Sidearms & Scatterguns Why not ccw with hand loads
- Thread starter futurerider103
- Start date
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
Is it flash suppressant or is the powder picked/blended to provide close to 100% burn in a barrel of x length?
Is it flash suppressant or is the powder picked/blended to provide close to 100% burn in a barrel of x length?
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DCR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there ever been a case where a criminal (i.e. blatant criminal activity, drive by, murder, etc) used hand loads and the fact that they used hand loads was brought up in court?</div></div>
I would say you would be hard pressed to find such a thing. Most of the criminal firearms activity I have been involved in investigating, charging or testifying on has been with stolen or other illegally acquire/possessed weapons. In that case they usually just send someone to the local wally world to buy some ammo. If handloads were used, then they were more than likely in the weapon when it was stolen. Since it's pretty difficult for a non-reloader to look at ammo and tell if it's factory or handloaded I would say it's a fact that doesn't get cataloged often.
Think about it from a jurors standpoint. If a guy just used a .357 to blow his girlfriend away for cheating...does it make a difference if it was ball or jhp? Factory or handload? Not really.
However in a defensive shooting where it's not clear cut wrongdoing or in a civil suit where they are attempting to show malice, then it could matter to the jury.
I really wish I had the resources to compile this type of data, but without a Lexus Nexus account it's a huge pain. Even with an account its a pain. </div></div>
LoneWolf, I just did the search for you.
I searched for "hand load" and "handload" in any document which also contained the words "self-defense" or "self defense" in the "all cases" Westlaw database, which searches all reported, and many unreported, state and federal cases.
Here is the one and only case including these words, which obviously has nothing to do with the issue of using a hand load:
"For example, in Thomas, '[t]he jury could infer that defendant returned to his car to get the rifle and ammunition before committing the murders,” and because the rifle lacked a clip, “in order to fire a second shot [as occurred], one had to eject the expended case by opening the bolt and hand load a round into the chamber.'” People v. Hensley, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2958740 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2004).
Running a search for "reload" and "self-defense" yields 46 cases - all of which involve the person reloading their weapon, similar to the above cite, which resulted in charges.
NONE - ZERO - cases, either civil or criminal, in the Westlaw database for all state and federal jurisdictions report anything about the use of hand loads and self-defense.
The bigger factor was the person firing multiple rounds, and reloading.
Hope that helps.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DCR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there ever been a case where a criminal (i.e. blatant criminal activity, drive by, murder, etc) used hand loads and the fact that they used hand loads was brought up in court?</div></div>
I would say you would be hard pressed to find such a thing. Most of the criminal firearms activity I have been involved in investigating, charging or testifying on has been with stolen or other illegally acquire/possessed weapons. In that case they usually just send someone to the local wally world to buy some ammo. If handloads were used, then they were more than likely in the weapon when it was stolen. Since it's pretty difficult for a non-reloader to look at ammo and tell if it's factory or handloaded I would say it's a fact that doesn't get cataloged often.
Think about it from a jurors standpoint. If a guy just used a .357 to blow his girlfriend away for cheating...does it make a difference if it was ball or jhp? Factory or handload? Not really.
However in a defensive shooting where it's not clear cut wrongdoing or in a civil suit where they are attempting to show malice, then it could matter to the jury.
I really wish I had the resources to compile this type of data, but without a Lexus Nexus account it's a huge pain. Even with an account its a pain. </div></div>
LoneWolf, I just did the search for you.
I searched for "hand load" and "handload" in any document which also contained the words "self-defense" or "self defense" in the "all cases" Westlaw database, which searches all reported, and many unreported, state and federal cases.
Here is the one and only case including these words, which obviously has nothing to do with the issue of using a hand load:
"For example, in Thomas, '[t]he jury could infer that defendant returned to his car to get the rifle and ammunition before committing the murders,” and because the rifle lacked a clip, “in order to fire a second shot [as occurred], one had to eject the expended case by opening the bolt and hand load a round into the chamber.'” People v. Hensley, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2958740 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2004).
Running a search for "reload" and "self-defense" yields 46 cases - all of which involve the person reloading their weapon, similar to the above cite, which resulted in charges.
NONE - ZERO - cases, either civil or criminal, in the Westlaw database for all state and federal jurisdictions report anything about the use of hand loads and self-defense.
The bigger factor was the person firing multiple rounds, and reloading.
Hope that helps.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jeffbird</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DCR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there ever been a case where a criminal (i.e. blatant criminal activity, drive by, murder, etc) used hand loads and the fact that they used hand loads was brought up in court?</div></div>
I would say you would be hard pressed to find such a thing. Most of the criminal firearms activity I have been involved in investigating, charging or testifying on has been with stolen or other illegally acquire/possessed weapons. In that case they usually just send someone to the local wally world to buy some ammo. If handloads were used, then they were more than likely in the weapon when it was stolen. Since it's pretty difficult for a non-reloader to look at ammo and tell if it's factory or handloaded I would say it's a fact that doesn't get cataloged often.
Think about it from a jurors standpoint. If a guy just used a .357 to blow his girlfriend away for cheating...does it make a difference if it was ball or jhp? Factory or handload? Not really.
