Gadsden1775
New member
I've been reading for a while now, but this is my first post. It's probably been talked about before, so forgive me if this has been rehashed.
As you all know, plenty of manufacturers market certain ammunition as tactical or for police and military. I've read endless forum threads on different varieties of these offerings, about people's preference and why the choose what they choose, etc. They are obviously very popular. I have Hornady TAP CQ in my carry handgun. Has anyone ever heard of someone using a "LE-style" round in a defensive situation only to have that be a legal liability in an ensuing legal process, either criminal or civil lawsuit? What I'm imagining is an over-zealous prosecutor saying something like, "why was this civilian using ammunition intended for law enforcement, he is a civilian!" Or insinuating that there is something inherently "aggressive" in choosing defensive ammunition with the best terminal ballistics.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
As you all know, plenty of manufacturers market certain ammunition as tactical or for police and military. I've read endless forum threads on different varieties of these offerings, about people's preference and why the choose what they choose, etc. They are obviously very popular. I have Hornady TAP CQ in my carry handgun. Has anyone ever heard of someone using a "LE-style" round in a defensive situation only to have that be a legal liability in an ensuing legal process, either criminal or civil lawsuit? What I'm imagining is an over-zealous prosecutor saying something like, "why was this civilian using ammunition intended for law enforcement, he is a civilian!" Or insinuating that there is something inherently "aggressive" in choosing defensive ammunition with the best terminal ballistics.
Thanks in advance for your responses.