testtest

Why You Should Avoid Handloads for Concealed Carry

SATRP

Master Class
Founding Member
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.


Lawyers are pronounced threats to rights and liberties of We the People.
 

SATRP

Master Class
Founding Member
Here's an example of how destructive lawyers can be to We the People. My physician recently told me of a pettifogger-caused travesty of which he has personal knowledge. His friend gave CPR of a recently deceased person. CPR is administered to only dead people, His efforts resulted in reviving the dead person. However, my physician's friend broke a couple of the dead person's ribs during chest compressions. The revived person found a dirt-bag pettifogger to sue my physician's friend. Thankfully, the case was summarily dismissed. The pettifogger should have been disbarred. He was a direct danger to We the People.

There's a reason most lawyers have no respect for most lawyers. However, I've yet to be exposed any lawyer reporting any other dirt bag lawyer to any bar association for unethical conduct. There is no code of silence of law enforcement. That was media-created myth. There is an aggressively enforced code of silence among lawyers and dirt bag judges. They'll lie, cheat, and steal to protect each other.

Loser pays makes a lot of sense.
 
Last edited:

HansGruber

Hellcat
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.
Good luck with that.
 

SATRP

Master Class
Founding Member
Good luck with that.
That's an admission that justice isn't the primary objective of law.

You're right. Political agenda is the primary objective of law.

The attempted Third World, banana republic coup d'état was orchestrated by lawyers against President Donald J Trump. A coup d'état, be definition, is a declaration of civil war. Lawyers declared civil war in America. They're shielded by political immunity. Without political immunity, they'd be doing joint time.
 

wmg1299

Professional
That's an admission that justice isn't the primary objective of law.

You're right. Political agenda is the primary objective of law.

The attempted Third World, banana republic coup d'état was orchestrated by lawyers against President Donald J Trump. A coup d'état, be definition, is a declaration of civil war. Lawyers declared civil war in America. They're shielded by political immunity. Without political immunity, they'd be doing joint time.

As a cop who became a lawyer, I'm very accustomed to people insulting my profession. While a great deal of the criticism of lawyers is absolutely true, and well-deserved, I fear that some of you are missing the big picture. Throughout this country's history, lawyers helped codify and shape the best parts of our society. Your comments about a political coup are not far off the mark, but your anger is misplaced.

Lawyers are merely the most vocal products of the modern university system. To become and attorney, one must dedicate a great deal of time and effort working through the modern university system. I would like to suggest that you are not seeing a massive change amongst members of the legal profession, what you are seeing is the future of academia. Most of the "lawyers" supporting the ouster of President Trump are actually professors who have done very little actual trial work in their career.

There have always been sleazy lawyers who would do anything for a buck, but they usually aren't that talented. What has changed is that your colleges and universities, the Ivy League being the worst, are now producing graduates who actually believe the ideals they are trying to inflict upon others. All of the actual socialists I know are intellectuals, not working people. Lawyers are the loudest intellectuals, so they get noticed first. Until our universities stop their steady slide to the far left of the political spectrum, things will only get worse.
 

MJJ

Operator
Founding Member
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.

I know of two such incidents in NYC that were reported by NY1 some years ago. One near the Empire State Building (there was video) and one in the Broadway district in which the attacker shot by the police was known by a friend on mine. In both incidents, bystanders were shot.

Come to think of it, there was a third incident in Times Square in which a fleeing suspect was being shot at by police. Random people were shot by the police shooting at the suspect during the chase. The suspect was captured and subsequently charged with reckless endangerment because the police shot innocent bystanders while shooting at him. NY1 had video of that as well. I never knew what happened with that charge.
 
I know of two such incidents in NYC that were reported by NY1 some years ago. One near the Empire State Building (there was video) and one in the Broadway district in which the attacker shot by the police was known by a friend on mine. In both incidents, bystanders were shot.

Come to think of it, there was a third incident in Times Square in which a fleeing suspect was being shot at by police. Random people were shot by the police shooting at the suspect during the chase. The suspect was captured and subsequently charged with reckless endangerment because the police shot innocent bystanders while shooting at him. NY1 had video of that as well. I never knew what happened with that charge.
One of the incidents you are talking about the police officers firing from about 25 feet, feet NOT yards fired 90 shots hitting the suspects SIX times and innocent bystanders NINE times. And Biden wants them to aim for the leg. Good Luck!
 