However in a defensive shooting where it's not clear cut wrongdoing or in a civil suit where they are attempting to show malice, then it could matter to the jury.
I really wish I had the resources to compile this type of data, but without a Lexus Nexus account it's a huge pain. Even with an account its a pain. </div></div>
LoneWolf, I just did the search for you.
I searched for "hand load" and "handload" in any document which also contained the words "self-defense" or "self defense" in the "all cases" Westlaw database, which searches all reported, and many unreported, state and federal cases.
Here is the one and only case including these words, which obviously has nothing to do with the issue of using a hand load:
"For example, in Thomas, '[t]he jury could infer that defendant returned to his car to get the rifle and ammunition before committing the murders,” and because the rifle lacked a clip, “in order to fire a second shot [as occurred], one had to eject the expended case by opening the bolt and hand load a round into the chamber.'” People v. Hensley, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2958740 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2004).
Running a search for "reload" and "self-defense" yields 46 cases - all of which involve the person reloading their weapon, similar to the above cite, which resulted in charges.
NONE - ZERO - cases, either civil or criminal, in the Westlaw database for all state and federal jurisdictions report anything about the use of hand loads and self-defense.
The bigger factor was the person firing multiple rounds, and reloading.
Hope that helps. </div></div>
I searched Lexis as well last year and found the same results.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jeffbird</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DCR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has there ever been a case where a criminal (i.e. blatant criminal activity, drive by, murder, etc) used hand loads and the fact that they used hand loads was brought up in court?</div></div>
I would say you would be hard pressed to find such a thing. Most of the criminal firearms activity I have been involved in investigating, charging or testifying on has been with stolen or other illegally acquire/possessed weapons. In that case they usually just send someone to the local wally world to buy some ammo. If handloads were used, then they were more than likely in the weapon when it was stolen. Since it's pretty difficult for a non-reloader to look at ammo and tell if it's factory or handloaded I would say it's a fact that doesn't get cataloged often.
Think about it from a jurors standpoint. If a guy just used a .357 to blow his girlfriend away for cheating...does it make a difference if it was ball or jhp? Factory or handload? Not really.
However in a defensive shooting where it's not clear cut wrongdoing or in a civil suit where they are attempting to show malice, then it could matter to the jury.
I really wish I had the resources to compile this type of data, but without a Lexus Nexus account it's a huge pain. Even with an account its a pain. </div></div>
LoneWolf, I just did the search for you.
I searched for "hand load" and "handload" in any document which also contained the words "self-defense" or "self defense" in the "all cases" Westlaw database, which searches all reported, and many unreported, state and federal cases.
Here is the one and only case including these words, which obviously has nothing to do with the issue of using a hand load:
"For example, in Thomas, '[t]he jury could infer that defendant returned to his car to get the rifle and ammunition before committing the murders,” and because the rifle lacked a clip, “in order to fire a second shot [as occurred], one had to eject the expended case by opening the bolt and hand load a round into the chamber.'” People v. Hensley, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2958740 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2004).
Running a search for "reload" and "self-defense" yields 46 cases - all of which involve the person reloading their weapon, similar to the above cite, which resulted in charges.
NONE - ZERO - cases, either civil or criminal, in the Westlaw database for all state and federal jurisdictions report anything about the use of hand loads and self-defense.
The bigger factor was the person firing multiple rounds, and reloading.
Hope that helps. </div></div>
I searched Lexis as well last year and found the same results.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
Anyone remember when some certain bullets were dubbed "cop killers" and said bullets were in the media as being some special round that had superpowers tha other rounds didn't? I imagine that's about the same time this internet myth about handloads started.
Anyone remember when some certain bullets were dubbed "cop killers" and said bullets were in the media as being some special round that had superpowers tha other rounds didn't? I imagine that's about the same time this internet myth about handloads started.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
I use my own handloads for everything except CCW. The main reason? Litigation. Why give an attorney another reason to question your motives? Secondary reason? What if one of my handloads are fubar? Plus there are tons of excellent factory self-defense ammo choices out there.
I use my own handloads for everything except CCW. The main reason? Litigation. Why give an attorney another reason to question your motives? Secondary reason? What if one of my handloads are fubar? Plus there are tons of excellent factory self-defense ammo choices out there.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
Two people have used various legal searches and the use of handloads has never, ever came up in a court proceding.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LoneWolf, I just did the search for you.
I searched for "hand load" and "handload" in any document which also contained the words "self-defense" or "self defense" in the "all cases" Westlaw database, which searches all reported, and many unreported, state and federal cases.
Here is the one and only case including these words, which obviously has nothing to do with the issue of using a hand load:
"For example, in Thomas, '[t]he jury could infer that defendant returned to his car to get the rifle and ammunition before committing the murders,” and because the rifle lacked a clip, “in order to fire a second shot [as occurred], one had to eject the expended case by opening the bolt and hand load a round into the chamber.'” People v. Hensley, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2958740 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2004).
