https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/...RyI4YXU0L-k4a9c0BW_80GGAizoEtG95rH7maZjo

Upon first consideration, it would seem to be a decent idea to use handloads for self-defense. A person experienced in handloading could choose the right combination to create tailored ammunition which would be far more effective in a real-world situation than the standard ammunition available for purchase in a store. However, there is a risk. In the event that you use a handload in self-defense, you may face unanticipated consequences from a legal system that can sometimes be anti-gun and turn the table on someone acting within his legal rights.

A Night on the Town

Consider this example. You are out with your wife for a night on the town. During the evening you are approached by a person whom you perceive to be a threat. Your perception becomes reality when the man moves towards you and your wife aggressively, appearing to attack. There is a glint of light off of what appears to be a deadly weapon in the attacker’s hand. You are lawfully carrying a concealed handgun for protection. The handgun is loaded with handloads that you have created. You use the handgun to defend yourself and your wife and shoot the aggressor killing him on the spot.

You think you have acted justifiably and lawfully. You are allowed to carry a firearm for protection. You are allowed to act in self-defense. You are thankful that you were able to defend yourself and your wife. Unfortunately, The police and the prosecutor see it differently.

When the police arrive you are treated like a criminal. They put you on the ground, slap handcuffs on your wrists, put you in the back seat of a patrol car and take you to jail. You are charged with homicide and are forced to stand trial. Your life is on the line. Will the jury decide that you acted in self-defense and send you home to your family, or will you be sentenced to serve several years of your life in prison?

Handloads as an Indicator of Pre-meditation/Malice

At the trial, the prosecutor’s argument goes something like this, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he intended to kill his attacker. In fact, he intended to kill anyone he shot with those bullets he designed, bullets he manufactured with the specific intent to kill. He established premeditation and malice when he loaded his handgun with those customized killer bullets, hollow-point bullets that were designed to rend and tear brutal wounds and cause horrible pain and suffering and ensure the agonizing death of his victim. There can be no other reason to manufacture customized, deadly ammunition other than the intent to kill another human being. He was carrying them just waiting and hoping for an opportunity to use them.”

In the end, your good idea of using handloads for self-defense may have just helped prove that you intended to commit murder.

An Additional Reason Handloads Can Cause Problems

The use of handloads can cause other serious legal problems for your defense team if you end up in court. Defensive shootings often happen at close range. This causes gunshot residue (GSR) from your muzzle to be deposited on your attacker’s body or clothing. The GSR can become a critical piece of evidence at trial if a prosecutor insists the attacker was too far away from you to endanger you when you took the shot.

Again, you can imagine the prosecutor’s argument, “We did scientific testing on the gunshot residue deposited on the victims clothing. The scientific evidence proves beyond any doubt that the victim was far enough away that deadly force was not necessary for the situation. Since deadly force was not reasonably necessary, there was no reason to pull out a gun and blast away with those customized killer bullets.”

Determining distance using GSR evidence is supposed to be done by firing ammunition identical to what was in your gun at the time of the shooting. If the ammunition is not standard, it will be difficult to obtain accurate results. Sometimes, the testing will be done using a factory load which can give a false indication of the distance involved. This can lead to an argument by prosecutors that the attacker was actually much farther away at the time of the shooting than he actually was.

Another problem that can arise is the potential conflict with allowing you to testify as a witness on the ammunition that was used. On the one hand, you are the expert. You know exactly how the handloads were made. You made them. You also know what your intent was in manufacturing the handloads. The problem is that putting you on the witness stand is not always a simple thing.

Normally, a person charged with a crime has the absolute right not to testify. If he chooses not to testify, then the jury deciding the case is instructed by the judge that they cannot consider the fact that the defendant did not testify in determining whether the prosecutor has proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if a person charged with a crime chooses to testify, then he is treated just like any other witness and is subject to cross-examination by the prosecutor.

In some cases, it is in your best interests not to testify. It becomes difficult to balance that interest when you are the only person who knows about the handload that was used during the shooting. If you choose to testify about the handload, you will be subject to cross-examination which may prove disastrous for your defense. Even if you are innocent, a skillful prosecutor can twist your words.

Let’s say you just testified about how you created the handloads and that you created them with the intent to be effective in stopping an attacker without killing him. You think you have helped your case, but one can imagine the following cross-examination by the prosecutor:

Question: So, you admit that you were carrying a gun believing that you might have to shoot someone.

Even if you are telling the truth, prosecutors can twist your words to fit their theory of the case. (photo/[bleep])

Answer: Yes, shoot someone in self-defense.

Question: You admit that you created those bullets.

Answer: Yes.

Question: You admit that you shot the gun.

Answer: Yes.

Question: You admit that the shot you fired killed the victim.

Answer: Yes, but he was an attacker, not a victim.

You can appreciate how taking the witness stand in this situation can be a real double-edged sword. Sure, you had a chance to tell the jury your version of what happened, but you also gave the prosecutor the chance to have you admit in front of the jury that you shot and killed the alleged victim. Even if you try and clarify what happened and tell the jury nothing but the truth, your words can be twisted to support the prosecutor’s “killer bullet” theory of the case.

The Wise Alternative to Handloads

Instead of using handloads for self-defense, it is far wiser to use the same ammunition used by law enforcement in your community. One can appreciate how that would allow a defense attorney to address the argument presented earlier in this article.

The defense attorney could easily counter the prosecutor’s argument by explaining you chose the same type of ammunition as the police use and for the same reasons. For example, with hollow points, the bullets are less likely to over penetrate the body of a dangerous attacker and strike down unseen innocent bystanders. They are also less likely to ricochet and create additional unintended victims. In addition, since hollow point ammunition has increased stopping power, the attacker would have to be shot fewer times in order to neutralize the attack. Since he will be shot fewer times, he will be more likely to live.

The inference is changed from one of a person using customized ammunition to kill with premeditation to one of a person using the same ammunition as the police in order to minimize collateral damage and possibly avoid the death of the attacker.

Also, using factory ammunition means that you can subpoena an engineer from the factory that can testify as to the design, testing, performance, and advertised use of the ammunition product without having to testify yourself.

The Times in Which We Live

It is a challenging time to be a gun owner in America. Those who are anti-gun are constantly working to change the laws and limit our Second Amendments right to possess firearms and protect ourselves and our families. It is unfortunate that we should have to think about scenarios like those presented in this article. We should be able to use handloads for concealed carry, but the times in which we live make it a wiser choice to use standardized factory loads that are similar to those used by law enforcement officers in our communities.

I'll take my chances... how about the argument..."I could not afford store bought so I rolled my own..." I hear what you are throwing down, but the perp is on trial, not the bullet...

I'm not really throwing it down as much as reposting a Guns America article. IMO there are arguments both ways but overall I disagree with the article's premise. I just thought the article itself was worth a re-post and the debate worthy of talking about again here if others are interested. If not...

Personally, I feel like somebody not wanting to use handloads is fine. Being able to best factory loaded ammo now is less likely than it was thirty years ago. You can still save money. Somebody in the Facebook comments section asked if there had EVER been more than one case where this was argued. Same has been asked here before and Mas Ayoob has been vilified as the one who if he didn't start this argument, certainly popularized it. I think if somebody believes this, they should just use factory and be able to chalk it off their worry list. OTOH I don't believe it and wouldn't hesitate to carry handloads for self defense.

I've have several guns that are stoked with handloads for use on the property. I don't change the loadout if I head into town.

Several states have recently enacted laws which protect the lawful exerciser of self defense from any further civil action.

Can YOU supply an ACCURATE account of SOMEONE being CHARGED and FOUND GUILTY of anything WRONG DOING that was DIRECTLY CAUSED by the USE of HANDLOADED ammo?
IF you can, PLEASE SUPPLY the INCIDENT and the PERTINENT info, so WE as concerned carry permit holders, can do some INVESTIGATION on our own on the INCIDENT.

I was asking questions about this very problem back when I first started to carry concealed. Everyone cited Ayoob and said "never, never, never."

I was PM'd by two LEO's on this august forum and told that, in their experience, no one had ever been convicted for using reloads.

The 45's I carry come from a batch that I loaded in early 2001, so it's going to be hard to say I used pre-meditation. The 9mm rounds and 357 Mag rounds are all a couple of years old. They're also not superlative loads. I just took Fiocchi self-defence loads with Hornady XTP bullets and duplicated the velocities.

Were I to be put on the spot over why the reloads. The honest answer is easy: "I'm a cheap bastard."

