Hand loads or store bought?
- Thread starter waco
- Start date
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
There are no known criminal cases decided on type of ammunition used. Mas Aboob says that there are some civil cases where it may have had an impact on jury awards.
Both; auto loaders get factory, revolvers get handloads.
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
Not too much worried about the legality. Even if the shoot is legal, you will get a civil suit filed against you by their heirs. I prefer to let the manufacturers do the research & development............. HP's that expand from short barrels coupled with flash suppressant powders.
John Barleycorn
Member
No legal issue, that is, it is lawful to carry reloads if you want.
There is always someone taking about how a prosecutor could argue that you intended to kill pr increase injury to someone by loading super-duper extra killey bullets, but nobody has ever found an example of it happening.
I’m not concerned about it, but generally carry what local LE carries because the stuff probably works well.
There is always someone taking about how a prosecutor could argue that you intended to kill pr increase injury to someone by loading super-duper extra killey bullets, but nobody has ever found an example of it happening.
I’m not concerned about it, but generally carry what local LE carries because the stuff probably works well.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
I only use two autos: A Keltec 32 ACP loaded with European CIP spec 73 grain bullets when wearing shorts or swim trunks in the summer; if going to the other side of the mountains a 1911 45 ACP with Remington Gold Dot 230's. Both have been 100% reliable for over 20 years.
Revolvers are 32 H&R with real magnum loads, not book loads (only six shots twice a year), 38 Special Colt Agent SWC with top standard pressure loads or light 357 SWC loads in a Model 60-10 three inch. All have a long history of reliability.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
This issue gets so convoluted that it is difficult to sort through.
FIRST AND FOREMOST: there is a distinction between Criminal Law and Civil Law, so when someone says the word “legal” we must first decipher what we think “legal” means.
If WE are thinking of the world of criminal law, the type of ammunition used in the lawful use of force in a self-defense scenario is probably not relevant at all. Either it was a justified use of force in self-defense or not. That doesn’t mean some super zealous prosecutors might refrain from attempting to make it relevant but that is an issue to be decided by a jury, the judge and maybe even some appellate judges applying accepted law. In the end, it is either a justified use of force OR not. The type of ammunition used is probably not relevant at that point. To my knowledge, the type of ammunition used was never a relevant factor in a CRIMINAL case, where deadly force was justified.
MOVING ON TO THE CIVIL LAW ARENA
The issue of ammunition used in a civil case may have a little more weight simply because the standard in a civil tort is only a preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff may simply TRY to argue the type of ammunition was significant (That doesn’t mean that argument will succeed). It may not be a deciding factor BUT……..why give the other side that opportunity if you don’t need to fight that battle? Even if the plaintiff’s argument completely fails – WHY OPEN THAT DOOR TO THAT ARGUMENT IF YOU DON’T NEED TO?
It is STUPID to expose yourself to litigation simply to prove a point. If you chose to argue this “on principle” I will label you as an idiot and dismiss any argument you submit.
Stepping into a crosswalk in front of a speeding truck because you have the right of way and you are acting “on principle”, is just as stupid. PICK YOUR BATTLES! You can be “right” and still LOSE!
SO…..the question is not “is it LEGAL”? The answer to that depends on if your definition of “legal” means criminally liable or civilly liable? There is a difference between potentially losing your freedom versus potentially losing some money.
What does “LEGAL” mean to you? Losing a criminal case (you versus the state) OR losing money (You versus someone else)? If you’re not stupid ….you can defend yourself from both the state and the individual. There are times when standing “On Principle” is not a winning strategy.
FIRST AND FOREMOST: there is a distinction between Criminal Law and Civil Law, so when someone says the word “legal” we must first decipher what we think “legal” means.
If WE are thinking of the world of criminal law, the type of ammunition used in the lawful use of force in a self-defense scenario is probably not relevant at all. Either it was a justified use of force in self-defense or not. That doesn’t mean some super zealous prosecutors might refrain from attempting to make it relevant but that is an issue to be decided by a jury, the judge and maybe even some appellate judges applying accepted law. In the end, it is either a justified use of force OR not. The type of ammunition used is probably not relevant at that point. To my knowledge, the type of ammunition used was never a relevant factor in a CRIMINAL case, where deadly force was justified.