Running a search for "reload" and "self-defense" yields 46 cases - all of which involve the person reloading their weapon, similar to the above cite, which resulted in charges.
NONE - ZERO - cases, either civil or criminal, in the Westlaw database for all state and federal jurisdictions report anything about the use of hand loads and self-defense.
The bigger factor was the person firing multiple rounds, and reloading.
Hope that helps.</div></div>
Two people have used various legal searches and the use of handloads has never, ever came up in a court proceding.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LoneWolf, I just did the search for you.
I searched for "hand load" and "handload" in any document which also contained the words "self-defense" or "self defense" in the "all cases" Westlaw database, which searches all reported, and many unreported, state and federal cases.
Here is the one and only case including these words, which obviously has nothing to do with the issue of using a hand load:
"For example, in Thomas, '[t]he jury could infer that defendant returned to his car to get the rifle and ammunition before committing the murders,” and because the rifle lacked a clip, “in order to fire a second shot [as occurred], one had to eject the expended case by opening the bolt and hand load a round into the chamber.'” People v. Hensley, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2958740 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2004).
Running a search for "reload" and "self-defense" yields 46 cases - all of which involve the person reloading their weapon, similar to the above cite, which resulted in charges.
NONE - ZERO - cases, either civil or criminal, in the Westlaw database for all state and federal jurisdictions report anything about the use of hand loads and self-defense.
The bigger factor was the person firing multiple rounds, and reloading.
Hope that helps.</div></div>
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeo556</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two people have used various legal searches and the use of handloads has never, ever came up in a court proceding.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LoneWolf, I just did the search for you.
I searched for "hand load" and "handload" in any document which also contained the words "self-defense" or "self defense" in the "all cases" Westlaw database, which searches all reported, and many unreported, state and federal cases.
Here is the one and only case including these words, which obviously has nothing to do with the issue of using a hand load:
"For example, in Thomas, '[t]he jury could infer that defendant returned to his car to get the rifle and ammunition before committing the murders,” and because the rifle lacked a clip, “in order to fire a second shot [as occurred], one had to eject the expended case by opening the bolt and hand load a round into the chamber.'” People v. Hensley, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2958740 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2004).
Running a search for "reload" and "self-defense" yields 46 cases - all of which involve the person reloading their weapon, similar to the above cite, which resulted in charges.
NONE - ZERO - cases, either civil or criminal, in the Westlaw database for all state and federal jurisdictions report anything about the use of hand loads and self-defense.
The bigger factor was the person firing multiple rounds, and reloading.
Hope that helps.</div></div> </div></div>
Well, Jeo, you go ahead and stick your toes in that piranha-infested water, and let us know how tingly it feels when they strike. Me, I'll let ammo manufacturers make mine, instead.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jeo556</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two people have used various legal searches and the use of handloads has never, ever came up in a court proceding.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> LoneWolf, I just did the search for you.
I searched for "hand load" and "handload" in any document which also contained the words "self-defense" or "self defense" in the "all cases" Westlaw database, which searches all reported, and many unreported, state and federal cases.
Here is the one and only case including these words, which obviously has nothing to do with the issue of using a hand load:
"For example, in Thomas, '[t]he jury could infer that defendant returned to his car to get the rifle and ammunition before committing the murders,” and because the rifle lacked a clip, “in order to fire a second shot [as occurred], one had to eject the expended case by opening the bolt and hand load a round into the chamber.'” People v. Hensley, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2958740 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2004).
Running a search for "reload" and "self-defense" yields 46 cases - all of which involve the person reloading their weapon, similar to the above cite, which resulted in charges.
NONE - ZERO - cases, either civil or criminal, in the Westlaw database for all state and federal jurisdictions report anything about the use of hand loads and self-defense.
The bigger factor was the person firing multiple rounds, and reloading.
Hope that helps.</div></div> </div></div>
Well, Jeo, you go ahead and stick your toes in that piranha-infested water, and let us know how tingly it feels when they strike. Me, I'll let ammo manufacturers make mine, instead.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've NEVER had a quality factory-made "dud". I HAVE had them in my reloads.</div></div>
Well my side kick has. A issued .308 win 168 FGMM, I was there when it happened. Luckily for everyone, it was only training. Even though he bolted immediately, backup heard the click an pressed his, an saved the drill from going bad.
Like many Hide threads, truth an BS abounds.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbo54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've NEVER had a quality factory-made "dud". I HAVE had them in my reloads.</div></div>
Well my side kick has. A issued .308 win 168 FGMM, I was there when it happened. Luckily for everyone, it was only training. Even though he bolted immediately, backup heard the click an pressed his, an saved the drill from going bad.
Like many Hide threads, truth an BS abounds.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
reasons for using reloads:
if you reload and have duds, you will have practiced clearing functions more, if you use newloads then you may have never practiced them.
if you shoot a lot of reloads, ie. shoot in competition, you know how your load reacts, ie, how long it takes for a split, or side hammer, and have probably shot a lot of car doors and windows and know what to expect.
if you shoot newloads- its unlikely you will have shot enough of them to have the same level of experience.
when asked by any one what kind of loads you use, "Oh some old target loads"
if you shoot reloads the chances are better that you will know how to, and practice double tapping.