Please hold your breath while I'm doing so and continue to fail to read or comprehend my own post voicing my opinion on the subject, o' most serious of contributors here.

Since most of the so called ' Self Defense" ammo sells for $25-$30 a box of twenty, it gets darn expensive to do test run of 50-100 rounds to guarantee function in handgun. I tried both Speer and Federal and got failure to eject on both in less than 20 rounds in my P320. I have run several hundred rounds of my handloads thru with no malfunctions.Pretty easy decision for me. I am fairly convinced that should I have to us deadly force, the way bullet is propelled out of the handgun is of little consequence to jury. The same holds true if deadly force was not justified. Handload or commercial a person is in deep do-do.

Nice subject for the forum gumbies to jaw about..zzZZZZ

Sounds a lot like the old Ayoob articles which were always a good read back in the day. That said I have to ask some questions.

First, If you use handloads that have hollow point bullets how does that show premeditation to kill more than if I go out and buy a pack of 20-25 premium hollow point self defense loads made by Hornady, Federal or any other manufacturers? And does my handloads constitute custom ammunition any more than say Hornady advertising custom ammunition, Sig Sauer Elite or Federal Premium?

Second, can any ammunition taken from you actually be tested without running into court rules about destruction of evidence since anything taken from you is evidence?

I have no problem with using handloads or factory but find some of these arguments a bit on the fringe. They make for a good gun rag article not much else though.

"Yes, counselor, it was pre-meditated that should anyone attempt to do bodily harm unto me, that I would try my best to do them bodily harm firstest and mostest. I made that decision a long time ago."

Judge: "Thirty years. Next case."

I've heard this for years. I disagree with the article. The laws of evidence in the US prohibit the admission of evidence (or a line of questioning) that regards facts irrelevant to the issue of guilt. When one claims self-defense, that means he already concedes intentionally shooting the other party, but only claims it was justified. That means that the only evidence permitted must pertain to whether or not the shooter reasonably feared for his life (or serious bodily harm) at the moment he fired his weapon. Since the type of ammo used doesn't address this question, no evidence pertaining to the ammo, and no line of questioning pertaining to it, will be admitted into evidence or record.

IMO, Ayoob is an idiot who dispenses a fair amount of nonsense & made up BS, while getting paid for it, & is way past tense besides.

Handload up some Gold Dots which are the same as used in factory Gold Dot ammo, using some reloaded Speer brass with CCI primers & don't lose much sleep over it..............until I see a specific case prosecuted & won on only reloaded ammo issue, I won't be losing much sleep over this.

If anyone has any real live actual case data to show such, please post a reference................but I won't be holding my breath.

MM

That article is complete crap.

The author claims that handloaded hollow points are from the devil and will get you convicted at trial; yet, factory loaded hollow points are the kinder, gentler way to stop an attacker while looking out for his best interests.

He argues that handloads make it look like the shooter is trying to use the most lethal ammo possible. The funny thing is: I use factory ammo for self defense for the EXACT reasons the article says not to use handloads! I want a round that has been tested and retested before going into production. When you buy factory loaded ammo, you are selecting a purpose-built man-stopper, a round that the manufacturer believes will both penetrate and expand.

If I took the time to test and fine tune handloads, I’d have no reservations about using them in my carry gun. But, since I have no idea how they will perform, I don’t carry them. Granted, shooting through multiple clothing barriers into ballistic gel isn’t a perfect testing method, but it’s better than nothing.

The article also gives a possible cross-examination by a prosecutor. The “damage” he alludes to is no worse than if you’re shooting factory ammo. Once, before I became a judge, I was sitting around with some criminal defense attorneys, the elected sheriff, the elected prosecutor, and a couple judges. We got to talking about the pros and cons of handloaded versus factory ammunition in a self-defense shooting. Nobody at the table thought handloads increased your legal jeopardy—because they don’t.

Carry what you shoot accurately and gives you confidence. Other circumstances from the shooting will establish your guilt or innocence long before anybody brings up the issue of handloads.

My best wishes to us all.

Just one mess issue to deal with, IF it is an issue. Does anybody really think the cops are going to:
A. check for reloads or factory ammo?
B. Know the difference?

Ayoob published a piece in Handloader 20+ years ago on this topic, advising against use of handloads. I think he was was challenged on this topic in recent years, and managed to find ONE case where handloads created an issue in an otherwise valid case of self-defense. So theoretically possible, but very unlikely.

I do think that using reloaded cases may slightly increase the likelihood of jams, but it's hard to quantify that trend. I generally do use factory ammo for defensive loads, but some guns, like say the 10mm, 38 Super, or 9x23 it is difficult to have top quality ammo without handloading.

I figure if I ever shoot someone in self defense I'm gonna have my hands full of enough Kafka-esque problems the nature of which will make whatever ammo I used be pale in comparison.

Being from Maryland, you are likely correct.

First, I've got issues with the majority of the cited article and flatly reject the idea of handloads being an indicator of pre-meditation/malice absent some crazy outlier. ("tipped" bullets or some other such crazy modification) The wording used by this fictional prosecuter; "with those bullets he designed" is laughably false. Bullets by Hornady, Sierra, Speer, etc? Hell, I'd posit that handloading, which at one point really was something seen as a bit of a black art, is far easier to justify now. I can get reloading magazines at my local grocery store and Bass Pro sells reloading equipment for fks sake. No, a lawyer found in a box of Cheerios should be able to keep the pre-meditated/deadlier argument from ever even getting off the ground.

Now having said the above the one part that actually holds some water is the forensic evidence angle but even that was couched poorly in the argument. The problem with reloads and GSR evidence isn't what it "can" prove but what it might not be able to prove, by which I mean being exculpatory. Assuming you're the "good guy" and whatever evidence is available is supposed to bring out the truth/exonerate you then you want every scrap of evidence that could support your innocence available at trial.* Reloads will have an extremely difficult time providing exemplars that the prosecution would find acceptable. Mass produced cartridges with huge sample sizes allow for a standardization that someone's home cooked loads would not. That's real. While maybe not the only example I know of the NJ v Daniel Bias case proving how reloads muddled the forensic waters.

*Basically as an aside let's realize you are in a bad, bad situation already if GSR is coming up regarding your being involved in a shooting. That sort of evidence isn't even going to come into play (ammo be damned) unless you're way up schitt's creek in the eyes of the law.

The single most important & pertinent comment in this entire thread.................................

MM

I’ve spent around 24 hours under oath answering questions in federal court about my use of force (that lasted around three minutes) against a man that spent around $400,000 suing me.

So I have a little experience dealing with the kind of things that come up in a trial of this sort. Things you should know...

1-The other side will bring up all sorts of nonsense to smear your character and much more of it will be admissible than you’d like, even though it’s not true.

2-The other side bringing up an issue isn’t the problem. The jury believing their nonsense is what you have to worry about.

3-#2 is why you need a good lawyer.

4-Hiring a good lawyer and the expert witnesses you’ll need will financially ruin you. The end. There’s no avoiding that. So don’t shoot people.

I would expect nothing less of a good, decent and reasonable man and superior court judge.

Wade is a solid dude for sure

Article indicates no ACTUAL perp "attack". Circumstances and any witnesses of the shooting incident are the primary issue. Not a good idea to utilize a firearm.......yet.

You are not arrested and charged with "homicide"........yet.

Article does not indicate the preliminary investigation, involvement of an attorney prior to arraignment, DA's evidence, let alone "jury" trial.

While carry loads are the only rounds I don't handload...if I did, would most likely use the same projectiles as law enforcement commonly use. The defense attorney would declare that the bullets used were EXACTLY the same as law enforcement used and EXACTLY the same as those used by public offerings labeled "self defense" ammo.

Great advice. If the criminal charges don’t get you, the civil charges will bankrupt you for sure.

Well, thanks! But...just to be accurate: I am a lowly District Court Judge, not a Superior Court Judge!

Well then you should be !

i remember first hearing this in the early 1990's.

at that time, my first impression was that it was pure bunk, and the more i heard about it, the more i concluded it was pure BS.

at that time, the types of premium ammo offerings of today were not manufactured--subsequently, many rolled their own.

if you think about this nonsense for even a second, a person would instantly realize that if it had been true, companies loading hot ammo--such as Underwood and Double Tap--would have run into hard times, and dark waters--right out of the gate....

Just carry what the local cops carry--

You mean killer bullets??

I always find the episode in The Sopranos humorous where Tony is arrested for having hollow point bullets in his Beretta 92. Believe it or not, those are actually illegal in New Jersey. Not sure if that means cops there all carry FMJ, but I would assume that was the case.