MOVING ON TO THE CIVIL LAW ARENA
The issue of ammunition used in a civil case may have a little more weight simply because the standard in a civil tort is only a preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff may simply TRY to argue the type of ammunition was significant (That doesn’t mean that argument will succeed). It may not be a deciding factor BUT……..why give the other side that opportunity if you don’t need to fight that battle? Even if the plaintiff’s argument completely fails – WHY OPEN THAT DOOR TO THAT ARGUMENT IF YOU DON’T NEED TO?
It is STUPID to expose yourself to litigation simply to prove a point. If you chose to argue this “on principle” I will label you as an idiot and dismiss any argument you submit.
Stepping into a crosswalk in front of a speeding truck because you have the right of way and you are acting “on principle”, is just as stupid. PICK YOUR BATTLES! You can be “right” and still LOSE!
SO…..the question is not “is it LEGAL”? The answer to that depends on if your definition of “legal” means criminally liable or civilly liable? There is a difference between potentially losing your freedom versus potentially losing some money.
What does “LEGAL” mean to you? Losing a criminal case (you versus the state) OR losing money (You versus someone else)? If you’re not stupid ….you can defend yourself from both the state and the individual. There are times when standing “On Principle” is not a winning strategy.
Last edited:
RBHarter
West Central AR
Let's not forget to throw allegations into this . I recently learned that allegations and alligators have a lot in common. You're just sitting on the bank minding your own business and the allegationist/alligator will just grab you up and drag you into the muck , and there ain't a whole lot you can do about it until you figure out what grabbed you where it's taking you and whether or not you can force them into a legitimate defensable position. Apparently a party can make allegations with near zero tangible evidence and one must prove their innocence. Yes , apparently, allegations can come with automatic criminal sanctions . Which to really wrap the rubber band up tight would mean that potential you could end up with some variation of manslaughter applied to your records "because you're a hand leader and make your own ammunition for hunting you deliberately created with the intent of using it to kill or fatally injure a living being."
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
OK , let’s stay on track here:
“…Apparently, a party can make allegations with near zero tangible evidence, and one must prove their innocence….”
One is presumed INNOCENT in a criminal trial from the beginning. So in a criminal trial, one NEVER needs to PROVE their innocence, the government has the burden to prove guilt.
In a criminal trial, the defendant is presumed innocent until a judge or jury finds the accused guilty. Prior to that - The accused is innocent. If the government fails to prove guilt - The defendant REMAINS innocent!
In a civil action, the defendant may need to justify his/her actions if the pleading survives a summary judgement – BUT, the defendant’s freedom isn’t at risk.
Now, in a civil suit, the plaintiff can allege damn near anything but that doesn’t mean the allegation will succeed. Just because you get sued doesn’t mean that suit will be successful.
“…Yes , apparently, allegations can come with automatic criminal sanctions . …”
FALSE, there is no such thing as “automatic CRIMINAL sanctions”. The burden is always on the government in a criminal case and a mere allegation (charge) never results in an “automatic sanction”.
“ Which to really wrap the rubber band up tight would mean that potential you could end up with some variation of manslaughter applied to your records "because you're a hand leader [sic] and make your own ammunition for hunting you deliberately created with the intent of using it to kill or fatally injure a living being."[sic]
Notwithstanding the grammatical errors….. again , NO. A manslaughter conviction (a criminal not civil charge) would never be contingent on hand loaded ammunition versus factory ammunition. A manslaughter conviction would require the STATE (government) prove the killing was unlawful and without legal justification. (self-defense, accidental, sanctioned execution, in time of war by soldier, etc.)
Last edited:
John Barleycorn
Member
People have curious beliefs about the criminal justice system, I often wonder where they come from. We could say the same about casting and reloading I suppose.
My experience in civil court is not good. In one case our judge went out for a few months because of illness or something, the temp judge was all about just maintaining the status quo until the assigned judge returned. It was weird because he wanted to move the case forward slowly on the calendar, but didn’t want to make any decisions. To give you a sense of the stupidity, Party A was suing Party B for breech of contract and I was being sued as Party C simply because I did business with Party B after the claimed breech. I had nothing to do with their agreement and my motion to dismiss should have been granted. More importantly, Party A could not produce evidence that there ever was a contract between them and Party B which was the entire basis of their claim. In the end I paid something like $200k to attorneys and $250k to Party A to settle just because it was cheaper than litigating given the judge’s bias. On a positive note, Party A’s business failed and he dropped dead within a year.