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot.
LE and military have different needs -will do what they do, and civilians should not use this as a model.
after a couple of 100k reloads in 45 acp, use cast 200 gr, FP, same one as cowboy action shooters,
now if I could get someone to donate a couple of 100k newloads.
reasons for using reloads:
if you reload and have duds, you will have practiced clearing functions more, if you use newloads then you may have never practiced them.
if you shoot a lot of reloads, ie. shoot in competition, you know how your load reacts, ie, how long it takes for a split, or side hammer, and have probably shot a lot of car doors and windows and know what to expect.
if you shoot newloads- its unlikely you will have shot enough of them to have the same level of experience.
when asked by any one what kind of loads you use, "Oh some old target loads"
if you shoot reloads the chances are better that you will know how to, and practice double tapping.
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot.
LE and military have different needs -will do what they do, and civilians should not use this as a model.
after a couple of 100k reloads in 45 acp, use cast 200 gr, FP, same one as cowboy action shooters,
now if I could get someone to donate a couple of 100k newloads.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reasons for using reloads:
if you reload and have duds, you will have practiced clearing functions more, if you use newloads then you may have never practiced them.
if you shoot a lot of reloads, ie. shoot in competition, you know how your load reacts, ie, how long it takes for a split, or side hammer, and have probably shot a lot of car doors and windows and know what to expect.
if you shoot newloads- its unlikely you will have shot enough of them to have the same level of experience.
when asked by any one what kind of loads you use, "Oh some old target loads"
if you shoot reloads the chances are better that you will know how to, and practice double tapping.
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot.
LE and military have different needs -will do what they do, and civilians should not use this as a model.
after a couple of 100k reloads in 45 acp, use cast 200 gr, FP, same one as cowboy action shooters,
now if I could get someone to donate a couple of 100k newloads.
</div></div>+1
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reasons for using reloads:
if you reload and have duds, you will have practiced clearing functions more, if you use newloads then you may have never practiced them.
if you shoot a lot of reloads, ie. shoot in competition, you know how your load reacts, ie, how long it takes for a split, or side hammer, and have probably shot a lot of car doors and windows and know what to expect.
if you shoot newloads- its unlikely you will have shot enough of them to have the same level of experience.
when asked by any one what kind of loads you use, "Oh some old target loads"
if you shoot reloads the chances are better that you will know how to, and practice double tapping.
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot.
LE and military have different needs -will do what they do, and civilians should not use this as a model.
after a couple of 100k reloads in 45 acp, use cast 200 gr, FP, same one as cowboy action shooters,
now if I could get someone to donate a couple of 100k newloads.
</div></div>+1
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reasons for using reloads:
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot. </div></div>
If this is the case in your self defense scenario, you are going to have more pressing issues than whether or not you were using handloads.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reasons for using reloads:
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot. </div></div>
If this is the case in your self defense scenario, you are going to have more pressing issues than whether or not you were using handloads.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wfjames22</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reasons for using reloads:
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot. </div></div>
If this is the case in your self defense scenario, you are going to have more pressing issues than whether or not you were using handloads. </div></div>
Agreed, if I have to drawl and shoot, I'm not going to bitch later if I put 3 rounds in a 2 inch group at 7 yards. I'm going to be happy to be alive because I practiced regularly for a situation I hoped would never happen.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wfjames22</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reasons for using reloads:
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot. </div></div>
If this is the case in your self defense scenario, you are going to have more pressing issues than whether or not you were using handloads. </div></div>
Agreed, if I have to drawl and shoot, I'm not going to bitch later if I put 3 rounds in a 2 inch group at 7 yards. I'm going to be happy to be alive because I practiced regularly for a situation I hoped would never happen.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
What I meant was that if you are in a "self defense" situation and you made a 25yd headshot on your "assailant" you are going to have much larger issues to worry about than what kind of ammo you used. Its going to be harder to prove that you were in imminent fear of your life from an attacker that was 75 feet (25yds) away.
What I meant was that if you are in a "self defense" situation and you made a 25yd headshot on your "assailant" you are going to have much larger issues to worry about than what kind of ammo you used. Its going to be harder to prove that you were in imminent fear of your life from an attacker that was 75 feet (25yds) away.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
Wow. I am withdrawing from this discussion. How much testosterone is in here?
I originally thought there was something to be said here. But am now realizing there is a bunch of shit. He this and She that.
I really feel that carrying factory ammo is a better defense in the court room than reloads. I have no story of this and that. I have no definite answer on what YOU should carry. I will carry factory.
I will leave you with what I think of 2 different points of view.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhnmdahl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Short story is, nobody's ever been able to give a real example or cite a case where anyone cared whether someone was shooting factory ammunition or handloads with regard to some sort of enhanced liability for shooting with a stout load. It's likely to be among the least of your, or opposing counsel's, concern.</div></div>
Likely? Didn't you say, "nobody's ever been able to give a real example or cite a case where anyone cared whether someone was shooting factory ammunition or handloads with regard to some sort of enhanced liability for shooting with a stout load." So again how do you know what is likely?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If Sally Soccer Mom was standing there she would probably assume he was a nut who was planning a school or workplace shooting because no one NEEDS that many guns or that much ammunition.
