Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/9/2004 12:30:26 PM EST
A friend of mine told me that I shouldn't use "high-powered rounds" or "expansion bullets" in my self-defense gun because I might be taken to court (civil or criminal) for doing so if I ever need to use my gun.

Does anyone know of example cases or case law supporting this? I can believe that some gun-hating/ money grubbing lawyer tried to go this route, but does anyone know if this has been a successful legal maneuver?

Do I really need to put Winchester white box in my self-defense weapon to prove that I was not looking for trouble? geeeeesh.


Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:32:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:43:34 PM EST

Sure, I can stay away from Black Talon, but I was still wondering if there were any actual cases where a person was found guilty of crime or had to settle/pay damages because he used "self-defense" ammo as opposed to some other kind of ammo.

I don't know how to search law records.

John K.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:45:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By five2one:
A friend of mine told me that I shouldn't use "high-powered rounds" or "expansion bullets" in my self-defense gun because I might be taken to court (civil or criminal) for doing so if I ever need to use my gun.



Your friend is an idiot.

Find a new friend, life is too short to hang around morons.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:46:51 PM EST
Killer bullets?

Geeze, first I have to watch out for the AK47's and Uzi's in the street, now I have also look out for killer bullets...
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:53:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By five2one:
Sure, I can stay away from Black Talon, but I was still wondering if there were any actual cases where a person was found guilty of crime or had to settle/pay damages because he used "self-defense" ammo as opposed to some other kind of ammo.

I don't know how to search law records.

John K.



Wouldn't matter. No such case law exist in criminal proceedings, to the best of my knowledge. I'm also not aware of any such civil case.

This is basically an internet/gun-shop rumor.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:54:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By five2one:
Sure, I can stay away from Black Talon, but I was still wondering if there were any actual cases where a person was found guilty of crime or had to settle/pay damages because he used "self-defense" ammo as opposed to some other kind of ammo.

I don't know how to search law records.

John K.



Wouldn't matter. No such case law exist in criminal proceedings, to the best of my knowledge. I'm also not aware of any such civil case.

This is basically an internet/gun-shop rumor.



+1
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:54:07 PM EST
Actually, if you shoot someone and kill them, even if justified, the kind of bullet you use may be an interesting footnote compared to the civil action that often follows. No matter how much someone deserves to die, if you accomodate them, you may well be sued for Wrongful Death.

Plenty of people avoid or beat criminal charges, but aren't so lucky with civil charges.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:57:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/9/2004 12:57:55 PM EST by Torf]

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:
You don't have to worry about it, they banned Black Talons, and everybody knows that those are the bad ones.



Who banned Black Talons? I seem to recall that they were never banned at all, and are now marketed under the Ranger SXT LE line. The change was a company decision because of a media circus IIRC.

Nevermind! I get it!
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:57:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By five2one:

Do I really need to put Winchester white box in my self-defense weapon to prove that I was not looking for trouble? geeeeesh.




If you use Win White Box as your carry load, you stand a significant chance of never reaching a jury.
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:57:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/9/2004 12:59:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By AlphaBobRI:
Actually, if you shoot someone and kill them, even if justified, the kind of bullet you use may be an interesting footnote compared to the civil action that often follows. No matter how much someone deserves to die, if you accomodate them, you may well be sued for Wrongful Death.

Plenty of people avoid or beat criminal charges, but aren't so lucky with civil charges.



true, dat...

im sure my next statement is going to start a shitstorm, but its true: guns and bullets are dangerous... period... thats all there is to it...

someone once asked a texas ranger regarding his carrying a 1911 pistol in condtion 1, "isnt that DANGEROUS!?"

the rangers response? "of course it is... i wouldnt carry the son of a bitch if it werent dangerous!"

Link Posted: 9/9/2004 1:00:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Killer bullets?

Geeze, first I have to watch out for the AK47's and Uzi's in the street, now I have also look out for killer bullets...



This is exactly what I was thinking.

Killer bullets as opposed to what? Bullets that leave rainbows and blossoming flowers in their wake and give the target they hit a hug?
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:00:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By LvFreeRDie:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Killer bullets?

Geeze, first I have to watch out for the AK47's and Uzi's in the street, now I have also look out for killer bullets...



This is exactly what I was thinking.

Killer bullets as opposed to what? Bullets that leave rainbows and blossoming flowers in their wake and give the target they hit a hug?



I think the alternative was "target ammo" or at very least "non-expanding Bullets".



Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:03:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By five2one:
Sure, I can stay away from Black Talon, but I was still wondering if there were any actual cases where a person was found guilty of crime or had to settle/pay damages because he used "self-defense" ammo as opposed to some other kind of ammo.

I don't know how to search law records.

John K.



Wouldn't matter. No such case law exist in criminal proceedings, to the best of my knowledge. I'm also not aware of any such civil case.

This is basically an internet/gun-shop rumor.



+1




Thanks for the feedback. My friend was told this by a pawn shop owner (see above). I'll be keeping my Federal Hydra in my carry and self-defense guns.

I love this site. I get all my questions answered.



Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:11:17 AM EST
Counter argument : With non expanding bullets you increase the risk of overpenetrating and injuring some body other that your target. Therefore it is irresponsible to NOT use expanding bullets.

ktm500
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 9:32:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/10/2004 9:32:41 AM EST by magnum_99]
It's a red herring argument. Never been used in a case to my knowledge.

The argument is EASILY refuted by you own expert who states that your ammo is designed and loaded to stop an ATTACK, i.e. expanding ammo delivering energy INTO the target, in the exact same way as any LEO's ammo does.

It's also a silly argument against loading your own ammo for self defense.
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 10:22:14 AM EST
there was a case in nj which as banned hollow points were a guy shot a burglar, and was charged with possion of for the ammo and exsisive force.( rumor control mode)
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 11:59:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By COLT113:
there was a case in nj which as banned hollow points were a guy shot a burglar, and was charged with possion of for the ammo and exsisive force.( rumor control mode)



Is this true? Can anyone provide more details about this case? Are hollow points banned in NJ (or other states)? Maybe this is the root of the myth that my friend told me (see first post).

John K .
Link Posted: 9/10/2004 12:53:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By ktm500:
Counter argument : With non expanding bullets you increase the risk of overpenetrating and injuring some body other that your target. Therefore it is irresponsible to NOT use expanding bullets.

ktm500



'nough said!
Top Top