pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Sued for using reloads or having mods?
#31
I didn't say it was his lawyers fault.
Soldats ! Faites votre devoir ! Droit au cœur mais épargnez le visage. Feu !
Reply
#32
IANAL but wouldn't there be an affirmative defense along the lines of:

Firearms owners that practice shooting frequently have better control.
Those that reload, tend to shoot more

Customization of a carry firearm proves the owner took extra steps to ensure the firearm was customized to him / her making it more reliable than a "factory original" firearm?

Of course these are just some initial thoughts based upon my shooting, and what seems logical to me probably has no place in the legal system Rolleyes

Of every one hundred men in battle, ten should not even be there. Eighty, are nothing but targets. Nine are the real fighters, we are lucky to have them since they make the battle. Ah, but the one—one is the Warrior—and he brings the others home. —Heracletus
5711-Marine, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#33
My firearms are either modified, or adequate enough stock, to protect my life, and the life of others around me. My firearms are not toys. My hand loads that I spent time working up are designed to do the highest amount of damage that I have found they are capable of. In the event that I have to use one of my firearms, or my hand loaded ammunition to protect the lives or safety of someone, I want it to do it's job, and do it the first time.

In the above mentioned situation, if I needed to draw and defend. The situation will have already escalated to the point where I feel that stopping the threat is a necessity. If the first shot doesn't stop the threat, I will continue until it is stopped.

And if any person has a problem with me wanting to defend myself and others, be they on a jury or holding a gavel. Well, at least I will be alive at that point to worry about it.

Yes that is up in public, yes I know it could be found by a prosecutor. Because the only way I am going to have to use my firearm for defense, is if my life depends on it.
This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. -Ben Franklin
Reply
#34
Something to think about: http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_file...-1028.html


The Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network (of which you should be a member) has published an interesting look at the Martin/Zimmerman case in their June newsletter. The Florida courts, as their law requires, released all of the evidence related to the case a couple of weeks ago. In his article, Marty Hayes looks at a portion of that released evidence and makes some observations which might be useful to those who carry a firearm for self protection. I recommend you read the article.

One of the more intriguing bits was the condition of the area around the entry wound on Martin's body, leading to some speculation about the exact distance from muzzle to contact. This will, as Marty clearly points out, require ballistic testing of the gun and identical ammo to determine at what distance the test matches the evidence.

Since the court will likely not let the remaining ammunition in the gun be shot (that would be destruction of evidence), they'll need to get exemplar rounds (rounds which match exactly the ammunition used) to make those tests.

I point this out because there is still a vocal subset of people who insist that carrying handloaded ammunition for self defense is a perfectly good thing to do. (I do not know if Zimmerman did or did not; that probably won't be known until the testing progresses.) If Zimmerman did the smart thing and carried factory ammunition, all the defense will need to do is contact the manufacturer and get a box or two of the same ammunition, preferably with the same lot number. The results from firing that ammo in his gun should then match the results from the shooting, which will allow the defense to precisely determine the distance from which Martin was shot.

The testing could help validate Zimmerman's claim of self defense. Given his recent tribulations over bail revocation, he may need all the objective help he can get.

If this were a case where the shooter handloaded his ammunition, regardless of how carefully he kept records, the results of the testing would likely not be allowed into evidence. I won't go into detail as there is copious reading material available on this subject, but the bottom line is that the courts generally don't allow the defendant to manufacture evidence for his/her defense. If someone in a similar situation used reloaded ammunition, he'd be at a double loss: not only would the courts not allow the ammo in the gun to be used to support his claim, they wouldn't allow any other self-manufactured ammo to be used either.

It's not about what's "legal", it's about the rules of evidence - and they work differently than you might expect.

The supporters of handloaded ammo constantly repeat the refrain "if it's a clean shoot, then the ammo won't matter." Is the Zimmerman case a "clean" shoot? At this point I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to say that it was. It may turn out that he was completely justified (or not - we won't know until a jury comes back), but the arbiter of a "clean" shoot ultimately isn't you, or me, or the cops, or the DA - it's the jury. A shoot isn't "clean" until a jury says it is, and the ammunition used is going to be one factor in their determination.

It's something of a Catch-22: in a clean shoot the ammo wouldn't matter, but we don't know if it's a clean shoot until the jury has decided it was, and part of their decision making may involve having the ammo tested, which means the ammo DOES matter. See the problem?

This is why I only carry factory ammunition in my guns. I use my considerable reloading skill and experience to craft practice rounds that duplicate my carry ammunition in bullet weight, velocity, recoil, and point of impact, which I use only for practice or training. When I load the gun for defensive use, I put in ammunition made by someone who can supply a certified duplicate of what I've used should I need to shoot someone. Their word about the composition of the ammo will be accepted by the court, where mine wouldn't. This way I can practice cheaply and still have the backing of a reliable third party in case I need it in court.

This is also why I only carry ammunition from a major manufacturer. I don't carry "boutique" ammunition, the kind made by small speciality manufacturers, because a) those companies tend to go in and out of business with disturbing frequency; b) I don't know if they have the resources or motivation to keep samples of every lot produced in case it's needed by a court; c) I don't know if they have a credible witness who can get on the stand and testify to both the composition and chain of custody of the evidence they've provided. I know Winchester, Federal, Remington, and CCI/Speer can and do, and so I load my guns with their products.

(I also never use ammunition made by a company which is not a member of SAAMI, but that's another article for another day!)
From a trailer park on a strip cut where my neighbors call me Mister.
Reply
#35
The police determined it was a self defense shooting which is why he wasn't arrested immediately. He was arrested after elected officials caved to the pressures of people like Al Sharpton. This whole trial is bullshit.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.