Sally Soccer Mom is more likely to be sitting on your Jury than I am. She is the one that will try to convince the rest of the Jurors that it's their civic duty to protect the children from crazies like you. </div></div>
There you go. Better safe than sorry!
Wow. I am withdrawing from this discussion. How much testosterone is in here?
I originally thought there was something to be said here. But am now realizing there is a bunch of shit. He this and She that.
I really feel that carrying factory ammo is a better defense in the court room than reloads. I have no story of this and that. I have no definite answer on what YOU should carry. I will carry factory.
I will leave you with what I think of 2 different points of view.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhnmdahl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Short story is, nobody's ever been able to give a real example or cite a case where anyone cared whether someone was shooting factory ammunition or handloads with regard to some sort of enhanced liability for shooting with a stout load. It's likely to be among the least of your, or opposing counsel's, concern.</div></div>
Likely? Didn't you say, "nobody's ever been able to give a real example or cite a case where anyone cared whether someone was shooting factory ammunition or handloads with regard to some sort of enhanced liability for shooting with a stout load." So again how do you know what is likely?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If Sally Soccer Mom was standing there she would probably assume he was a nut who was planning a school or workplace shooting because no one NEEDS that many guns or that much ammunition.
Sally Soccer Mom is more likely to be sitting on your Jury than I am. She is the one that will try to convince the rest of the Jurors that it's their civic duty to protect the children from crazies like you. </div></div>
There you go. Better safe than sorry!
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wfjames22</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I meant was that if you are in a "self defense" situation and you made a 25yd headshot on your "assailant" you are going to have much larger issues to worry about than what kind of ammo you used. Its going to be hard to prove that you were in imminent fear of your life from an attacker that was 75 feet (25yds) away. </div></div>
estrogen dominance aside- there can be several scenarios for the precision shot.
other shooter could have a rifle
other shooter could have a hostage
other shooter has already shot someone-shown intent
are several
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wfjames22</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I meant was that if you are in a "self defense" situation and you made a 25yd headshot on your "assailant" you are going to have much larger issues to worry about than what kind of ammo you used. Its going to be hard to prove that you were in imminent fear of your life from an attacker that was 75 feet (25yds) away. </div></div>
estrogen dominance aside- there can be several scenarios for the precision shot.
other shooter could have a rifle
other shooter could have a hostage
other shooter has already shot someone-shown intent
are several
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
If you sucessfully practice shooting hostage targets at 25 yards, what would that do to your confidence if someone is holding your young daughter down the hall at 21 feet????
This is my "dry fire" target for my 642 pocket revolver. I have one posted on the door of my granddaughters bedroom and one in the shop. And I practice shooting the targets.
http://photos.imageevent.com/kraigwy/pentest/100%20Yard%20Hostage%20Target_1_.pdf
If you want to add stress, superimpose a picture of your daughter or granddaughter over the "good guy" part of the target.
If you sucessfully practice shooting hostage targets at 25 yards, what would that do to your confidence if someone is holding your young daughter down the hall at 21 feet????
This is my "dry fire" target for my 642 pocket revolver. I have one posted on the door of my granddaughters bedroom and one in the shop. And I practice shooting the targets.
http://photos.imageevent.com/kraigwy/pentest/100%20Yard%20Hostage%20Target_1_.pdf
If you want to add stress, superimpose a picture of your daughter or granddaughter over the "good guy" part of the target.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
FWIW
Local CCD class I took from a former state trooper advised use of most common self-defense rounds with US-made components (he mentioned CorBon and Federal Personal Defense) because if there was any chance of a request for a forensic profile of the round involved, then reloads or ammo with foreign components could add months to a case, compared to ammo for which a forensic profile existed or could be developed easily. His question was, "Who wants a case hanging over their head for several extra months?"
Would be curious if any forensics people could confirm this?
FWIW
Local CCD class I took from a former state trooper advised use of most common self-defense rounds with US-made components (he mentioned CorBon and Federal Personal Defense) because if there was any chance of a request for a forensic profile of the round involved, then reloads or ammo with foreign components could add months to a case, compared to ammo for which a forensic profile existed or could be developed easily. His question was, "Who wants a case hanging over their head for several extra months?"
Would be curious if any forensics people could confirm this?