I don't think HP's are illegal to possess in Joysee.

But, having them in your gun, in the commission of a crime, is a crime.
At least that's how a Jersey gun dealer explained it to me.
His quote, "You're from Pa., you can't carry a handgun here, if you get caught
with one, and it's loaded with hollow points, that's a crime that adds time.
I can have a handgun, so, it's not illegal to have hollow points in it".

Hollow points are indeed illegal in New Jersey

simple suggestion,
make that first shot to center mass count!
use something that smacks the target with noticeable thump,

http://www.doubletapammo.net/index.php?route=product/product&path=125_204&product_id=169

and be selective in where you shoot violent aggressive morons,

so theres never anything substantial behind them, .. no bullet.... no proof its not factory ammo



yes its humor

Hollow points are totally legal in NJ. The caveat is you can only possess them in your home and on your way to/from the range to shoot.

to call massive adoobie an idiot is an insult to idiots

+1 to Bluedreaux.

I was involved in a civil matter years ago in which an expert witness was brought in to impune my testimony and my general character. This was not a firearm-related matter, but my ownership of firearms did play into it in a tangential way.

Look, I'm certainly not a saint, but I have to say that I was impressed at the opposition's willingness to make stuff up out of whole cloth. Luckily, I was represented by a fellow who had the legal chops to get most of it quashed and to get the expert witness tossed out. The fact that the opposition chose such a professional slut reflected very badly on them. I did eventually win out, but it cost a fortune.

My only comment on Bluedreaux's post is that if it comes down to it, the willingness of the opposition to manufacture bald-faced lies really negates any rational preparation you can make beforehand. You may be an upstanding member of the community, a reasonable chap leading a well-regulated life, but there is really no telling what kind of mud is going to be thrown at you. The lies will be crafted in an attempt to latch onto reality by any means necessary to give them credence. If you don't handload, then they'll pick something else-- your membership at a range, your competition record-- whatever. The whole point is to cast you as a homicidal dastard, a mental incompetent, or a moral degenerate.

My advice, therefore, is to go do as y'all see fit.

My only perception of fault in Bluedreaux, is he had the bad luck to shoot someone with rich relatives.

Sorry to here that.
Did FOP, or some other organization help defend you?
Nobody wants to hear the words “All Rise”. (That’s what I say these days).

If you shoot someone there better be more than a glint of light in their hand

-Jake

I didn’t even shoot them, just hurt him real bad.

Everything was righteous so the city was tied to me and hired a good outside firm to handle it.

Read or seen a video in the last few months on that too. That was and is the advice put forth, but now (sorry I can't remember the author) it is said this shows a desire to want to kill since you are using the same bullets the police use to put people down as quick as possible. Again I don't recall a case cited where this actually happened.

So much of this sounds like the mechanics of political correctness. We fantasize about what might be offensive to others and then we regulate ourselves accordingly. It ends up with the anti-gunners living in our heads rent-free.

The same arguments could be levelled at hunting with reloads. What right do I have experimenting with bullets and powder on a living being. . . blah, blah, blah.

I say that, but at the same time, the argument for only shooting factory ammo sounds compelling. In the end, I've just chosen to ignore it. It still sounds vaguely real.

I doubt you're gonna get into added trouble using handloads............unless of course you're doing the Jaws thing w poison in the hollowpoints

Using commercial bullets, in your loads or those you bought...............non issue.

But then, somebody has to write something for the friggin' magazines.

Just don't use factory ammo with names like Zombie Killer and such.

I really don’t give a rat’s azz what some writer at gunsamerica thinks.

There seems to be a bit of a logjam regarding the "perception" angle of reloads. While I've previously stated I agree with that idea being stupid in any factual way it's naive to downplay Bluedreaux's observation about how literally anything, including outright nonsense, can find it's way into a courtroom. As also previously mentioned I never get to that part of the argument since it's the forensic concerns that would have me avoid defensive carry of handloads.

The idea is actually very simple; if in the event of being in a case where there is ambiguity in the events of the shooting (you're already in real trouble at this point regardless of any aspect of your firearm/ammo) and GSR is being used as evidence of shooting distance having the ability to pull from large factory lots of ammo is a big deal in providing examplars for the court. I cited the Bias case earlier. This is a statement given by the the defense attorney, John Lanza, regarding how handloads muddied the forensic waters.

“When a hand load is used in an incident which becomes the subject of a civil or criminal trial, the duplication of that hand load poses a significant problem for both the plaintiff or the prosecutor and the defendant. Once used, there is no way, with certainty, to determine the amount of powder or propellant used for that load. This becomes significant when forensic testing is used in an effort to duplicate the shot and the resulting evidence on the victim or target. With the commercial load, one would be in a better position to argue the uniformity between the loads used for testing and the subject load. With a hand load, you have no such uniformity. Also, the prosecution may utilize either standard loads or a different hand load in its testing. The result would be distorted and could be prejudicial to the defendant. Whether or not the judge would allow such a scientific test to be used at trial, is another issue, which, if allowed, would be devastating for the defense. From a strictly forensic standpoint, I would not recommend the use of hand loads because of the inherent lack of uniformity and the risk of unreliable test results. Once the jury hears the proof of an otherwise unreliable test, it can be very difficult to ‘unring the bell.’”

I’ve looked off and on for a couple years after first reading ayoob talking about this and I’ve yet to find any criminal court case where handloads were referenced anywhere in the court record.

The whole uniformity and investigation thing is a non issue I think. Experts testify all the time as to exemplars and reconstructing stuff. Would not be a Great leap to have a testifying expert reload some rounds us By the same recipe as part of their work up.

Schit article based on schit logic.

No lunch break?

Does this mean that hollow base wadcutters from Hornady loaded backwards are a bad idea? They seem to work very well in my experience. Coppers look at 'em and say, "Wow, nice hollow point!"

From page 1, this thread. Just for clarification, although I didn't think my opinion on this mattered that much.

avoid trouble is the first and foremost lesson here which I do religiously.

Winner winner....

The Daniel Bias case addresses exactly what you describe. Handloaded ammunition evidence that could have been exculpatory was considered tainted by the court because there was no way to know, and no satisfactory way to replicate, what may or may not have been in that particular round at that particular time. Bear in mind that the argument about what made up the round in question was literally assembled by the person on trial. In fact, let's take the best case scenario if you're already in this position and say such evidence was allowed. AT BEST the prosecutor is still going to hammer on the validity of the evidence and you're going to incur even more cost for expert witnesses and lawyer prep.

Hey, anybody that wants to carry handloads can...you pays your money and takes your chances. As a function of pure probability you would 1)have to be in a shooting and 2)have the shooting be ambiguous enough that your story isn't convincing to law enforcement and 3)the facts of the case bring gun shot forensics into play. I don't think anyone is trying to make an issue about likelihood here, certainly not me. That doesn't change the fact that handloads muddying the water in a real case in a real courtroom isn't hypothetical, it's a matter of record. I don't see any upside to carrying handloads as opposed to carrying your preferred commercial load of choice and practicing with ballistic analogues you rolled yourself to save some money.

It could have been inculpatory, too. We just don't know. Especially with today's "CSI TV show" trained jurors, on the criminal side, ambiguity favors the defense a lot more than the prosecution.

I also think that the viability of the argument about malicious intent is going to depend on the location. Something that a prosecutor can put over in a gun naive locale may not fly for a second in a more gun savvy locale. Using handloads is no more evidence of malicious intent than getting a CCW permit, practicing thousands of rounds a year (proably using handloads), or shooting USPSA/IDPA.

Spot-on.

Ambiguity regarding GSR was absolutely not a positive in that particular case. To your point in general you're correct that either side is going to use whatever evidence best supports their argument. Having said that if the assumption is the defendant is indeed the "good guy" and telling the truth any physical evidence should only back up their story, don't you think? It is along that line of thought that having something like GSR evidence compromised, if not outright disallowed, could only harm such a defendant.

I actually think you make valid observations about location and would even expand your thought on the matter. Not only do I agree the jury pool in some areas would be far more gun savvy than others prosecutors/judges can be much more pro/anti gun in some areas. I have never believed merely the act of reloading is a reasonable basis for establishing mens rea any more than the other things you cite.

I agree with you take your chances. My understanding of the Bias case is that he claimed he wasn’t the shooter but rather that his wife had shot herself behind the ear. That’s not quite a self defense hand loads case. That would be a hard case to defend no matter what kind of ammo was used.