My experience in civil court is not good. In one case our judge went out for a few months because of illness or something, the temp judge was all about just maintaining the status quo until the assigned judge returned. It was weird because he wanted to move the case forward slowly on the calendar, but didn’t want to make any decisions. To give you a sense of the stupidity, Party A was suing Party B for breech of contract and I was being sued as Party C simply because I did business with Party B after the claimed breech. I had nothing to do with their agreement and my motion to dismiss should have been granted. More importantly, Party A could not produce evidence that there ever was a contract between them and Party B which was the entire basis of their claim. In the end I paid something like $200k to attorneys and $250k to Party A to settle just because it was cheaper than litigating given the judge’s bias. On a positive note, Party A’s business failed and he dropped dead within a year.
oscarflytyer
Well-Known Member
While I have read and understand and honestly am terrified of a civil/Mayoob referenced (BULLSHIT - pardon me) case... I, at this stage in my life do not care. I will carry/load what I want. IF I have to use it, I am justified. At the end of the day, I am of the 'better to judged by 12 than buried by 6' mentality. And, honestly, where I am, I am fairly confident that I am on pretty solid ground. We don't particularly kowtow to the crap around here.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Post voluntarily deleted
Last edited:
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I think you're on solid ground.
Some folks get wrapped around the axle worrying about CIVIL liability (not criminal liability which can cost you freedom) when they should be concerned about living, protecting loved ones or not getting severely injured.
The word “legal” can encompass both exposure to criminal liability (you could go to prison or be executed) OR civil liability (in which only money is at stake). People tend to use the term “legal” to mean more than one thing.
You versus the state (criminal) can result in prison or death.
You versus someone else (civil liability) only exposes you to the loss of money. Losing money sucks but dying or losing a loved one sucks more.
Deadly force is not something to be taken lightly.
And I agree with you about Mayoob or whatever his name is, he's an idiot.
John Barleycorn
Member
No shit Sherlock.
Note the use of paragraphs to distinguish the two comments, one about criminal court and one about civil.
As you are undoubtedly aware, any civil action is complicated and involves a significant volume of filings, discovery, etc. I summarized the case, distilling it to an interesting story demonstrating that civil litigation is complicated, uncertain and expensive.
The average 5th grader would have understood, not sure why your eminence misunderstood.
Sorry to be harsh, but there you have it.
Now maybe stop trying to make yourself look smart by pissing on me?
Feral
BANNED
It would be really nice if every case everywhere could simply lean on The Constitution and ultimately be settled by fact, logic, reason, and truth.
But sadly our society has devolved into something The Constitution was meant to prevent. Our legal system has been routinely weaponized to meet political agendas, and the court of public opinion carries more weight than the Scales of Justice. Facts, logic, reason, and truth have for the most part, been tossed out the window.
That said, it pays dividends to spend your life avoiding ending up in court in the first place. Unfortunately I've been there myself, once and only once, as a defendant in front of a judge.
Nothing tremendously serious, but it was a wrongful accusation that could have caused me trouble with certain civil liberties such as gun ownership and concealed carry if the decision had gone the wrong way.
My total absence of criminal record, a really good lawyer, and a fair judge saved my ass. The case was seen as BS and tossed about 5 minutes into it. 20 minutes later the "plaintiff" ended up forking over money to pay for my wife's busted glasses.
That all fell within the scope of what I believe The Constitution guarantees. But not everyone enjoys that "luck". When I made the decision long ago to carry, I made two other decisions that have governed my actions ever since.
One, was to always work to avoid needing the gun I'm carrying. And two, IF I ever do have to draw my weapon in self-defense or the defense of others, it WILL be fired because the situation has become something that has literally no other way out, and the firing of said weapon will be quick, it will be decisive.
I've never really put much thought into what type of ammo I'm carrying, factory or handloads. I do get the principle of the "argument", and it goes to intent. With handloads, are you intentionally creating something that does more damage than the maximum scope of what factory ammo provides?