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SIG700</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wfjames22</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reasons for using reloads:
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot. </div></div>
If this is the case in your self defense scenario, you are going to have more pressing issues than whether or not you were using handloads. </div></div>
Agreed, if I have to drawl and shoot, I'm not going to bitch later if I put 3 rounds in a 2 inch group at 7 yards. I'm going to be happy to be alive because I practiced regularly for a situation I hoped would never happen. </div></div>
not talking about groups, accurate is being able to control the shots dependant on the power level, distance and type of firearm. a 1911 shooting major loads is more accurate than a 642 at the asame distance in that it will take less time with the 1911. thats why there used by the gamers. Kraigwy knows that his "internal clock" has changed when he went, (practices) with 742.
if you can put the 3 rounds in the size your talking about above -- your probably going to slow.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SIG700</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wfjames22</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shooter2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reasons for using reloads:
if you shoot reloads, the load has been tailored for gun for reliability and accuracy, for that once in a life time 25 yd head shot. </div></div>
If this is the case in your self defense scenario, you are going to have more pressing issues than whether or not you were using handloads. </div></div>
Agreed, if I have to drawl and shoot, I'm not going to bitch later if I put 3 rounds in a 2 inch group at 7 yards. I'm going to be happy to be alive because I practiced regularly for a situation I hoped would never happen. </div></div>
not talking about groups, accurate is being able to control the shots dependant on the power level, distance and type of firearm. a 1911 shooting major loads is more accurate than a 642 at the asame distance in that it will take less time with the 1911. thats why there used by the gamers. Kraigwy knows that his "internal clock" has changed when he went, (practices) with 742.
if you can put the 3 rounds in the size your talking about above -- your probably going to slow.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinTM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW
Local CCD class I took from a former state trooper advised use of most common self-defense rounds with US-made components (he mentioned CorBon and Federal Personal Defense) because if there was any chance of a request for a forensic profile of the round involved, then reloads or ammo with foreign components could add months to a case, compared to ammo for which a forensic profile existed or could be developed easily. His question was, "Who wants a case hanging over their head for several extra months?"
Would be curious if any forensics people could confirm this? </div></div>
can understand from knowledge to know point of view, but again this is an example of copthink. (a point of view that does not optimize your survivial in a gun fight) all things being equal your chances are onlly 33% of winning. (only 3 outcomes win,draw,lose)
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinTM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW
Local CCD class I took from a former state trooper advised use of most common self-defense rounds with US-made components (he mentioned CorBon and Federal Personal Defense) because if there was any chance of a request for a forensic profile of the round involved, then reloads or ammo with foreign components could add months to a case, compared to ammo for which a forensic profile existed or could be developed easily. His question was, "Who wants a case hanging over their head for several extra months?"
Would be curious if any forensics people could confirm this? </div></div>
can understand from knowledge to know point of view, but again this is an example of copthink. (a point of view that does not optimize your survivial in a gun fight) all things being equal your chances are onlly 33% of winning. (only 3 outcomes win,draw,lose)
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oldirtdog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Legal ramifications if you actually have to shoot someone... </div></div>What does the type ammunition have to do with whether or not deadly force was appropriate under the circumstances? </div></div>Anyone...... anyone?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: oldirtdog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Legal ramifications if you actually have to shoot someone... </div></div>What does the type ammunition have to do with whether or not deadly force was appropriate under the circumstances? </div></div>Anyone...... anyone?
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Utah Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhnmdahl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Short story is, nobody's ever been able to give a real example or cite a case where anyone cared whether someone was shooting factory ammunition or handloads with regard to some sort of enhanced liability for shooting with a stout load. It's likely to be among the least of your, or opposing counsel's, concern.</div></div>
Likely? Didn't you say, "nobody's ever been able to give a real example or cite a case where anyone cared whether someone was shooting factory ammunition or handloads with regard to some sort of enhanced liability for shooting with a stout load." So again how do you know what is likely?
</div></div>
If nobody's ever even brought it up, in any case, anywhere at any time, I think that strongly suggests it's unlikely to be an issue. Sort of proves my point...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Utah Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhnmdahl</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Short story is, nobody's ever been able to give a real example or cite a case where anyone cared whether someone was shooting factory ammunition or handloads with regard to some sort of enhanced liability for shooting with a stout load. It's likely to be among the least of your, or opposing counsel's, concern.</div></div>
Likely? Didn't you say, "nobody's ever been able to give a real example or cite a case where anyone cared whether someone was shooting factory ammunition or handloads with regard to some sort of enhanced liability for shooting with a stout load." So again how do you know what is likely?
</div></div>
If nobody's ever even brought it up, in any case, anywhere at any time, I think that strongly suggests it's unlikely to be an issue. Sort of proves my point...
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If nobody's ever even brought it up, in any case, anywhere at any time, I think that strongly suggests it's unlikely to be an issue. Sort of proves my point... </div></div>
That is NOT what we've said. Judges issue opinions in cases, which include a short statement of the facts and their reasoning/the precedent for deciding the case. Reported opinions are not transcripts of every argument made by counsel--in fact, they are far from it. So no, it doesn't prove your point at all other than to say that if it's been brought up, it wasn't important enough to make it into a published/databased opinion.
And that also assumes that the searches the two of us have done were comprehensive enough to actually capture it, and that there's been no such cases since we ran the search. In reality, those searches cost a killing and there could be a whole bunch of reasons why something like this issue might never make it into something.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What does the type ammunition have to do with whether or not deadly force was appropriate under the circumstances? </div></div>Anyone...... anyone? </div></div>
What you're really saying is that evidence about the type of ammunition is probably <span style="font-style: italic">irrelevant</span>. Rule 401 is the rule of evidence governing relevance (Federal Rules), and all states have a rule very similar or identical to Rule 401.
