Legal ramifications of using reloaded ammunition

[Travelor]

I keep reading that people are using their reloaded ammo in their personal defense guns.

Somewhere I have read that you should never use reloaded ammunition for self defense. Reason was that the defense attorney would really work you over i court and you could be subject to civil actions for its use on the bad guy.

What is the correct ammo tu use in your carry gun for defense in a court case?

 

[Cold Bore]

With all of the choices in top quality personal defense ammo on the market, in factory form, I can't think of any good reason to expose myself to any potential liability by using handloads instead.

 

[Steelnecktie]

They will try to say "excessive force" on hand load or for that matter, any aftermarket upgrades to gun.

 

[Dale700]

Although I have no actual evidence, I have heard the same thing regarding reloads for personal protection. I personally use the Winchester silver tip in my 38 super but have recently been researching the OATH ammo.

 

[Terry]

It would be nice to hear from an attorney. It would be better that endless pages of speculation.

 

[LitLBoy]

Find out what the cops use in your area --- if it functions in your gun, that's the ticket.
Unless they are using something like 158gr. 38 special round nose lead.

 

[LHSmith]

Well I heard about the big liability if you use handloads in self defense. Recently asked a good friend who is a recently retired police chief from a fairly large city in NE PA and he told me that is purely BS. FWIW, his son is head of the area's SWAT, so he's pretty much in tune with the latest legal ramifications.

 

[ShootDots]

In the mid and late '80's when I used a Colt Python .357Mag for duty use, I loaded up 125gr Hollow Points using Win 296 powder. There were some other Officers loading up too. The above question was asked in a training class some years ago and the answer was "if you have a right to be where you are, and have probable cause to arrest, and deadly force becomes necessary to effect the lawful arrest, you are on good legal ground". Remember also, Police are always held to a "higher standard" than the public at large. I believe this same "standard" would hold up today. Remember, anything that can be construed as a deadly weapon, IS a deadly weapon. Example: You are at a gas station pumping gas (you have a right to be there) and someone attempts to rob you, threatening you with a baseball bat as a weapon, (now deadly force becomes necessary) and you pull your pistol and employ deadly force, using your pistol loaded with handloads, you will be on legal ground. Now here MAY BE a caveat, in some of your "excessively liberal" states, depending on the laws in that state, you may NOT be on good legal ground, in this instance. It would NOT be because of the ammunition used, but because of what constitutes "good legal ground" to use deadly force..

 

[alf]

Somewhere I have read that you should never use reloaded ammunition for self defense. Reason was that the defense attorney would really work you over i court and you could be subject to civil actions for its use on the bad guy.

This argument comes up continually, but nobody can cite a case as evidence.....

 

[Cold Bore]

In the mid and late '80's...

I believe this same "standard" would hold up today.

This isn't the 80's. With the total JOKE that our legal system is today, thanks in large part to ambulance chasing attorneys and a much more liberal slant where everybody is the "victim", allowing almost any lawsuit or court case to go totally against anything considered "reasonable", I repeat what I said above....

With so many top quality factory offerings, why even give them the opportunity to TRY to open that legal door?

If you find yourself in court, after a shooting, no matter how justified, you have plenty of things to worry about. Why needlessly expose yourself to other potential problems or lines of questioning?

 

[ShootDots]

This isn't the 80's. With the total JOKE that our legal system is today, thanks in large part to ambulance chasing attorneys and a much more liberal slant where everybody is the "victim", allowing almost any lawsuit or court case to go totally against anything considered "reasonable", I repeat what I said above....

With so many top quality factory offerings, why even give them the opportunity to TRY to open that legal door?

You do have a right to your opinion..

 

[Cold Bore]

Let me ask it another way.

What do you (anybody) hope to GAIN by using handloaded self defense ammo, that you can't get in over-the-counter factory loads?

 

[DRNewcomb]

I tend to agree with Cold Bore. A civil case is often a contest of who can toss the most most grains of sand on his side of the scale. Using reloads may only be one grain of sand but it's one grain you don't want to give to the other side.

BTW, I have been told to never let anyone but your close family shoot your reloads, for liability and other legal reasons.

 

[ShootDots]

Let me ask it another way.

What do you (anybody) hope to GAIN by using handloaded self defense ammo, that you can't get in over-the-counter factory loads?

