Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
5/29/2017 5:35:05 AM
Posted: 8/16/2001 6:18:13 AM EDT
I read yet another article about not using handloaded ammo for your defensive pistol in the newest American Rifleman. Does anyone know of a legal case where someone who loaded their own ammo got in more legal trouble than normally would occur after defending himself? Wrongful death suit? Ect.? My second questions are purely theoretical. If someone was to use handloads could they use the excuse that this particular caliber was not available over the counter locally in a hollowpoint configuration? Say 9X18 Makarov? Third, the article suggested that if someone used a round that was specifically designed to be used as a defensive round inflicting more damage than was normal, you could be in trouble also. My question is, lets say you have a 9x18 makarov caliber pistol(generally known to be meek for a defensive caliber), AND you own much larger caliber pistols/revolvers, say .375mag or .44mag, couldn't you use the defense that if you really wanted to cause fatal injuries that you would have used one of the larger caliber handguns, or even rifles? Thanks for your input. guns762
Link Posted: 8/16/2001 10:00:00 AM EDT
well i woudlnt use handloads becouse i know the Plaintiff would make it look like u cooked up some super whiz bang elpehant shooter cop killing etc etc round. as far as 9x18 makarov there are hollowpoints for it Corbon makes a load with hollowpoints for it, also theres some russion ammo thats hollowpoints. as far as the last part i doubt it youd probly get into more trouble if u used a weaker caliber not in court thu but from the attacker you HAVE to shoot becouse your gun doesnt stop him. standard disclaimer i am not a lawyer this is my opinion etc etc etc.
Link Posted: 8/16/2001 10:11:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2001 10:08:14 AM EDT by SGB]
Link Posted: 8/16/2001 10:39:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2001 10:45:14 AM EDT by Dave_G]
The American Rifleman's advice is absolutely correct. That you are attempting to find a way to weasel around the use of handloaded ammunition for self defense shows that you know they are right. What you overlook is that if you have any assets at all, and you cause death or injury to another person, you will likely be sued. Any use of handloaded ammunition just gives the plaintiff's attorney something to sink his teeth into. You can't win the day with any of your excuses because for every weaseling argument you make, there are a dozen reasonable answers that would make you look like a fool. More important, it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars to defend the decision not to buy $20.00 worth of factory ammunition. That's more than just dumb. Avoid Black Talons, Glasers and the like and stick to a good HP bullet. By the way, using a firearm against another is using deadly force whether you use a .22 or a 44 mag. SGB is wrong. You may be able to keep your house and some possessions, but any other assets can be lost. So your insurance company bails out on policy limits. That does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff will go away, especially if you still have assets. At that point, you are on your own for your defense. It's too easy to give bad advice when there are no consequences for the giver.
Link Posted: 8/16/2001 12:25:10 PM EDT
Thanks for the advice and opinions. Luckily my state is very liberal with the use of deadly force to protect my family, myself AND my personal property. And, no, just because I'm asking does not mean I think they are right, on the contrary, I think they are wrong-for my part of the country. I still do not know of any cases that would prove otherwise.
Link Posted: 8/16/2001 1:02:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2001 7:07:48 PM EDT
Either way you look at it this way. You are going to get sued for wrongful death. Even if that crack smoker never made a dime in his life or never amounted to anything. You will pay for every dollar that he could of made. It does not matter what kind of bullets you used he is still dead. But just remember that criminal has more rights than you do. They even named the system after him. If your so worried about make sure you get alot of liabilty insurance. Six
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 4:36:28 AM EDT
Hand loads should be avoided for defensive loads for the following reasons. 1. Reliable ballistic information is not available by the manufacturer. This info is critical in any defense scenario. 2. Most if not all manufacturer’s advise or prohibit the use of reloads in their firearms. If possible try to use the same caliber, firearm and load as your local, state police or sheriff's department uses as your primary defensive weapon. Don't forget you may also be sued/prosecuted by other injured parties if you acted in a negligent (over penetration, etc.) manner.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 10:20:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rkbar15: Hand loads should be avoided for defensive loads for the following reasons. 1. Reliable ballistic information is not available by the manufacturer. This info is critical in any defense scenario. 2. Most if not all manufacturer’s advise or prohibit the use of reloads in their firearms. If possible try to use the same caliber, firearm and load as your local, state police or sheriff's department uses as your primary defensive weapon. Don't forget you may also be sued/prosecuted by other injured parties if you acted in a negligent (over penetration, etc.) manner.
