Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Powered by air
Joined
·
926 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've read far too many posts of people concerned about the legal ramifications of reloading their own HD/SD rounds. Can someone explain to me the justification for this. Also, please clarify if these issues affect criminal prosecution rather than civil tort. If anything, the fact this is even an issue seems to validate the US legal system is broken.

Can anyone provide a reference which sets legal precedence that custom loads or handguns with calibres larger than what the local police use exposed one to additional liability. And if this exposes one to additional liability then why doesn't high capacity clips also expose one to equal, if not more liability given that frequently, clips are emptied in these high stress situations - including law enforcement. Wouldn't that also create an environment of excessive force?

For example, let's say I reload 9mm. Now, let us say I created a really hot 9mm HP and I wind up defending my self, and now I'm being sued. Even a really hot 9mm HP is mathematically inferior to a quality .40S&W HD/SD HP round. Doesn't that mean everyone that uses a .40S&W HD/SW HP round is now in financial jeopardy should they need to defend themselves?

Okay, let's say the .40S&W is considered to be legally acceptable line then why would a reloaded 9mm ever be an issue. What about those that carry .45s? What about that that use a shot gun? Somehow in the back of my head I imagine statements in a court room sounding something like this.

Lawyer to gunshot scumbag survivor: When you broke into the defendant's house, did you think you would get shot?

scumbag: Sure. I thought it was a possibility but unlikely.

Lawyer: So you thought you could be killed?

scumbag: Sure. Breaking in a house is dangerous.

Laywer: So you thought you might get killed but you didn't expect you would be extra killed?

scumbag: Of course not. I expected only to be killed once. Not twice! That's inhuman!

Lawyer: There you have it ladies and gentlemen of the jury. He only expected to be killed once, not twice! Despite the fact he wasn't killed, only paralyzed, surely you can understand the premeditated measures the defendant went through to ensure this out come. Had he only used a larger caliber weapon or a more lethal factory SD/HD round, my client would be dead today rather than suffering every day, paralyzed.

Laywer: And so, because my client broken into the defendant's house, attacked the defendant, whereby he defended himself and did not kill my client, my client deserves significant damages. Had he only used a larger calibre, we would not be here today.

Ya, pretty silly stuff. Seems to be, it boils down to either having a really bad lawyer or anti-gun judge. Perhaps I'm out of context? Perhaps the issue at hand is innocent bystanders being hit? Then how does that differ from the use of proven people killers like HSTs? I just don't get it. Where does one draw the line?
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top