testtest

Why You Should Avoid Handloads for Concealed Carry

Annihilator

Annihilator

Emissary
Founding Member
Nice article on why you shouldn’t use handloads for concealed carry

www.gunsamerica.com

Why You Should Avoid Handloads for Concealed Carry

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...
www.gunsamerica.com www.gunsamerica.com
 
I see that the author of this article is an attorney. I have seen numerous articles like this, some of which were written by attorneys. I worked my way through law school as a police officer, and have almost 25 years of combined experience between my two professions. I have yet to see anything of this nature actually happen in court, have seen no record of anything like this happening in a courtroom, and have never heard of an officer or detective deciding a shooting was unjustified because someone was using handloads. I have to concede that all of my time as a LEO and attorney has been spent in Texas, which is more gun-friendly than many states. Still, I would appreciate if the attorneys writing these articles would cite an actual case, or refer to a personal experience in trial, when giving this advice. I am not claiming that this attorney does not have such evidence or experience, but it would be helpful if a citation had been provided.
I have heard reports of the use of hollow-point ammunition being used as evidence against someone in trial, but I believe these occurred in jurisdictions where civilian possession of hollow-point ammunition is prohibited by law. I could foresee the use of handloads being addressed in a civil suit, but have never heard of it actually happening in a criminal proceeding where the possession and use of such ammunition is legal. The specific details of county-level criminal proceedings are rarely published in legal texts, so many attorneys are forced to rely on word-of-mouth from colleagues for specific details. If any of you have any actual knowledge of the issue of ammunition being addressed in court, I would greatly appreciate if you could share it with me.
This is my opinion on a general matter, and is not legal advice. I would advise people not to take something as gospel just because it was said by an attorney (including me). In literally every court case, there are attorneys arguing each side of the case, and exactly half of them are proven wrong when a verdict is entered. I absolutely agree with the author that the use of the same defensive ammunition carried by police is an excellent idea.
 
Another point to consider is the fact that the wonderful factory "personal defense ammo" is gone from the shelves in most stores. Another reason to reload.
 
wmg1299 said:
I see that the author of this article is an attorney. I have seen numerous articles like this, some of which were written by attorneys. I worked my way through law school as a police officer, and have almost 25 years of combined experience between my two professions. I have yet to see anything of this nature actually happen in court, have seen no record of anything like this happening in a courtroom, and have never heard of an officer or detective deciding a shooting was unjustified because someone was using handloads. I have to concede that all of my time as a LEO and attorney has been spent in Texas, which is more gun-friendly than many states. Still, I would appreciate if the attorneys writing these articles would cite an actual case, or refer to a personal experience in trial, when giving this advice. I am not claiming that this attorney does not have such evidence or experience, but it would be helpful if a citation had been provided.
I have heard reports of the use of hollow-point ammunition being used as evidence against someone in trial, but I believe these occurred in jurisdictions where civilian possession of hollow-point ammunition is prohibited by law. I could foresee the use of handloads being addressed in a civil suit, but have never heard of it actually happening in a criminal proceeding where the possession and use of such ammunition is legal. The specific details of county-level criminal proceedings are rarely published in legal texts, so many attorneys are forced to rely on word-of-mouth from colleagues for specific details. If any of you have any actual knowledge of the issue of ammunition being addressed in court, I would greatly appreciate if you could share it with me.
This is my opinion on a general matter, and is not legal advice. I would advise people not to take something as gospel just because it was said by an attorney (including me). In literally every court case, there are attorneys arguing each side of the case, and exactly half of them are proven wrong when a verdict is entered. I absolutely agree with the author that the use of the same defensive ammunition carried by police is an excellent idea.
Click to expand...


The same rumors run rampant on the internet regarding doing trigger jobs on your carry gun. Or having the punisher cerakoted on it. Not a single example I have ever been able to find of it being used against someone in court.
 
Bassbob said:
The same rumors run rampant on the internet regarding doing trigger jobs on your carry gun. Or having the punisher cerakoted on it. Not a single example I have ever been able to find of it being used against someone in court.
Click to expand...
Not a punisher skull, but there was a police officer that shot an unarmed man using an AR15 that had a novelty dust cover that said “You're F*****”. Officer was tried for manslaughter/murder (forget which) and the prosecution tried to use it against him. I believe the defense quashed it, but, still—it was used in court.

He was fired from the department for using “nonstandard equipment”—the dust cover.

So...yeah, that bling can and will be used against you.
 