View Quote
#1-Reliable to who? Me? or the attorney? -Me-I rely on chronograph readings, comparable bullet expansion data, and accuracy of my pistol/rifle with said loads. -attorney-I guess I don't care, from what everyone says if I use a gun in self defense I'm going to get sued no matter what, so why not use ammo I find reliable. As long as my kids and wife and I survive a intrusion, I don't really care what happens afterward; WE ARE ALIVE! #2 Maybe some do advise against handloads but I'll bet that is to prevent suing over bad handloads in their firearms. I only buy new .22lr ammo, .223 ammo, and an occasional box for brass, and I shoot about 15-18 different calibers. Every thing else I reload. From what you say, NO one should ever reload!?? That's NUTS. As for the other advise that seems some what logical, if I lived in a sue happy, liberal, gun hating state like California, New York, ect. Most of the advise from everyone is just reinforcing in my mind, to go ahead and use my handloads, I'm going to get sued for wrongful death no matter what. I still haven't seen anyone post a case in which a handload was used and the part was sued and lost over it.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 11:11:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2001 11:43:59 AM EDT by rkbar15]
Originally Posted By guns762: #1-Reliable to who? Me? or the attorney? -Me-I rely on chronograph readings, comparable bullet expansion data, and accuracy of my pistol/rifle with said loads. -attorney-I guess I don't care, from what everyone says if I use a gun in self defense I'm going to get sued no matter what, so why not use ammo I find reliable. As long as my kids and wife and I survive a intrusion, I don't really care what happens afterward; WE ARE ALIVE! #2 Maybe some do advise against handloads but I'll bet that is to prevent suing over bad handloads in their firearms. I only buy new .22lr ammo, .223 ammo, and an occasional box for brass, and I shoot about 15-18 different calibers. Every thing else I reload. From what you say, NO one should ever reload!?? That's NUTS. As for the other advise that seems some what logical, if I lived in a sue happy, liberal, gun hating state like California, New York, ect. Most of the advise from everyone is just reinforcing in my mind, to go ahead and use my handloads, I'm going to get sued for wrongful death no matter what. I still haven't seen anyone post a case in which a handload was used and the part was sued and lost over it.
View Quote
First of all does every post have to turn into a personal attack? These are just topics of discussion with FELLOW firearm enthusiasts responding with their OPINIONS. We ALL know like ASSHOLES everyone has one. The following like my asshole is my opinion:[:D] In response to #1. Of course we are talking about evidence and attorneys. This is the legal forum. You can't just present expert testimony and evidence at a trial without the proper foundation and judicial notice stuff. It’s doubtful that you would pass muster as an expert witness and as a defendant it’s not likely your attorney would put you on the stand. If your evidence is excluded it won’t do you much good. Of course all that really matters is that you and your family survive but it's also important that you keep your house and freedom. Winning the firefight is step one. Winning in the courtroom is step two. In response to #2. Attorneys frequently misuse these types of warnings to influence juries. They do it everyday successfully. If you’re looking for the truth and justice in the courtroom you're looking in the wrong place. If you think the jury will be composed of firearm and ballistics experts you also will be disappointed. I probably was hand loading when many of our ar15.com members were in diapers.[:D] Where did I advise that hand loads should never be used. The context is and was in defensive loads. Don't think because you don't live in NY that you won't be sued or prosecuted for a criminal or negligent act. No one is immune today. I don’t care where you live. Just for the record the majority of NY is conservative and not anti gun. We just get blown away by the large cities and surrounding suburbs in the election process. Of COURSE use whatever load you want. Why would anyone of us care? It was you who brought the topic up for discussion.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 11:25:01 AM EDT
I am not one for more laws but this one makes alot of sense. "No individual or heir may file a civil claim for any injury including death which occured during the commision of (or attempt of) a violation of any Federal, State or Local law" In other words you try to mug me I kill you your family can not sue me for defending my life.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 2:33:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2001 2:31:55 PM EDT by guns762]
rkbar15, I wasn't trying to turn this into a personal attack, or even insult you or your opinion. I respect both. If I did, I apologize. I am just seeing so many holes in BOTH sides of the discussion. I realize that I would probably be sued in the above situation, weather or not I used handloads. I just don't think that the handload issue, alone, would sink me . In one of the local news broadcasts, a few weeks ago, the anchor was advising about Wyoming's laws on lethal force. He stated that it was legal to defend one's property and self, just don't shoot someone in the back while they are leaving! I know I asked for all of your opinions on this, and I got them. Thank you! But, I also wanted to know if anyone had been sunk, by using handloads. I was hoping some of you attorneys could confirm this or show that it was just opinion. Thanks again, guns762