The rule states:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.</div></div>
One could make an argument that the type of ammunition chosen could affect one or more of the elements of a homicide, including, but not limited to, the intent of the person using force. One could also take the position that if justified in using force, that the type of ammunition used had no bearing on whether the use of force was reasonable, given all the facts and circumstances, thus could not influence the probability at all, and was thus irrelevant.
I think judges could go both ways on this. In fact, most evidentiary questions could go either way and the rules are very judge-empowering.
So if the best argument one had was that the choice of ammunition was irrelevant, I'm not sure that'd work, but it might--and I think that it should, but what I think isn't worth much.
Then again, this thread wouldn't exist at all if people recognized that the possibility of being charged in a legitimate self defense case has to be extremely rare.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If nobody's ever even brought it up, in any case, anywhere at any time, I think that strongly suggests it's unlikely to be an issue. Sort of proves my point... </div></div>
That is NOT what we've said. Judges issue opinions in cases, which include a short statement of the facts and their reasoning/the precedent for deciding the case. Reported opinions are not transcripts of every argument made by counsel--in fact, they are far from it. So no, it doesn't prove your point at all other than to say that if it's been brought up, it wasn't important enough to make it into a published/databased opinion.
And that also assumes that the searches the two of us have done were comprehensive enough to actually capture it, and that there's been no such cases since we ran the search. In reality, those searches cost a killing and there could be a whole bunch of reasons why something like this issue might never make it into something.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What does the type ammunition have to do with whether or not deadly force was appropriate under the circumstances? </div></div>Anyone...... anyone? </div></div>
What you're really saying is that evidence about the type of ammunition is probably <span style="font-style: italic">irrelevant</span>. Rule 401 is the rule of evidence governing relevance (Federal Rules), and all states have a rule very similar or identical to Rule 401.
The rule states:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.</div></div>
One could make an argument that the type of ammunition chosen could affect one or more of the elements of a homicide, including, but not limited to, the intent of the person using force. One could also take the position that if justified in using force, that the type of ammunition used had no bearing on whether the use of force was reasonable, given all the facts and circumstances, thus could not influence the probability at all, and was thus irrelevant.
I think judges could go both ways on this. In fact, most evidentiary questions could go either way and the rules are very judge-empowering.
So if the best argument one had was that the choice of ammunition was irrelevant, I'm not sure that'd work, but it might--and I think that it should, but what I think isn't worth much.
Then again, this thread wouldn't exist at all if people recognized that the possibility of being charged in a legitimate self defense case has to be extremely rare.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And this is how they all go. 'My buddy knows the case.' Never first hand.</div></div>
I was 5 when it happened. Sorry for not remembering "first hand." If you'd like his phone number, send me a PM.
He has an engineering background, owns a gun shop, and thinks very highly of himself. You two would be on the phone for hours.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And this is how they all go. 'My buddy knows the case.' Never first hand.</div></div>
I was 5 when it happened. Sorry for not remembering "first hand." If you'd like his phone number, send me a PM.
He has an engineering background, owns a gun shop, and thinks very highly of himself. You two would be on the phone for hours.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If nobody's ever even brought it up, in any case, anywhere at any time, I think that strongly suggests it's unlikely to be an issue. Sort of proves my point... </div></div>
That is NOT what we've said. Judges issue opinions in cases, which include a short statement of the facts and their reasoning/the precedent for deciding the case. Reported opinions are not transcripts of every argument made by counsel--in fact, they are far from it. So no, it doesn't prove your point at all other than to say that if it's been brought up, it wasn't important enough to make it into a published/databased opinion.
And that also assumes that the searches the two of us have done were comprehensive enough to actually capture it, and that there's been no such cases since we ran the search. In reality, those searches cost a killing and there could be a whole bunch of reasons why something like this issue might never make it into something.
</div></div>
Good points - I've searched on Westlaw as well, and have also found nothing. I'm probably not as sharp at such things as I was in law school 15 years ago, but if it wasn't important enough to be addressed in a published decision that says something as well...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If nobody's ever even brought it up, in any case, anywhere at any time, I think that strongly suggests it's unlikely to be an issue. Sort of proves my point... </div></div>
That is NOT what we've said. Judges issue opinions in cases, which include a short statement of the facts and their reasoning/the precedent for deciding the case. Reported opinions are not transcripts of every argument made by counsel--in fact, they are far from it. So no, it doesn't prove your point at all other than to say that if it's been brought up, it wasn't important enough to make it into a published/databased opinion.
And that also assumes that the searches the two of us have done were comprehensive enough to actually capture it, and that there's been no such cases since we ran the search. In reality, those searches cost a killing and there could be a whole bunch of reasons why something like this issue might never make it into something.
</div></div>
Good points - I've searched on Westlaw as well, and have also found nothing. I'm probably not as sharp at such things as I was in law school 15 years ago, but if it wasn't important enough to be addressed in a published decision that says something as well...
