SandRoad said:
A couple of comments on the running discussions about legal issues, one example is using factory vs handloads, but my comments are more general in nature.
I found out a while ago that in court, just like court of public opinion, hard facts don't always win the arguments. Many people seem to forget or ignore that reality.
That's true. But as I noticed in about 20 years of regularly giving evidence in court, that also works both ways, correct? And the burden of proof still remains with the state, correct?
Rick, (and I don't mean this in any malicious way) is just one example. You mentioned that you have decades of experience handloading, essentially self taught. It is great what you have done, but it is still not a formal "stamp of approval" by some recognized institution. Many times when it comes to legal arguments, experience alone just isn't enough. Citing relevant degrees, publications, lectures, awards etc, goes a long way to establishing crediblity.
That's true. However, the subject at hand is handloading ammunition. Where does one get a degree in handloading? Dave Tomlinson is recognized as an expert witness regarding firearms - where did he get his degree in firearms?
The issue of expertise in court indeed starts with examining academic/technical credentials. But it can be established in spite of that, and in fact, when formal academic training doesn't exist, it is often established without any of that.
My reloading practices are both sound and safe. The conform with and in most cases exceed guidelines, cautions, and best practices that are published in related books and publications. All are within published loads. The bullets I load are the same being loaded by manufacturers of defensive ammunition.
What is there to attack in that kind of reloading, what kind of an "expert witness" will attack that and how will they attack it - and how hard will it be to find other expert witnesses to in their turn attack his expertise?
Do I want to ever get in that battle? No. Is it likely even if I use handloads? No. Is a DA going to try an expert witness end run and hurt his own case when his expert witness gets shot out of the sky? No.
The issue is identifiable and real risk. I just don't see any existing here.
In another paragraph, you give some recognition to the fact that a formal "stamp of approval" has value, by recognizing that one person is a lawyer and the other isn't. (Ignoring the inconvenient details of who knows more than the other.....) You didn't just mention the names of the 2 people, you included the TITLE (lawyer) to one of them, ie, adding further crediblity to that person.
That's true. However, and first, I have no idea what Clark's academic credentials are (he may also be a member of the bar for all I know). I do know however that Mitch Vilas is widely recognized, even within the legal profession, as a lawyer who is an expert on firearms law. And second and perhaps most importantly, Clark did not disagree with Mtich Vilas' comments or say anything like "Using handloads will put you at legal risk". Clark is a pretty outspoken guy; if he didn't agree with Mitch Vilas, I'm reasonably sure he would have said something to that class.
I don't doubt for one minute that Clark and most if not all other CCW/self defense trainers advise against handloads. I would do the same myself for many reasons. For starters, I sure as hell am not going to put myself in a liability position when I have no idea what the current reloading practices of the people in this class are. Many handloaders are accidents waiting to happen. Second, there is no question that for the vast majority of people, factory ammunition is a clearly superior choice. And I can think of a few reasons beyond those primary two reasons as well...
But yet again, as always, it still comes down to each person's relevant risk assessment. If people who used handloads in self defense are regularly being reported in the news as being skewered by attorneys, it certainly seems to be escaping the notice of pro-firearms groups. When 1 - 3 examples over decades of defensive use is the best that can be found for examples of this risk, I just can't get too excited about the apparent danger this puts me in.
I've been warned that if I keep a firearm in my home it is more likely to pose a danger to me than to be of use to me in protecting my family and myself.
I've been warned that if I carry a firearm for self defense it might be taken from me or I might inadvertently shoot somebody.
I've been warned that if I carry a Glock handgun it may have a KaBoom when I need it most and leave me defenseless in a gunfight.
I've been warned if I carry handloads that lawyers will screw me in court.
All of things are indeed possible, but the important question is how likely are they to happen? Until I see some evidence that there is a real risk that is above the background risk that makes up everyday life on this planet, it is my personal choice to simply not worry about it and think good thoughts about winning the Powerball lottery instead.
People put hours and hours of thought selecting the best gun, caliber, ammo, etc, but little to no thought into what might happen after a defensive shooting. The example discussed in this thread of using factory vs handloads is just ONE example of the same level of care that should go into post incident preparation as goes into being prepared FOR an incident.
Now THAT I very much agree with. Which is why I still have those examples of service ammunition that were duds during annual qualification matches... for example. I can also think of one and possibly two former police officers who can give evidence that they have experienced faulty commercial ammunition that didn't fire in their service sidearms - fortunately not in a real life situation.
But anyways, I do very much degree that "have a plan" exists not only for before a shooting and during a shooting, but to after a shooting as well.
One thing the US desperately needs is a nationwide insurance carrier for CCW holders, to cover legal costs after a shooting. Given the relatively rare occasions where a person who shot in self defense actually has to face a jury, I would expect such insurance to be fairly inexpensive and popular with CCW/open carry practitioners. But like the insurance sponsored by the NFA, it would be hard to turn down.
One thing I do have planned for the immediate future is to see if such insurance is already sponsored by some group, and what coverage I have from my homeowner's liability insurance.
. Also, if you're gonna complain about bulk on a pistol this size, carry a Keltec or something! The work would require a gunsmith. No bubba-work on a brand new $1400 pistol thank-you-very-much 