It's a silly argument, because the court of public opinion driven by zealous prosecutors believes there's a "nicer" way to neutralize a threat with factory ammo, and your hopped up handloads are just too mean, therefore you must be punished for it. It's not really the Government v. You, though....it's the Government v. The Gun.
But sadly our society has devolved into something The Constitution was meant to prevent. Our legal system has been routinely weaponized to meet political agendas, and the court of public opinion carries more weight than the Scales of Justice. Facts, logic, reason, and truth have for the most part, been tossed out the window.
That said, it pays dividends to spend your life avoiding ending up in court in the first place. Unfortunately I've been there myself, once and only once, as a defendant in front of a judge.
Nothing tremendously serious, but it was a wrongful accusation that could have caused me trouble with certain civil liberties such as gun ownership and concealed carry if the decision had gone the wrong way.
My total absence of criminal record, a really good lawyer, and a fair judge saved my ass. The case was seen as BS and tossed about 5 minutes into it. 20 minutes later the "plaintiff" ended up forking over money to pay for my wife's busted glasses.
That all fell within the scope of what I believe The Constitution guarantees. But not everyone enjoys that "luck". When I made the decision long ago to carry, I made two other decisions that have governed my actions ever since.
One, was to always work to avoid needing the gun I'm carrying. And two, IF I ever do have to draw my weapon in self-defense or the defense of others, it WILL be fired because the situation has become something that has literally no other way out, and the firing of said weapon will be quick, it will be decisive.
I've never really put much thought into what type of ammo I'm carrying, factory or handloads. I do get the principle of the "argument", and it goes to intent. With handloads, are you intentionally creating something that does more damage than the maximum scope of what factory ammo provides?
It's a silly argument, because the court of public opinion driven by zealous prosecutors believes there's a "nicer" way to neutralize a threat with factory ammo, and your hopped up handloads are just too mean, therefore you must be punished for it. It's not really the Government v. You, though....it's the Government v. The Gun.
Ian
Notorious member
Walter, John is correct here. Ayoob had a hard-on for the concept of a DA prosecuting on the concept of supposedly intentionally making more deadly than factory ammo, never has been a factor in grand jury or court. I was true billed on account of emptying the magazine (seven rounds), DA fed the GJ a load of shit about that being "excessive force". Stupid people bought it because their strongest concept of true duress was when Starbucks was closed or someone else got that close parking space first. With MUCH reluctance I accepted the third and best plea deal because I didn't want to risk the real jury being just as stupid when the DA mentioned I was a IDPA competitor and presented me as a glory-hungry psychopath looking for any chance to live my fantasy. The criminal INjustice system is uglier than sausage-making or politics ever was, and most good people who've lived through it come out on the other side thinking they'd be better off unarmed and dead than having to go through that misery trying to find any shred of justice where there is none, not even in a conservative hick town in Texas.
I used handloaded Sierra FMJ ball bullets in mixed headstamp brass, nobody involved in the "investigation" (har har, bunch of clowns) was smart enough to even notice any of that. Carry what you trust to work, and understand that you're f#(&%@ regardless in the case that you ever have to use it and then you're trusting your life and future to a bunch of walmart patrons, isn't that reassuring? End of story.
Last edited:
JBinMN
Active Member
I carry both factory mnfr & my own home made ones for any of my CC firearms.
I am of a mind that in a true SD situation where the use of deadly force to stop a threat of serious bodily harm is "reasonably warranted", that if no means of escaping the threat are available, it should not matter what was used to stop the threat.
( IOW & IMO, a pencil/pen, a hammer, shovel or other tool, a piece of rope, whatever improvised/field expedient method or item used, etc., the mnfr of such an item is irrelevant in a true SD situation where the threat needs to be stopped)
IMO, there could be a few more reasons that would explain my thinking , but for the sake of brevity here I will leave them out.
I am of a mind that in a true SD situation where the use of deadly force to stop a threat of serious bodily harm is "reasonably warranted", that if no means of escaping the threat are available, it should not matter what was used to stop the threat.
( IOW & IMO, a pencil/pen, a hammer, shovel or other tool, a piece of rope, whatever improvised/field expedient method or item used, etc., the mnfr of such an item is irrelevant in a true SD situation where the threat needs to be stopped)
IMO, there could be a few more reasons that would explain my thinking , but for the sake of brevity here I will leave them out.