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhnmdahl</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If nobody's ever even brought it up, in any case, anywhere at any time, I think that strongly suggests it's unlikely to be an issue. Sort of proves my point... </div></div>
That is NOT what we've said. Judges issue opinions in cases, which include a short statement of the facts and their reasoning/the precedent for deciding the case. Reported opinions are not transcripts of every argument made by counsel--in fact, they are far from it. So no, it doesn't prove your point at all other than to say that if it's been brought up, it wasn't important enough to make it into a published/databased opinion.
And that also assumes that the searches the two of us have done were comprehensive enough to actually capture it, and that there's been no such cases since we ran the search. In reality, those searches cost a killing and there could be a whole bunch of reasons why something like this issue might never make it into something.
</div></div>
Good points - I've searched on Westlaw as well, and have also found nothing. I'm probably not as sharp at such things as I was in law school 15 years ago, but if it wasn't important enough to be addressed in a published decision that says something as well... </div></div>
Somehow, I suspect that Ayoob would have cited the case a long time ago if it existed. I'm sure you agree.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jhnmdahl</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If nobody's ever even brought it up, in any case, anywhere at any time, I think that strongly suggests it's unlikely to be an issue. Sort of proves my point... </div></div>
That is NOT what we've said. Judges issue opinions in cases, which include a short statement of the facts and their reasoning/the precedent for deciding the case. Reported opinions are not transcripts of every argument made by counsel--in fact, they are far from it. So no, it doesn't prove your point at all other than to say that if it's been brought up, it wasn't important enough to make it into a published/databased opinion.
And that also assumes that the searches the two of us have done were comprehensive enough to actually capture it, and that there's been no such cases since we ran the search. In reality, those searches cost a killing and there could be a whole bunch of reasons why something like this issue might never make it into something.
</div></div>
Good points - I've searched on Westlaw as well, and have also found nothing. I'm probably not as sharp at such things as I was in law school 15 years ago, but if it wasn't important enough to be addressed in a published decision that says something as well... </div></div>
Somehow, I suspect that Ayoob would have cited the case a long time ago if it existed. I'm sure you agree.
Re: Why not ccw with hand loads
The only cases any one has been able to reference regarding handloads for defense delt with distance the supposed self defense shooting occured.
The cases involved the presense of GSR. To say "my light reloads didn't leave GSR because they were supper light target loads" is total bunk.
Reloads, light or standard, Factory, light or standard, would leave GSR at the distance in question.
In choosing any SD load, I base mine on comfort, or how I feel about them "realibality" wise, and my confidence in my shooting that load. I don't wont to worry about my ammo.
Example: I bought some Remington 158 Gr SWCs for my 642. Over half took two or more hammer hits to go off.
I bought some Winchester 158 Gr SWCs, out of two boxes every one went off.
I reload 150 gr LSWCs on a Dillon 1000 RL (forrunner of the 1050). I shoot them in practice and competition. I've shot thousands of rounds without a FTF.
Guess which one I feel comfortable carrying?
Along the same grounds, If you carry reloads for SD, and have the fear of some jury hammering you for using reloads setting in the back of your mind? Are you worried about the jury nailing you because you used some super duty factory magnum hollow points??
In choosing SD ammo, I believe you should carry the ammo that causes you to worry the least, the ammo you shoot the most and have the most confidence in.
If it's a ligit shooting, its a ligit shooting regardless of what ammo you have. What you don't want is "dead" because you hesitated worrying about what the jury may think of your ammo.
If you're worried about the court cost, then get insurance that covers you in case you're involved in a SD shooting. That also will help to keep you mind clear so you can concentrate on the one thing thatreally matters, Protecting your self and loved ones.
The only cases any one has been able to reference regarding handloads for defense delt with distance the supposed self defense shooting occured.
The cases involved the presense of GSR. To say "my light reloads didn't leave GSR because they were supper light target loads" is total bunk.
Reloads, light or standard, Factory, light or standard, would leave GSR at the distance in question.
In choosing any SD load, I base mine on comfort, or how I feel about them "realibality" wise, and my confidence in my shooting that load. I don't wont to worry about my ammo.
Example: I bought some Remington 158 Gr SWCs for my 642. Over half took two or more hammer hits to go off.
I bought some Winchester 158 Gr SWCs, out of two boxes every one went off.
I reload 150 gr LSWCs on a Dillon 1000 RL (forrunner of the 1050). I shoot them in practice and competition. I've shot thousands of rounds without a FTF.
Guess which one I feel comfortable carrying?
Along the same grounds, If you carry reloads for SD, and have the fear of some jury hammering you for using reloads setting in the back of your mind? Are you worried about the jury nailing you because you used some super duty factory magnum hollow points??
In choosing SD ammo, I believe you should carry the ammo that causes you to worry the least, the ammo you shoot the most and have the most confidence in.
If it's a ligit shooting, its a ligit shooting regardless of what ammo you have. What you don't want is "dead" because you hesitated worrying about what the jury may think of your ammo.
If you're worried about the court cost, then get insurance that covers you in case you're involved in a SD shooting. That also will help to keep you mind clear so you can concentrate on the one thing thatreally matters, Protecting your self and loved ones.