MJJ

Operator
Founding Member
One of the incidents you are talking about the police officers firing from about 25 feet, feet NOT yards fired 90 shots hitting the suspects SIX times and innocent bystanders NINE times. And Biden wants them to aim for the leg. Good Luck!

That sounds like either the Empire State Building incident or the Times Square one.
 

SATRP

Master Class
Founding Member
As a cop who became a lawyer, I'm very accustomed to people insulting my profession. While a great deal of the criticism of lawyers is absolutely true, and well-deserved, I fear that some of you are missing the big picture. Throughout this country's history, lawyers helped codify and shape the best parts of our society. Your comments about a political coup are not far off the mark, but your anger is misplaced.

Lawyers are merely the most vocal products of the modern university system. To become and attorney, one must dedicate a great deal of time and effort working through the modern university system. I would like to suggest that you are not seeing a massive change amongst members of the legal profession, what you are seeing is the future of academia. Most of the "lawyers" supporting the ouster of President Trump are actually professors who have done very little actual trial work in their career.

There have always been sleazy lawyers who would do anything for a buck, but they usually aren't that talented. What has changed is that your colleges and universities, the Ivy League being the worst, are now producing graduates who actually believe the ideals they are trying to inflict upon others. All of the actual socialists I know are intellectuals, not working people. Lawyers are the loudest intellectuals, so they get noticed first. Until our universities stop their steady slide to the far left of the political spectrum, things will only get worse.

I was not and am not angry. Why you'd formulate such an assumption would be speculation.

It's not far off the point. It is right on point. All of the major players involved in the Third World, banana republic, non-kinetic coup d'état against President Trump, legitimately, legally, and constitutionally elected 45th President of the United States of America were lawyers. Dirt bag Schiff is a lawyer. He's a lying dirt bag. To date, I have not been exposed to facts that would indicate that ANY lawyer has complained to any bar agencies about treasonous and illegal activities of dirt bag lawyers involved in the coup d'état. How about you? Did you complain? Have you ever reported an unethical lawyer to your state's bar?

I believe that out of the hundreds of thousands of pettifoggers in our country, only one, possibly two, filed complains with the CA Bar Association about Avenatti's criminal behavior, and that (those) complaint(s) was/were long after Avenatti committed serious damage to the illusion of legal ethics and professionalism. How about you? Did you file a complaint against Avenatti?

There is an absolute omerta among lawyers. My brother is a nationally known lawyer. He's listed on IMdB I wouldn't trust him if my life depended upon it.

Lawyers comprise one facet of the sinister cabal that seeks to destroy the United States of America as it was created by our Founding Fathers.
 
Last edited:

SATRP

Master Class
Founding Member
As a cop who became a lawyer, I'm very accustomed to people insulting my profession. While a great deal of the criticism of lawyers is absolutely true, and well-deserved, I fear that some of you are missing the big picture. Throughout this country's history, lawyers helped codify and shape the best parts of our society. Your comments about a political coup are not far off the mark, but your anger is misplaced.

Lawyers are merely the most vocal products of the modern university system. To become and attorney, one must dedicate a great deal of time and effort working through the modern university system. I would like to suggest that you are not seeing a massive change amongst members of the legal profession, what you are seeing is the future of academia. Most of the "lawyers" supporting the ouster of President Trump are actually professors who have done very little actual trial work in their career.

There have always been sleazy lawyers who would do anything for a buck, but they usually aren't that talented. What has changed is that your colleges and universities, the Ivy League being the worst, are now producing graduates who actually believe the ideals they are trying to inflict upon others. All of the actual socialists I know are intellectuals, not working people. Lawyers are the loudest intellectuals, so they get noticed first. Until our universities stop their steady slide to the far left of the political spectrum, things will only get worse.

Who in God's name assumes lawyers are intellectuals? My garbage man is intellectual. Lawyers are not intellectuals.
 

wmg1299

Professional
It's not far off the point. It is right on point. All of the major players involved in the Third World, banana republic, non-kinetic coup d'état against President Trump, legitimately, legally, and constitutionally elected 45th President of the United States of America were lawyers. Dirt bag Schiff is a lawyer. He's a lying dirt bag. To date, I have not been exposed to facts that would indicate that ANY lawyer has complained to any bar agencies about treasonous and illegal activities of dirt bag lawyers involved in the coup d'état. How about you? Did you complain? Have you ever reported an unethical lawyer to your state's bar?

