to realize why they won't find any: there is nothing in the discussion that qualifies as an appellate issue. Because the prosecution bears the burden of establishing mens rea (literally, "the guilty mind," either criminal intent or gross negligence) the prosecution is allowed broad latitude in establishing criminal intent. As to the gunshot residue issue, no court would approve of a rape suspect dropping a vial of his blood at the lab for testing and saying, "Take my word for it, it's really mine." The courts are likewise most unlikely to take the handloader's word for what was in the gun when gunshot residue testing to determine distance becomes a pivotal issue in the case.

I hope the above information is helpful and adds perspective to the discussion.

Wishing all a happy and prosperous new year,
Massad Ayoob