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 3:43:57 PM EDT
Hey guys! Roll the throttles back for a minute. Nobody is saying you can't use handloads for self-defense. Charles E. Petty, the author of the article in question, was strongly [b]recommending[/b] that you don't for civil liability reasons. You can add criminal liability, too, if your local DA/States Attorney is an anti-gun/self-defense doofus. If you don't want to take Mr. Petty's very sound advice, advice based on real life situations were scumbag plaintiff's attorneys twisted facts to extort money from innocent victims who were only defending themselves, then don't. Use reloads for self-defense. just be ready to take it up the butt. I pack factory Remington Golden Sabers and train with reloads using the same Golden Saber bullets loaded to the same velocity as the factory rounds. I also have a fair amount of experience in civil cases testifying as an expert witness. Trust me. You won't have a single juror on the panel who has a clue about guns and handloading. Most simply won't have a clue...period. Petty's right, but you can do whatever you want.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 4:11:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2001 9:14:01 AM EDT by rkbar15]
guns762: No problem. I'm just not having a good day. My boss is a dick. I wouldn't waste either a handload or a factory load on him though! Dave_G: That's why it's always a good idea to use the same caliber and defensive load as your local police, state police or sheriff's department. The prosecutor will have a tough time if his witness is using the same load in his service firearm. Can we all agree it's the lawyers we need to get.[:D]
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 4:36:03 PM EDT
ADTECHARMS, so if someone is being "disorderly" and is shot by someone else they shouldn't be able to sue the shooter, the shootee was engaged in disorderly conduct, a crime?? I think juries see through the "I shouldn't have been shot for trying to car-jack that man it's not fair", stuf pretty easily.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 5:53:46 PM EDT
Yes but you must foot the bill to defend it while he will sue on a contigency fee basis with no out of pocket expense.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 6:07:31 PM EDT
Rrkbar is correct. If I reload my ammo, it is not reliable as I am the defendent. So my testimony is not a reliable as the lot number from a disinterested manufaturer. Actually if you are using even factory ammo you should keep some rounds from the box for testing. This is from Massod Aayob. Also you could have to face two litigations. One criminal and possibly one civil. A civil case is what the jury resonably believes and not reasonable doubt as the criminal matter. What is the chance of any juror being familiar with firearms and reloading? Personally I use the same weapon and ammo as my department. Then I can answer...the same a s my department. You can say that is bulls**t, but unless you have never been through litigation, you can not realize how damaging it is to your life.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 6:18:44 PM EDT
Why not used black talons? If you got em' shoot em' What is wrong with them as a load. I knwo they are no longer manufactured, but does that make them illeagal to have now? Didn't the company who made the black talon reintroduce them as the SXT?? curious [beer]
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 6:30:28 PM EDT
Highland Mac, yes SXT's are a slightly toned down version of black talons. The problem with handloads is that the jury/judge/lawyers don't know about reloading. They may feel you intentionally loaded some round that would be far more likely to create a wound that would be difficult to treat, more painful or just more "icky" than a factory load. Plus if it gets down to it, and you used factory loads, Joe Remington may send a lawyer to defend his ammo. That would probably help you.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 9:02:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HighlandMac: Why not used black talons? If you got em' shoot em' What is wrong with them as a load. I knwo they are no longer manufactured, but does that make them illeagal to have now? Didn't the company who made the black talon reintroduce them as the SXT?? curious [beer]
View Quote
becouse alot of uninformed people think of them as being the "evil cop killer bullets"
Link Posted: 8/19/2001 2:16:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2001 2:12:21 AM EDT by yankytrash]
cyrax - You're exactly right. If I may, I'd to elaborate on your reply just a little more. I'm a reloader. My wife thinks it's crazy, like I'm loading up bombs or something. Her opinion is shared by alot of her family (which only causes me to want to do it more [;)] ). That's exactly what a lawyer will try to do in court - they will try to make a mental picture of the reloader being a war-crazed, "I can't wait to go shoot somebody with these", kind of whacko. Juries, most being ignorant of reloading, will believe what a lawyer tells them to believe. Not that it'll stop me from using my handloads (almost exclusively).
Top Top