I think worrying about the case itself is a bit of a red herring. (otherwise I think your observation correct) The only thing germane to our interest is the answer to this question; has forensic evidence involving handloads been more of a challenge in court than what would have been the case with commercial ammunition and the latter's ability to more uniformly provide repeatable exemplars? I believe the Bias case answers that question. The answer being sought in the Bias case was at what range was the shot fired. I think this is a question that could reasonably be assumed might come up in a self-defense scenario.

To be in the nightmarish situation of trying to avoid incarceration after a defensive use of force would itself be a trainwreck of things gone wrong. If there's even the smallest chance carrying handloads could make a horrific situation worse it just seems prudent, IMHO, to take the better odds of carrying rounds with a better chance of holding up under court scrutiny.

Do you want me to rattle off a list of things a prosecutor could use in the pursuit of a conviction?

a lawyer can present convincing reasons that a rock should be soft. Prosecutors are lawyers IIRC.

I've already cited Bluedreaux's post in that same line of thinking and am totally aware of where you're going. (and agree btw) I would argue what you're positing would fall more under the previously cited mens rea arguments. I've intentionally limited my take to the very specific and narrowly defined issue of gunshot forensics. In court both sides are going to argue the hell out of whatever they can make stick but jeopardizing the validity of physical evidence that could play a role in exonerating you (or possibly aid in you not even being charged in the first place) just seems imprudent to me.

To be clear I'm not really sure what the outright fearmongers are trying are tying to sell. The idea that "If you carry handloads you may as well accept you're going to jail if you shoot someone." is simply a given makes no sense in my mind. I don't believe that for a second. I do believe that, if it really comes down to gunshot forensics playing a role in the case, I'd much prefer every advantage in having any evidence that backs my story as admissible and vettable as possible and it's that belief that has me reload for practice but carry branded ammo. That's me...for everyone else I'll repeat "You pays your money and you takes your chances.".

I generally do not waste my time on these campfire whizzing matches, but I'm going to offer a little brain fodder here. What you do with it is up to you.

In the course of 31 years of LE I worked or was privy to about a dozen shootings of one citizen by another, which were reported as self defense incidents. For 10 of those years, I was the investigator for a prosecuting attorney who insisted I do a preliminary review of all cases submitted and with special attention to shootings, civilian or not.

In any cases where the shooter plainly used lethal force to protect themselves or another from imminent death or serious physical injury, no charges were filed. They were never a 'Defendant'. There were occasional cases of mutual combat. There were cases which were represented to be defensive shootings, but the evidence and/or witness statements were 180 degrees apart from what the shooter told investigators. Those were assault or murder cases.

Certainly we looked at ballistics, medical records and autopsies/reports as it relates to the plausibility of a defense claim. But not once the ammunition being reloads or factory loads affect the outcome.

Am I saying you should carry reloads? No. Do I worry if one of my frequently at-hand firearms is routinely stoked with handloads? Hell no.

People love to cite NJ vs Bias in these reload/factory load discussions, but few ever mention the fact he was convicted of manslaughter in that case. Bias' story was that his wife was shot at a close range when Bias tried to stop her attempted suicide using one of his handguns And here, in a nutshell, is why his story didn't hold water.

Thanks for your input, Sarge. Seems to settle it. Essentially confirms my first post in this thread.

Even from the forensics angle of the argument against handloads for self defense is pure fiction.

If anything, there will be less of a lot number of a specific type of factory ammo on hand than there would be a batch of handloads.

I can't think of anyone that reloads in batches of 6 or 15.

Thanks Sarge.

Sarge has it 100% Correct. In my opinion this has nothing to do with caring reloads.

Yea, I think I'll take my queues from the actual shooting investigator.

My plan is to carry reloads with me and then load them into the gun of whomever I shoot.

Thanks for the positive comments. I should add here that everything in my Page 3 post pertains to the filing (or not) of criminal charges. Civil suits are a different matter entirely. I can't say if any the dozen or so defense shootings I mentioned resulted in lawsuits. I can only tell you I was never subpoenaed for a civil case on any of them.

In Florida, if you've been cleared by police investigation, or by trial, on the basis of justified self defense, you are rendered immune from any law suit that's based on the circumstances on which you were cleared.

Same in MO, TRH. Not everyone is so fortunate.

First I’d like to open with saying I appreciate how pretty much everyone has remained cordial through the discussion. Sometimes on topics of this nature things can get…erm, weird.

I appreciate Sarge taking the time to look into this on his own and I had seen what was posted previously. In fact I’d done a pretty deep dive on this years ago which is how I arrived at my current stance of reload for practice and carry only commercial. The part of Sarge’s post to which I’d like to draw attention is the last part.

“Defense attorney John Lanza will open his case today.”

So what we read of Hickman’s account is actually part of the prosecution making it’s case. If someone were only to read that one would assume this would be about as open and shut a case as one could imagine. Taken at face value Hickman’s testimony would seem to completely controvert what the defense claimed. So how did it end up with a hung jury? So they had another trial that ended with another hung jury and the State giving up on the murder charge altogether. We apparently ended up having 4 trials with the final conviction of Reckless Manslaughter being predicated under an entirely different set of circumstances set forth by the prosecution. After doing some digging around I’ve found one of the sources that describes the case in more detail. I know I read an even more detailed source somewhere years ago but couldn’t find it quickly and didn’t think it’d be worth the effort.

NJ v Bias
On the night of 2/26/89, Danny Bias entered the master bedroom of his home to find his wife Lise holding the family home defense revolver, a 6” S&W 686, to her head. He told police that knowing that she had a history of suicidal ideation, he attempted to grab the gun, which discharged, killing her. The gun was loaded with four handloaded lead SWC cartridges headstamped Federal .38 Special +P.

Autopsy showed no GSR. The medical examiner determined that Lise Bias had a reach of 30”, and the NJSP Crime Lab in Trenton determined that the gun in question would deposit GSR to a distance of 50” or more with either factory Federal 158 grain SWC +P .38 Special, or handloads taken from his home under warrant for testing after Danny told them about the reloads. However, the reloads that were taken and tested had Remington-Peters headstamps on the casings and were obviously not from the same batch.

Danny had loaded 50 rounds into the Federal cases of 2.3, 2.6, and 2.9 grains of Bullseye, with Winchester primers, under an unusually light 115 grain SWC that he had cast himself, seeking a very light load that his recoil sensitive wife could handle. The gun had been loaded at random from that box of 50 and there was no way of knowing which of the three recipes was in the chamber from which the fatal bullet was launched.

We duplicated that load, and determined that with all of them and particularly the 2.3 grain load, GSR distribution was so light that it could not be reliably gathered or recovered, from distances as short as 24”. Unfortunately, the remaining rounds in the gun could not be disassembled for testing as they were the property of the court, and there is no forensic artifact that can determine the exact powder charge that was fired from a given spent cartridge.

According to an attorney who represented him later, police originally believed the death to be a suicide. However, the forensic evidence testing indicated that was not possible, and it was listed as suspicious death. Based largely on the GSR evidence, as they perceived it, the Warren County prosecutor’s office presented the case to the grand jury, which indicted Danny Bias for Murder in the First Degree in the death of his wife.

Attorney John Lanza represented Danny very effectively at his first trial, which ended in a hung jury. Legal fees exceeded $100,000, bankrupting Danny; Attorney Lanza, who believed then and now in his client’s innocence, swallowed some $90,000 worth of legal work for which he was never paid.

For his second trial, Bias was assigned attorney Elisabeth Smith by the Public Defender’s office. Challenging the quality of evidence collection, she was able to weaken the prosecution’s allegation that the GSR factor equaled murder, but because the GSR issue was so muddled by the handloaded ammo factor, she could not present concrete evidence that the circumstances were consistent with suicide, and the second trial ended with a hung jury in 1992. At this point, the prosecution having twice failed to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge threw out the murder charge.

It was after this that I personally lost track of the case. However, I’ve learned this past week that the case of NJ v. Daniel Bias was tried a third time in the mid-1990s, resulting in his being acquitted of Aggravated Manslaughter but convicted of Reckless Manslaughter. The appellate division of the Public Defender’s office handled his post-conviction relief and won him a fourth trial. The fourth trial, more than a decade after the shooting, ended with Danny Bias again convicted of Reckless Manslaughter. By now, the state had changed its theory and was suggesting that Danny had pointed the gun at her head to frighten her, thinking one of the two empty chambers would come up under the firing pin, but instead discharging the gun. Danny Bias was sentenced to six years in the penitentiary, and served three before being paroled. He remains a convicted felon who cannot own a firearm.