HansGruber said:
Not a punisher skull, but there was a police officer that shot an unarmed man using an AR15 that had a novelty dust cover that said “You're F*****”. Officer was tried for manslaughter/murder (forget which) and the prosecution tried to use it against him. I believe the defense quashed it, but, still—it was used in court.

He was fired from the department for using “nonstandard equipment”—the dust cover.

So...yeah, that bling can and will be used against you.
Click to expand...
I assume you are referring to the Daniel Shaver shooting with the officer that had the specific dust cover that you stated?

Here is additional info on the event that took place and the aftermath that followed.

If anyone is interested you can find the complete video online to this particular event and see what transpired that day.

Most of you will be saddened or angry on how everything went down after reviewing the footage.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Shooting of Daniel Shaver - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
10mmLife said:
I assume you are referring to the Daniel Shaver shooting with the officer that had the specific dust cover that you stated?

Here is additional info on the event that took place and the aftermath that followed.

If anyone is interested you can find the complete video online to this particular event and see what transpired that day.

Most of you will be saddened or angry on how everything went down that day after reviewing the footage.

en.m.wikipedia.org

Shooting of Daniel Shaver - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
That's the one.

I refrained from editorializing in my post, and I will here, as not to totally derail this thread.
 
I would not use handloads as self defense ammo. However as some have posted I don't think we have ever seen a trial where handloads have been a factor or trigger jobs. A lot of these are IMO internet myths. Now anything can happen and that is why I would stay away from using handloads. Hell, how about if an innocent bystander is shot in NY by the police because the HEAVY NY GLOCK TRIGGER makes accurate shooting difficult. The other side of the coin.
 
HansGruber said:
Not a punisher skull, but there was a police officer that shot an unarmed man using an AR15 that had a novelty dust cover that said “You're F*****”. Officer was tried for manslaughter/murder (forget which) and the prosecution tried to use it against him. I believe the defense quashed it, but, still—it was used in court.

He was fired from the department for using “nonstandard equipment”—the dust cover.

So...yeah, that bling can and will be used against you.
Click to expand...


That's the only one. And it was his personal weapon that he used on duty. Also, I believe it was a shotgun. And I mean it was a cop. Cops get sued all the time for ridiculous crap. They're held to a much higher standard than you or I.
 
Bassbob said:
That's the only one. And it was his personal weapon that he used on duty. Also, I believe it was a shotgun. And I mean it was a cop. Cops get sued all the time for ridiculous crap. They're held to a much higher standard than you or I.
Click to expand...

Shotguns don’t have dustcovers.

Check the link mentioned above...that’s the event I was referencing.
 
HansGruber said:
Shotguns don’t have dustcovers.

Check the link mentioned above...that’s the event I was referencing.
Click to expand...


I'm positive it's the same one I'm talking about. I'm just misremembering it. Ya know I tend to look at everything as if it is, should be or could be a shotgun. lol
 
SCfromNY said:
I would not use handloads as self defense ammo. However as some have posted I don't think we have ever seen a trial where handloads have been a factor or trigger jobs. A lot of these are IMO internet myths. Now anything can happen and that is why I would stay away from using handloads. Hell, how about if an innocent bystander is shot in NY by the police because the HEAVY NY GLOCK TRIGGER makes accurate shooting difficult. The other side of the coin.
Click to expand...

Unless someone can cite specific examples, I agree with you that these appear to be "Internet Myths." That's why it bothers me when these things are referenced in published articles written by attorneys. I don't mind when attorneys mention something that they could foresee happening, but it bothers me when they don't include the disclaimer that they aren't aware of similar events actually occurring.
 
That article was the reason that I do not read gun magazines. There is no useful and valid info within it.

I'm not sure how it works in other states, it CA it works like this: at the time a person used deadly force, was his life or the life of an other in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury? The CA Penal Code is controlling, not gun magazines wannabes.

California Penal Code Section 692:
.

California Penal Code Section 693:

California Penal Code Section 197 (Justifiable Homicide):

Show me any statutory law that prevents use of hand loaded ammo.

I use factory Fed HST LE ammo because it's not worth the effort to load a box. A box of self-defense ammo should last many lifetimes. Prayerfully, you'll never have to use it.
 
If the author of the linked article is a lawyer, he should be disbarred.

The author's comment of: "Even if you are telling the truth, prosecutors can twist your words to fit their theory of the case," is stupid. If self-defense is within law, truth will prevent prosecution of an innocent person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top