You are blending 2 different topics. ONE: factory or Loaded ammo has no difference as far as the CRIMINAL aspect of using deadly force. TWO: Civil liability is another topic altogether. You can be sued for anything. If the family of the dead assailant wants to sue because you killed their family member, they can sue. They may say, "My brother only had a bat and you killed him" "you should have wounded him".. Or some such other drivel. Will they be successful? I doubt it, but you can't stop the lawsuit from coming. That is why TORT REFORM is a big issue! But CRIMINALLY, my example would hold up as far as a Police / Criminal investigation is concerned.

 

[watercam]

Buy a small quantity of Defense ammo for carry and function test enough to satisfy yourself that it works in your weapon. Handload practice ammo that matches the ballistics of your carry ammo and save money on the 99% of ammunition you should be expending to remain competent with your weapon.
Shooting Dots has a point though. There are always two components to a defensive shooting. Hence the need for insurance specifically for that potential liability. It'll cost you a minimum of $5,000-10,000 just to have an attorney show up for your questioning post-shooting. If charged, well, it only gets financially worse guilty or not.

 

[rkittine]

I used to load Hollow Base Wad Cutters upside down in 38 special cases for defense inside my home so that if I shot at someone and missed, it would not penetrate the walls with any force as I had a child in the next room. I carried a Walther PPK/s for years with 90 grain hollow points. I used to load commercially until my attorney convinced me that in this country the liability was way too high compared to the profit even with signed releases. In any case, since in almost 50 years of gun ownership I have never had to use a gun to defend myself, I really don't care which ammo I have for defense and I no longer keep any guns for defense. I know the answer is that better to have a gun and not need it then to need one and not have it, as I had that sign up in my gun shop for 16 years and never got robbed or held up there either. If you are alive because you used some reloaded ammo, I think you should still thank your lucky stars.

Bob

 

[nosualc]

You are blending 2 different topics. ONE: factory or Loaded ammo has no difference as far as the CRIMINAL aspect of using deadly force. TWO: Civil liability is another topic altogether. You can be sued for anything. If the family of the dead assailant wants to sue because you killed their family member, they can sue. They may say, "My brother only had a bat and you killed him" "you should have wounded him".. Or some such other drivel. Will they be successful? I doubt it, but you can't stop the lawsuit from coming. That is why TORT REFORM is a big issue! But CRIMINALLY, my example would hold up as far as a Police / Criminal investigation is concerned.

Well reasoned, logical responses Ben. Thank you.

-nosualc

 

[dickn52]

You will be sued by the grieving family no matter what you use. Get ready for that. As for some sort of product liability, no. They will go deep pockets and throw everything into the mix, but let the judge decide what is and what isn't allowed if anything at all.

BTW, 158gn round nosed lead was the NYPD round of choice for many years due to expansion and fear of over penetration. They work just fine for personal protection. Of course a semi jacketed spinning blender works too.

 

[Alexander-M]

Our Conceal Carry instructor when I took the class many years ago, told us that to be safer, though not immune, from lawsuits, to use round nose FMJ ammo. He said that if we used handloaded ammo, hollow points, or any sort of more effective/damaging bullets, we could be sued for wanting to not just neutralize the threat, but really kill him/her badly. He said the prosecution could argue that the use of standard ball ammo by the accused (shooter) was not good enough for him/her; that he/she really wanted to cause as much damage as possible, even if unnecessary. Since then, I use ball ammo for practice and conceal carry.

As a side note - some of you may remember Joycelyn Elders, Surgeon General under Slick Willy, who proposed that we should develop 'safer bullets'.

Nando

 

[Cold Bore]

You will be sued by the grieving family no matter what you use. Get ready for that.

I get that, and am not arguing that point. But I'm not willing to give them extra ammo to use in their fight against me.

...but let the judge decide what is and what isn't allowed if anything at all.

So in today's liberal legal environment, you are content to allow a judge to decide if an extra "condition" should be admitted, and then an uninformed jury to hear about the "devastating effects" of handloaded ammo "designed solely to inflict maximum carnage" and "unnecessary suffering", rather than just shut down that entire avenue of questioning?

Remember, your entire freedom to continue living your life in the manner that you are accustomed to and life-changing finances (saved, current, and future) are on the line.

You have a lot more faith in our "justice" system than I do.

If I'm going to gamble on something "just to prove a point", or "just because I 'think' I can", I'm not going to do it with that much at risk, especially with such totally adequate alternatives available. I'll save those stunts for much lower odds endeavors.