It is interesting to hear the advice of the attorneys who actually tried this case. John Lanza wrote, “When a hand load is used in an incident which becomes the subject of a civil or criminal trial, the duplication of that hand load poses a significant problem for both the plaintiff or the prosecutor and the defendant. Once used, there is no way, with certainty, to determine the amount of powder or propellant used for that load. This becomes significant when forensic testing is used in an effort to duplicate the shot and the resulting evidence on the victim or target.”

He adds, “With the commercial load, one would be in a better position to argue the uniformity between the loads used for testing and the subject load. With a hand load, you have no such uniformity. Also, the prosecution may utilize either standard loads or a different hand load in its testing. The result would be distorted and could be prejudicial to the defendant. Whether or not the judge would allow such a scientific test to be used at trial, is another issue, which, if allowed, would be devastating for the defense. From a strictly forensic standpoint, I would not recommend the use of hand loads because of the inherent lack of uniformity and the risk of unreliable test results. Once the jury hears the proof of an otherwise unreliable test, it can be very difficult to ‘unring the bell.’”

Ms. Smith had this to say, after defending Danny Bias through his last three trials. I asked her, “Is it safe to say that factory ammunition, with consistently replicable gunshot residue characteristics, (would) have proven that the gun was within reach of Lise’s head in her own hand, and kept the case from escalating as it did?”

She replied, “You’re certainly right about that. Gunshot residue was absolutely the focus of the first trial. The prosecution kept going back to the statement, “It couldn’t have happened the way he said it did’.”

I find more than enough evidence of handloads being a possible issue in the above, particularly comments from attorneys that were actually at ground zero in a murder trial. Who is going to be better equipped to comment on the issue than those literally having addressed the matter in court? My primary takeaway regarding this conversation is that my threshold for making the choice to carry commercial vs reloads is yes/no, up/down, pass/fail. As it’s a variable over which I have complete control I see literally no reason not to take the best odds available to me. The variation of the saying is something along the lines of “Carrying a gun in public puts you out on the ice and being involved in a shooting puts you on thin ice. Wherever possible, stay on the thickest ice you can.”. If not carrying reloads might make my ice even a mm thicker I’ll take that advantage, however how small or unlikely it would ever be needed.

I’m not sure how much there is to contribute beyond this without us falling into a repetitive rut. Everyone can (and should) do as they see fit. This forum is awash with people making their choices. Every single person here that walks out their door armed has made a myriad of choices starting with the desire to go armed in the first place. Revolver or auto? Your call. Brand/platform? Caliber? Bullet weight/type? (reload or commercial) Holster? It’s your show, you do you. As a fellow gun guy I support every one of you and your decisions on what you decide to carry even if it wouldn’t be my personal choice. I most sincerely hope anyone reading this never finds themselves in court having to justify defending themselves for any reason whatsoever. I just think when this particular topic comes up the more information we have on the matter the better. I’ve just wanted to pass along information on the subject I’ve run across, not try to convince anyone they're stupid for not seeing it "my way". Everyone’s personal take on the matter is their own.

Be safe out there.

This was not a self defense case, it was a murder/suicide case

Yep. Not relevant to a case of an armed person defending himself from a deadly threat. For straight, lethal force, self defense cases, the only issue to be considered is, "Did he reasonably fear for his life or limb at the moment he used lethal force?" This excludes any consideration of the ammunition used, since not relevant to this one question.

Within the context of the observation itself this makes perfect sense. If someone is shown to have justifiably used lethal force on someone in self-defense it shouldn't matter jack if they used an atlatl or a bazooka, right? This goes to the mens rea aspect some posit and it's pretty ridiculous to argue any aspect of the weapon itself being used being prejudicial against the shooter. (outside some crazy outliers) The key is the "For STRAIGHT, lethal force, self defense cases...". What if the case isn't so straight? What if in fact it's very crooked? People don't tend to find themselves facing charges in "straight" cases, which is were the forensic argument comes into play.


Let's say someone has to shoot some thug. His story and the shooter's story about events couldn't be more different. Of course his two angelic friends that were there are all synced up with their buddy's telling of the tale. Every single molecule of physical evidence that might support the shooter's story and controvert theirs could be invaluable. What if one of those things was gunshot forensics? Literally anything that could call the validity of such evidence into question would be most inconvenient, don't you think?

It is often brought up in a sort of "forest for the trees" kind of way about the inapplicability of the Bias case to a self-defense setting. What this ignores is that since the point in citing the Bias case is purely forensic the context of the case is pretty irrelevant. Forensics is forensics no matter the end result. Items show up in a lab with a set of testing parameters and the techs set about their tasks. Murder case? Suicide? Self-defense? Other? It's a lab...none of that should matter...they generate the results and from there it leaves the people in lab coats and goes to the people in suits and robes. If something can be shown to be a forensic issue in testing for one case what is keeping that testing issue from being problematic in another?

The distance that gunshot residue differed from a factory round, but according to the husband the woman should have had gunshot residue on her hand since she controlled the revolver according to him.

This is all BS, use for power loads and it matters not if reloaded or not.

Not wanting to retry the case but think it’s interesting that Bias’ lawyer argued that the 2.3 grain load wouldn’t consistently leave residue at distances more than 24 inches. I’m wondering who shoots themselves in the head while holding a pistol more than 2 feet away, especially from what I read the entry point was behind her ear, I can’t see a persons arms being long enough or flexible enough to accomplish that, and why there was no gsr on her hand since the hand holding the gun was more closer than 24 inches from the cylinder.

Maybe I'm being a little dense. I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet. This is a question about the unknowability of what's in a handgun load.

Let us just say A pops B in the parking lot at close range. A claims self defense. A appears to be a good responsible fellow. B was a meth addict. A turns over the pistol to the cops. He lawyers up. He used hand loads, and turns over his remaining loads from the batch and the reloading notes, which are thorough and immaculate.

The load in question was a 125 grain Hornady XTP .357 over Unique with a CCI small pistol primer. They were loaded 3 years before and were one of 200 rounds produced by A in this batch. The notes show this was the third time A loaded this recipe, and also show his prior loads working up to this batch.

How are these reloads going to effect the course of A's destiny? They have the loads. They have the notes. They have A's word that it was a defensive shooting. What's unknowable here?

You are not wrong in wondering how "A" is in a worse position for having used handloads--because he isn't. Even without reloading notes, one of the remaining rounds can be taken apart and the components identified, right down to the weight of the charge. At that point, both sides of the trial have all they need for whatever forensic/ballistic evidence they intend to present. Or, if they want to go load their own rounds and do some testing, they can--just like they'd be free to go buy more factory fodder once a factory round is identified.

Even if there are no extra remaining rounds from the gun (unlikely), and no extra rounds at the shooter's home (unlikely), and no reloading notes in the shooter's reloading room (unlikely), and the shooter can't recall what load he used (unlikely), and the load used in the shooting remains a mystery, other facts are going to decide the shooter's legal jeopardy long before the issue of handloads comes up. Realistically, if the prosecutor is down to the issue of handloads in trying to make his case, he knows he's already lost and is just grasping at straws.

Using the Bias case as the justification to not use reloads for self defense is a massive stretch of imagination.

Yep.

I use factory only due to concerns about reliability, but what's in the gun isn't relevant in a straight up lethal self-defense case. You either were justified or you weren't. Non-relevant factors are barred from evidence and testimony.

Sasha and Abby: And if you think the relatives of the "perp" will not instigate a "trial" (civil action/suit for wrongful death!) on their own behalf - then you are simply pathetically naive!
I carried a gun professionally for 39 years and the three entities I worked for (one for 29 years!) all prohibited "handloaded ammunition" by us employees!
Most all the reasonings centered around "civil liability" experiences.
Think this through and do what I do/did - use top quality factory ammunitions.
Remember once you are sued civilly in a civil court your assets (homes, properties, cars, businesses etc!) can be tied up (unable to sell!) for the duration of the civil court process - these civil court proceedings/processes are lengthy (years!) and expensive (in real dollars!)!
Take it from someone who's been there - done that!
Carry the factory stuff for personal and home protection.
PERIOD!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Ammo, choice will not stop a civil lawsuit, so what’s your point?

OK. Sometimes I get up in the morning and it takes a couple cups of Joe to get the synapses working. Thanks for answering.