I believe that out of the hundreds of thousands of pettifoggers in our country, only one, possibly two, filed complains with the CA Bar Association about Avenatti's criminal behavior, and that (those) complaint(s) was/were long after Avenatti committed serious damage to the illusion of legal ethics and professionalism. How about you? Did you file a complaint against Avenatti?

In general, a complaint to the bar, or almost any regulatory agency, requires first-hand knowledge that someone is committing a violation in order for an investigation to be started. The complaint that opened the floodgates against Avenatti involved his attempted extortion of Nike. It was reported by parties with knowledge, and resulted in Avenatti facing federal criminal charges along with the suspension of his license to practice law. It is not generally the volume of complaints that spurs a regulatory agency to action, but the nature of a particular complaint.

Prior to the Stormy Daniels debacle, I had never heard of Michael Avenatti. I do not believe it is reasonable to assume that the "hundreds of thousands of pettifoggers in our country" can all be charged with the duty to police everyone involved in their entire profession. Our society does not hold any other licensed professionals to this standard. By assuming that attorneys have such power and responsibility, you are elevating them to a special status within society. This leads to the exact problem I initially addressed of people assigning improper value to the opinion of attorneys.

As an attorney in Texas, I know nothing more about the unethical actions of attorneys in California than my plumber knows about members of his profession who overcharge customers in Hawaii. I am perfectly willing to report an attorney to the bar if and when I develop articulable facts to assert that they are committing misconduct. As of this time, I have never developed such evidence.
 

SATRP

Master Class
Founding Member
In general, a complaint to the bar, or almost any regulatory agency, requires first-hand knowledge that someone is committing a violation in order for an investigation to be started. The complaint that opened the floodgates against Avenatti involved his attempted extortion of Nike. It was reported by parties with knowledge, and resulted in Avenatti facing federal criminal charges along with the suspension of his license to practice law. It is not generally the volume of complaints that spurs a regulatory agency to action, but the nature of a particular complaint.

Prior to the Stormy Daniels debacle, I had never heard of Michael Avenatti. I do not believe it is reasonable to assume that the "hundreds of thousands of pettifoggers in our country" can all be charged with the duty to police everyone involved in their entire profession. Our society does not hold any other licensed professionals to this standard. By assuming that attorneys have such power and responsibility, you are elevating them to a special status within society. This leads to the exact problem I initially addressed of people assigning improper value to the opinion of attorneys.

As an attorney in Texas, I know nothing more about the unethical actions of attorneys in California than my plumber knows about members of his profession who overcharge customers in Hawaii. I am perfectly willing to report an attorney to the bar if and when I develop articulable facts to assert that they are committing misconduct. As of this time, I have never developed such evidence.

Your reasoning makes sense; however, it's not the way it works in reality.

My friend is a Stanford University Law School grad. He told me that during his divorce, his ex-wife's attorney committed unethical acts. My friend did not report her (the attorney) to Cal Bar.

I've listened to my brother and many other attorneys complain about unethical and potentially illegal acts (subornation of perjury) committed by other attorneys. Not once did I hear an attorney actually file a complaint with Cal Bar. Excluding Avenatti, I have never, ever heard of a lawyer snitching off another lawyer for ethical transgressions. Have you?

During the OJ fiasco, while many attorneys were tripping over themselves to commend the illusory "Dream Team", only one lawyer condemned the "Dream Team" and LA County DA Gil Garcetti: Vincent Bugliosi. During and after the trial, Bugliosi was far from reticent about expressing his disgust for the lawyers involved and Lance ito. Marcia Clark and Johnny Cochrane lied to Lance Ito during that farce. Neither was disciplined. Gil Garcetti, the LA County elected district attorney, was OJ's best lawyer. Had OJ been tried in Santa Monica, jurisdiction of the murders, he'd be in Pelican Bay. Garcetti moved OJ's trial to Downtown LA for political expediency. Not a single lawyer directly involved in that farce complained to Cal Bar.

Bar associations are jokes. County sheriffs should investigate complaints of unethical conduct of lawyers.
 
Top