I don't know about anyone else, but do I have to defend myself or someone else with a gun, any gun, I will not be firing one shot. I will keep shooting until the gun is empty, the aggressor is down and ceases movement or I am dead. I am not about to shoot someone I do not have to and I am not about to do anything less than everything it may take to save me or whomever. What kind of ammunition I use is secondary to that. I do not care if it vaporizes the aggressor like a .223 hitting a chipmunk. The entire argument is a fools errand. Defending your life is a given absolute right. The method of doing so is the individual's choice and no other's.

You are by no means being dense. Given the circumstances what you posit would absolutely be the approach any lawyer would try to take involving such a scenario. The problem is that it is a complete assumption that the court would allow such and even if they did allow it you can be absolutely certain, and I mean 100% certain, that the prosecution would impugn the validity of such evidence to the best of their ability. I’ve already cited Bludreax’s post on the shenanigans one can find oneself facing in the legal system and deflave, even though more on the other side of argument, posted this:

“Do you want me to rattle off a list of things a prosecutor could use in the pursuit of a conviction?”

The implication here is that if the prosecution has a kitchen sink to throw you can expect to have to duck and he’s dead right.

Now back to your, on the surface, reasonable argument of just using what can be found of the defendant’s being used to generate the exemplars. I was able to track down more of the story than the truncated version I posted earlier. It included some information germane to your point.

John Lanza, the attorney defending a young man against a charge of Murder, has just told me, "The state will contend that a different load with a different powder charge was used than what we determined from the defendant's reloading notes was likely to have been in the gun at the time the fatal shot was fired."

I obtained the necessary mould, and working with gunsmith and expert witness Nolan Santy, put together exemplars of all three of Danny's handloads that were in the mixed box. The three remaining cartridges from the death weapon could not be disassembled or test-fired. They were the property of the court, evidence in what was developing as a murder case, and the necessary tests would literally "destroy the evidence." It was not permitted.
Exemplar evidence is evidence that is not the actual thing at the crime scene, but is identical to it. With the duplicate loads in an exemplar six-inch Smith, Santy and I determined the 2.3 grain Bullseye load with the little 115-grain bullet would deposit GSR to perhaps three feet. At that distance, it left only about a dozen loose particles. At 24" there was still only loose particles, and even at 20" the powder would still be in very loose particles, with virtually nothing embedded. The 2.6-grain and 2.9-grain loads deposited slightly more GSR particles, but still very loose with virtually nothing embedding. Particulate matter from these light loads was so sparse and had hit the white cotton cloth (the same background that had been used by the crack NJSP crime lab in Trenton for the prosecution's testing) so feebly it fell away from the cloth from the force of gravity. Thus, the indications were that with the loads we believed to have been actually in the gun, the GSR would be so sparse and lightly deposited it was entirely possible none remained by the time the body was forensically examined the day after the shooting.

I think it worth adding the above to the discussion since I didn’t have that the first time. (I still don’t know where the no kidding full text version is located, which is irritating) Since we’ve already seemingly reached the point where there’s some repetition/overlap in the comments I’m probably going to bow out here but wanted to make a final run at a summation, particularly where I might not have previously collected everything as well as I might have done.

The original reloading fallacy. I don’t think the argument has ever really been with most, and certainly nothing I’ve offered on the matter, about reloaded ammo making a “good” shoot into a “bad” shoot. When discussing reloads I’m not envisioning this exchange.

Officer 1. “Looks like a clear cut case of self-defense to me at this point.”
Officer 2. “The guy just said he was shooting reloaded ammo.”
Officer 1. “Ah hell…better go ahead and get the DA on the line.”

There is no gunshot forensics being argued in what is being legally considered as a good shoot. Coming at the question from the good shoot being compromised by reloading is pretty much a red herring. It’s looking for an answer without a question. If the legal side of things is looking into firearm forensic evidence you’re already in rapidly warming water as simple “Well, looks like a clear case of self-defense.” didn’t sell from the outset. Which segues to…

The “good guy” fallacy. I know this has been brought up before (IIRC DocRocket had a pretty big post on the matter some time back) but the LEO and investigators are not under some obligation to just accept your side of the story and “sketchy” circumstances don’t mean you didn’t do pretty much everything right as best you could under the situation you faced at the time. Feces happens and sometimes good guys can find themselves very deep in it and this idea that merely seeing yourself as the good guy and telling the truth will clear everything right up is simply making another assumption that might not hold up for you in real life. If you’re sitting there at the defendant’s table it’s, at least “supposedly”, the “good guys” arguing to make the charges against you stick. You are the accused. I don’t think I’ve stressed this enough in earlier posts though I think I’ve tried. If you’re in court across from a prosecutor and a whole team being paid with tax dollars working for the single purpose of making you take the fall for something you did there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in the evidence pool that could help your case you want anything other than as pristine as possible. Put it all together and…

I’ve previously stated that the central point to the entire reload vs commercial ammo argument is nothing more complicated than controllable risk. Succinctly anything that could produce a “maybe” that is controllable is probably best left out of the equation. MAYBE, given the circumstances of the case and the crazy number of variables one could get reloading evidence that could prove exculpatory into court. There is still a 100% chance prosecution is going to attack it just as they would anything else they think might be vulnerable but MAYBE the prosecution could at worst be stalemated in such efforts. Or one could carry standardized commercial loads thus controlling for any ambiguity to the greatest degree possible.

So in the end we’re left with basically three groups. A)Believes it’s all a myth. There is literally zero possible negative outcomes possible with using reloads and no court would ever find the use of handloads any different than the use of commercial loads. B)Believes there may be some miniscule, tiny possible issues that hypothetically could arise in the worst possible scenarios but the odds are so remote it hardly seems worth considering and even then, in the end, things would probably sort themselves out. C)Believes that regardless of how unlikely the scenario of reloads being problematic is if the question is “Could it?” and the answer is “Yes.” then the threshold to eschew reloads for defensive carry is already met. Obviously we should all hope that not a single one of us ever has need to engage in lethal force defense regardless of any other aspect, including how one is armed. Regardless of where one sits in the above groups (A, B or C) hopefully we come out of this thread having had more to ponder than when we went in. Outside of that the final decision is one’s own.

The defense would show doubt on anytime expert testimony of the prosecution as well that is simply the adversarial part of the justice system.

Your officer 1 conversation with officer 2 is BS if it is a clear case of self defense the type of ammo is not realevent.

The long posts are put nessecary to make a point.

Maybe you were reading too fast and perhaps even had some bias get you ahead of what I actually posted. Please read this again with emphasis added.

The original reloading fallacy. I DONT' THINK the argument has ever really been with most, and certainly nothing I’ve offered on the matter, about reloaded ammo making a “good” shoot into a “bad” shoot. When discussing reloads I'M NOT ENVISIONING THIS EXCHANGE.

Officer 1. “Looks like a clear cut case of self-defense to me at this point.”
Officer 2. “The guy just said he was shooting reloaded ammo.”
Officer 1. “Ah hell…better go ahead and get the DA on the line.”

The entire reason for this hypothetical exchange is to point out that some people on the pro-reload carry side of the argument actually assume this is something believed by the other side. (there's no accounting for crazies but they're definitely the outliers) It's a fallacy. It matters because if the fallacy is believed it gives them the ability to be dismissive of the whole of the argument from the outset which is a disservice to all parties involved.

I'd pretty much intended to have my last post actually be my last...precious little to add and anyone having their mind made up at this point in the conversation isn't likely to change now...but 475's taking that part of my post so out of context really needed addressing.

Frequently I cannot find the best defense loads available locally. However, I can usually completely duplicate these loads by handloading. I would go to a jury with this argument anytime.

Not dissing, but why the hell would you volunteer information about your ammunition? You are going to jail, weapon and ammunition are confiscated. Don’t say anything without a lawyer that could come back and bite you.

The whole argument as presented by the OP is unmitigated BS.

“Created the bullets?”

Has anyone been convicted on using reloads in self defense?

Convicted of what? “Creating billets?”

I didn't present the argument, I cut and pasted an article that I disagreed with as stated in my posts on this thread. But I didn't expect you to understand since you an argumentative retard.

Btw, you can kma.

I was in fear of my life, I want an attorney.
Then STFU

My translation of what I have read here about the Bias case is that the dude killed his wife and attempted to use the handload card to beat the rap. Then the case gets cited as the reason not to use handloads. Plus, the case is 30 years old and still seems to be the most recent one everyone cites for the proposition, notwithstanding the number of cases decided since then. That mostly serves as proof of how irrelevant the issue is.

This is by far a paranoid and over hyped argument. It has been tried in court a few times and from what I am told by a few friends in law enforcement including 2 who work for the FBI, the argument has never succeeded in court to favor the prosecutions side. Not even one time.

BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all have agreed with the next 2 policies for home and self defense as iron clad ways to stop this exact argument about what gun or ammo you use: If you worry about being the next target of an anti-gun pro-big government prosecutor that is a very easy way to get around that admittedly very small potential for such a malicious prosecution.

#1 Ask the Sheriff or Police Chief what ammo they issue for the cops.
Buy some of that. If an idiot prosecutor tries to say "The Ammo was designed to kill and maim to a maximum extent" you simply ask the court why it's the issue ammo of the cops who arrested you?

#2. Use a hunting rifle with hunting ammo. (home/dwelling defense for the most part)
"Why did you use that gun and ammo?" says the prosecutor.
Because it's what I had handy and that what kind of ammo I buy to hunt with, but I bought it to hunt deer. There was never any thought to use this old rifle against people, but the criminal forced me to shoot, and that's all I had at the moment.

That #2 just really had me laughing and scratching my head in bewilderment.

Prosecutor Why did you shoot the man and your refrigerator with a 30.06? Isn’t that a bit large?

Answer, well it’s the only gun in the house with factory ammunition so I put it next to the night stand where my defense pistol sits, but it has handloads in them.

What really strikes me is that I haven’t bought a factory hunting round in 35 years either pistol or rifle. But, in my state I have no duty to retreat so if you kick in my door you are going to get shot handloads or factory doesn’t mean squat.

I think Ayoob gets all the factory ammo he needs for free, pimping for the ammo companies gets you a lot of benefits. Other than the reliability factor. He ain't going to bite the hand that feeds his guns for free. I watched that guy shoot at the 2nd Chance National street combat match (bowling pins) in 1979 he ain't no whiz, he has a line of BS and is good at spreading it. MB

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!

But, if you weren't even there and you get acquitted, you still can lose everything in the civil suit. (Ask OJ.)

Not a good analogy, because not traveling is a costly and inconvenient form of risk management for most. OTOH, using factory ammo for PD cost little and is rarely inconvenient.

It's a perfect analogy, because it forces you to admit that you can't pretend you can ignore the probability. In your world you'd never leave the house because of the consequences, but assessing the probability allows you to make a choice. And your second example proves my case completely, using factory ammo reduces the probability to zero, but does nothing for the previous consequences.

You're doing exactly what I said, you just don't realize it.

I wasn't responding to your post.

I’m mostly with you on this one Mannlicher.

I looked and can find no such case.

I searched through a Lexis database containing all reported cases, state and federal, for references to ammunition “handloaded” or “reloaded” and all similar terms. It’s possible that I missed something in my searches, but I tried numerous variations of the search terms and the same cases kept coming up.

In all of the cases involving a negligent or intentional shooting of a person, the references to the fact that the ammunition was handloaded was in passing and neither asserted to have, nor given any, material implication to the outcome of the case.

The remainder of cases mentioning handloading mostly involve either (i) whether certain handloading components comply with various state or federal laws (including, for example, a 40-year-old case involving bullets with an explosive charge in it); and (ii) whether ammunition that caused an injury to the shooter was negligently handloaded. As to the later, one case involved .500 S&W ammo handloaded with rifle primers that protruded out from the base of the case. When fired, two of the rounds in the cylinder, not in firing position, were detonated, which resulted in a fragment of one case penetrating the shooter’s skull and three inches into his brain. The material issue in many of these cases, not surprisingly, is the scope of various insurance policies.

I can find no case saying that a handloader is NOT culpable for an injury or death because the ammo was handloaded, and his handloaded ammo did specifically what it was designed to do: injuring, incapacitating, and/or killing the person or animal shot by the handloaded ammo.

However, it is telling to me that I can find no case that discusses handloaded ammo in the context of a negligent or intentional shooting of a person and that has mentioned that possibility.

There certainly appears to be no case that says that that fact that a shooter’s ammo is handloaded can make a person culpable for that ammo doing precisely what it (and all factory-loaded self-defense and hunting ammo) are intended to do: injuring, incapacitating, and/or killing the person or animal shot.

I haven’t looked exhaustively, and thus it’s possible that I missed something, but I looked for a bit and could not find any case incriminating someone for using a high-velocity rifle, rather than a handgun, for self-defense.

I found a few cases against a person connected to a drug-crime operation where the court found that the possession or use of “particularly-lethal” (e.g., JHP) ammo could be introduced as evidence that the arms were intended to be possessed or used as a part of the illegal drug operation.

I don’t see that principle likely relevant to the issue here, assuming the person is not, in fact, likely to be connected to an illegal drug operation or other criminal enterprise, especially if we’re talking about handloaded ammo containing the same type of bullet that the person otherwise would carry in factory ammo.

Assuming that someone carries handloaded ammo that contains a bullet that is available in factory-loaded ammo, I can’t see it ever being a material issue versus carrying factory-loaded ammo containing the same bullet.

In that situation, by handloading, the only meaningful variable relative to the factory-loaded ammo is the velocity that the ammo fires the bullet.

The legal risk that this one variable (modestly-increased velocity) would be material in any case involving the firing of handloaded ammo seems to me to be so remote as to be insignificant for several reasons, including:

1. You’re still not approaching the 3,000+ fps velocity of various rifle ammo, the use of which in self-defense does not appear to present a legal risk; and

2. you’re likely not going to exceed the velocity of some factory handgun ammo with the same or similar bullet (e.g., Underwood).

No one can say that no crazy judge or jury ever will find that the fact that someone handloaded handgun ammo should make the shooter culpable for injuring his intended target because the ammo was handloaded. But you can say that about almost anything.

I don’t shoot handloads because I am happy enough with the available factory ammo and would rather spend more time shooting, and less time reloading even though it costs a bit more.

So, I don’t have a personal dog in this fight. But I think this is a non-issue.

That’s just my own personal opinion, and it is not to suggest that anyone else not play it differently.

But until, among all of the thousands of reported criminal cases every year, there is a single case incriminating the use of handloaded ammo for its intended purpose, I wouldn’t be worried if I carried handloads.

So, no case?

Not that I could find in the amount of time I am willing to spend on this out of curiosity.

If I were billing a client to protect his interest, I would spend some more time to double check.

I invite anyone else to do that if they want to do so.

No, I'm not. You're analogy only works if it assumes one would choose not to travel because the consequences are high - or if there was an unacceptable cost of using factory ammo. We still choose to travel even though the consequences are high - precisely because the cost of not traveling is unacceptable. Where is the unacceptable cost of using factory ammo? More to the point, where is the unreasonable cost? For the vast majority of us, it doesn't exist. Risk assessment is very different on a corporate basis than on a personal level. That is an inescapable fact.

You guys are hilarious. Guyandrifle spent a good deal of text making a very good explanation of why "no case" doesn't prove anything, and then you follow that up with....."no case".

It's like watching the Trump/Russion collusion hoaxers.

It's the quality, not the quantity, of text that matters.

I have been a successful lawyer for over thirty years, and I disagree.

"No case," among the thousands of reported criminal opinions annually, is only one component of my comments, but it is, in my opinion, a highly-material omission.

I just read the comments to the originally-linked article. There are a lot of opinions in there from experienced law-enforcement persons and prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers who seem to get it.

I'm not making analogies, I'm providing examples of how you cannot escape the equation risk equals probability times consequences.

You're the one saying you wouldn't travel, based on your supposed reasoning for not carrying handloads, which you claim is all about the consequences but not at all about the probability. Since basically no one behaves that way, it demonstrates the reasoning is flawed.

Why is the "cost" (risk) of not traveling seen to be high? Because the probability of some bad outcome becomes high, not because the consequences are so much worse than losing all your money in a self defense lawsuit.

Risk as a concept doesn't care if you are an individual or a corporation, the situations may change, but the principles do not.

The reported cases are those which have been appealed. That does not address cases decided where the argument may have been made by either prosecutor or a civil suit attorney, but was neither an issue nor covered in an appeal.

I've had CCW's in several states and have carried all my life both during and after being a LEO over 60 years ago. I've also not bought ANY ammo in over 50 years, other than shotgun and 22's, so guess what I have in my carry arms! I have no concerns with reloads.

Nope!

Over the decades, I personally have read thousands of reported decisions from federal district courts and other trial courts.

Just for example, the entire Federal Supplement reporter, which only covers federal district (trial) court decisions, is now over 2,150 thick volumes, and that is only the officially-reported decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Supplement

The Lexis search I conducted contains more decisions that are not included in the official reports than it does the decisions that are officially-reported (and it includes all of those as well), and included decisions from all U.S. trial courts.

I searched, in one database, all cases, both state and federal, and both trial and appellate courts, for any decision that incriminated someone based on the fact that they used handloads in a self defense situation.

I’m more-than familiar with the fact that, in cases of first impression (where no case on point exists), one cannot safely say that the law is one way or the other based on that omission alone.

Those cases generally involve unique, or at least very-uncommon, factual circumstances. I don’t consider the use of handloads in self-defense as a unique or very-uncommon factual circumstance, especially given the hundreds of thousands of reported criminal cases in the database I searched.

Cases discussing the use of handloads went back at least as far as fifty years.

Yet I could not find a single instance where a prosecutor even tried to claim (much less succeeded in asserting) that a person who was accused of improperly using lethal force in self-defense was guilty of doing so because he used handloads.

There likely is a good reason for that: Even if a prosecutor wanted to make that argument, none has done so because it would be futilely irrelevant.

Been lots of good information and in some cases of professional info in this thread, although it had like a lot of fire threads got convoluted and led a stray at times. That said let’s throw this in.

How many who carry only use factory bone stock handguns. By bone stock I mean never had a smith or anyone other than the Factory alter the weapon from the day you bought it, even if it just needed a spring changed. If you have, then wouldn’t the probability of that be just as great or greater risk than use of a handload?

All I changed on my carry guns were the sights. Otherwise, bone stock.

Did a little research out of curiosity. Here is a quote from an article in Gun Digest--I believe that this was one of the earliest of Mass Akoob's dissertations on the subject. No bibliography or specific citations...

While it’s a slam-dunk to defend your use of hollow point ammo, the use of handloads in a shooting presents much more serious problems to your defense team. Defensive shootings are often very close-range affairs in which gunshot residue (GSR) from your muzzle is deposited on your attacker’s body or clothing. This can become a critical evidentiary factor if the other side insists he was too far away from you to endanger you at the moment he was shot. The distance testing is done with exemplar ammunition, that is, ammo identical to what was in your gun, but not the same exact cartridges. Don’t count on the crime lab testing the remaining rounds from your weapon as taken into evidence at the shooting scene. If the fight was sufficiently intense, there may not be any rounds left in the gun that saved your life. Even if there are remaining cartridges in evidence, they may not be tested. The prosecutor can argue, “Your honor, firing those cartridges consumes them! It’s destructive testing! The defense is asking the Court’s permission to destroy the evidence! You cannot allow it!” Do you think that’s a BS argument? So did I…until I saw a judge accept it, in a case where handloads were used in the death weapon, but the state crime lab tested with a much more powerful factory load, based on the headstamp on the reloaded casings. That gave a false indication of distance involved, and the defendant – whom I have strong reason to believe was innocent – was convicted of manslaughter.

You’d think the court would take the reloader’s records into account and allow testing based on that. It doesn’t happen. No one has yet been able to offer a case where the Court took the reloader’s data or word for what was in the load. It’s seen as self-serving “evidence” that can’t be independently verified. Sort of like a rape suspect saying, “I couldn’t have done it, because it says right here in my own diary that I was somewhere else that day.”

After seeing these things in court, I learned to avoid the use of handloads for defensive purposes.

Not much to hang your hat on there...

Do believe that around the same time Mass Akoob wrote a long dissertation on the modification of firearms for SD could increase the hurt against you in court. Even think he brought up guns like the Python and other scary named guns or grips with scary logos being a detriment. But then again Akoob was trying to keep selling articles to the gun rags.

Agree.

Okay....I believe I will just let that sit there.....

Hmmmm. Not an attorney and didn't stay in a HI Express last night. But can't help but wonder why the defense in this alleged case wouldn't request disassembly of the remaining rounds rather than destruction. Everything down to bullet pull pressure could have been documented and duplicated. Powder type, weight, moisture content, primer, whatever. Compare that to what the headstamp indicated should be inside. Wouldn't 110% prove the killer cartridge with the same headstamp contained the exact internal composition, but being next door neighbors it would lend credence. And could present a rational alternative to only considering factory ammo as a comparative in the ballistics test. The headstamp itself proved nothing about what was inside the case. Scientific analysis of the contents of the remaining cartridges would have been relevant to say the least. If the contents tested to be comparable to factory loads then it would make sense for ballistics of factory loads to be used. If not then you have a logical argument for something other than factory loads. And if the components matched the handloaders data you have a real argument. Still be a big pucker factor to put in the hands of an anti-gun judge but makes a lot more sense than what Ayoob laid out.

MarineHawk, that was tongue in cheek, and I still feel that the real nugget in your response earlier, for me, was to get a good local attorney that knows how things work in your area

Well said. Guyandarifle’s post was excellent. I’ve copied and pasted it as a Word document for my files.

I have to express my dismay at Montana Man’s dismissive and frankly ignorant comments about lawyers being the cause of legal problems in America. This is akin to saying that engineers are responsible for you not being able to work on your own cars any more like you could when you were 22 years old and your car was a ‘65 F100.

Life is complicated. Things like law, medicine, and engineering are really complicated, and get more complicated with time. This is why we need experts with great intelligence and experience to work in those fields, so the rest of us can get along without having to acquire more than a smattering of their knowledge. Over my lifetime I’ve come to appreciate the marvelous intricacy and even beauty of our legal system. It does a far better job of protecting the rights of the individual citizen than most legal systems in this world have ever done. Now, I am NOT a lawyer. But I’ve hired lawyers when needed, and I’ve worked for lawyers as an expert advisor and witness. I’ve come to appreciate the value of their expertise.

My respect for the intelligence and incisive intellect that lawyering requires has played a large part in shaping my opinions on issues of firearms and the use of deadly force over the past 30 years. On the subject at hand, I.e. the advisability of carrying had loaded ammunition in one’s defensive firearms, I have come down on the side of using factory ammunition only precisely because doing so reduces the chances of something really bad happening to me or mine in the aftermath of a defensive shooting. Yeah, the chances are minuscule. Tiny. Even infinitesimal. But as we say in medicine, statistics and odds are cold comfort to the man who’s just been told he is going to die from a rare disease.

As for looking up court cases, I’m surprised no one has mentioned the guy in Arizona who went to prison in part because the 10mm ammunition he used to shoot a hiker on the trail was hand loaded. About 10 years ago? Seems to me that case is pretty relevant to this discussion. I know it impressed me at the time.

Bottom line: in the aftermath of a shooting, bad, bad things can happen to you even if everything you did in the shooting was righteous. As Flave pointed out, the list of things a prosecutor can think up to convict you is beyond your ability to imagine. As an armed citizen, your best bet is to strive to be as clean as you possibly can, legally speaking. Don’t hang f “Punisher “ decals on your equipment. Don’t carry openly. Don’t make stupid posts on the internet that some attorney can dig up as proof of your murderous state of mind. And so on. The practice of using stock firearms and factory ammunition for your defensive preps is part and parcel with this frame of mind.

Finally: in 30 years of studying and training in the Use of Deadly Force with many of the best experts in the field in America and overseas, I’ve learned that all you can do in your planning and training is no guarantee of a good outcome. You might get shot and die before your gun clears leather. You may go to prison for the rest of your life. Or maybe your life will go on pretty smoothly. What happens after the bullets leave the gun is going to be entirely unpredictable. The first rule of successful gunfighting is not to bring a gun; the first rule is to never get into a gunfight.

"Punisher" logos, which relate to vigilante movies, are obvious problems. Ditto the A/R's of a few years ago that had a bunch of skulls hydro-dipped on the action. Those would be hard to explain, depending on the circumstances

Sage Advice!!! Great stuff Doc!

Kind of like a violation of the Third S before the First S even becomes an issue.

Doc Rocket mentioned the case of Harold Fish the Arizona hiker that shot an attacker with a 10mm. The Prosecution made a big issue of the 10mm being more powerful than a typical police issue weapon. Mr. Fish hiked in mountain lion and black bear country and his defense offered that fact as to why he carried the 10mm. The prosecution also took issue with the hollow point ammunition used by Mr. Fish. These hollow points were not handloaded, they were factory loads. It is an interesting case, scary actually that an over zealous prosecutor can manipulate facts so easily and get an conviction. Harold Fish spent three years in prison as a convicted murderer before he finally won an appeal that set him free.

Here is one view of the case...

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/guns-appearances-matter

That sucks. Glad he finally got out of prison.

Paul Harrel has a great video that talks about the Harold Fish case.

I’d like to see that video.

Should not & not gonna

Interesting, but not enough info to know how I feel about this case.