Skip to comments.California Dem moves to outlaw some civilian body armor
Posted on 08/30/2014 2:39:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Bob Owens at Bearing Arms talks about a new piece of Democrat legislation which, rather than trying to ban various types of weapons, seeks to restrict civilians from using certain classes of body armor.
These anti-gun Democrats keep failing to stop us from having guns and so they seem intent on making sure that we cannot defend ourselves against theirs.
HR 5344, the laughably titled Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, is nothing more or less than attempt ban Level III and higher body armor that can defeat most common rifle ammunition, such as the steel plate armor sold by AR500 Armor* and other vendors
This is nothing more or less than an attempt by another petty tyrant (Rep. Mike Honda, of California) to strip rights away from the citizenry in order to give the government more power and control.
Honda is Californias congressman from the 7th District, and his new legislation is Voxsplained in a rather curious fashion. He probably doesnt want the police to be very militarized either, but he darned sure doesnt want you to be.
Honda, speaking at a news conference in San Jose Wednesday morning with police chiefs and the district attorneys and sheriffs from Santa Clara and Alameda counties, said his proposal would discourage criminals from wearing enhanced body armor to commit mass shootings.
This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands, Honda said. It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be able to access enhanced body armor.
Were not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest, he said. Were talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.
Just to clarify, the legislation would not prohibit the more common, flexible body armor you see most often, but rather level III and above. Theres a pretty good breakdown of the various classes of body armor here. Level II armor is the normal standard which protects against rounds from handguns up to the .357 magnum. Level IIIa soft body armor is the same, but will also purportedly stop a .44 magnum or an Uzi. Level III which this legislation would cover is hard armor, designed to stop standard rifle rounds. (Level IV is supposed to protect against armor piercing rounds.)
This entire argument is pretty much the opposite of the usual Second Amendment fight. Rather than the right to keep and bear arms, its involves your ability to protect yourself against an armed enemy. Hondas legislation leads to two rather obvious questions.
First, the only case in which one could argue that society benefits from this sort of restriction is when the body armor is being employed by a heavily armed criminal who is determined to fight the authorities. Fair enough. But this leaves open the same argument which comes up so often over gun control legislation: the people it seeks to target are precisely the sorts who dont give a lot of thought to breaking lesser laws while cooking up their plans for breaking much more severe ones such as murder or robbery. In the end, the only people you wind up restricting are the ones who tend to obey laws and arent likely to be out there shooting up some cops patrol car.
The second, broader question has to do with whether or not the government can ban defensive as opposed to offensive equipment in the first place. Even if you happen to support gun rights restrictions, the vast majority of your argument is surely based on the concept that guns are dangerous to others. Youd be hard pressed to injure anyone else with a protective vest unless they were willing to stand still while you beat them over the head with it. Armor which keeps you safe from projectile weapons seems like it should be a no-brainer in terms of reasonable expectations among civilians. It would be interesting to see this one challenged in the courts, assuming Honda can even get it to a vote.
Last conservative out, please turn off the lights.
Look. It’s time. Mexico wants California. Let them have it.
Don’t they already have it?
I can not think of any reason why law enforcement should be allowed to have any equipment that is forbidden to a regular citizen.
When a Government becomes concerned that its civilians are becoming too hard to kill, the people should take acute notice...
Unless I'm confused, Uzis use (most of them) rather anemic cartridges. Certainly a LOT less powerful than a .44.
Don’t they usually use 9mm Luger like a pistol?
This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands, Honda said. It would ensure that only select officially sanctioned and politically vetted law enforcement praetorian guard, and criminals survive to prey on the helpless population in a faceoff!”
We’ve had a couple of bank robberies where the perps are wearing heavy body armor and have much higher fire power in their gns.
A local gn store just handed guns over the counter to help the police. The police should be able to protect themselves from criminals.
“...assuming Honda can even get it to a vote.”
In Bizarro World every absurd concept comes to the floor for a vote. Eventually it passes and is signed into law by the Governor. You can’t fix stupid.
I think so, though they’re chambered for several other rounds like .45 ACP.
You are absolutely correct. But to the douche bags sucking the junk of gun control an UZI is tantamount to using a Nuke.
9mm Parabellum, yes. The Uzi is also available in .45 ACP. The .44 magnum revolver cartridge is considerably more powerful than either.
My question to the the sponsor of this is, is there a problem needing legislation? When was the last time this sort of body armor was used in a crime? The North Hollywood shootout was more than 15 years ago.
Of course the 9mm Uzi has nowhere near the penetration of a .44 magnum or similar round. You know it, I know it, but idiots like "Jazz" don't even know which direction to load a round into a magazine.
These guys are IDIOTS, and INSANE, and TYRANOUS CONTROL FREAKS!!
Jazz has been a writer there for some time.
We must ban assault body-armor NOW!
And when the SHTF that's probably who we'll need to protect ourselves from.
To many gung-ho punks in uniforms as it is. Give them stress and they'll be
committing mass murder and getting away with it by just saying "I felt threatened".
No problem, the 500 armor is good and it's affordable. Israel sells great armor also
that can be installed in vehicles.
but idiots like “Jazz” don’t even know which direction to load a round into a magazine. ==
For Jazz, that would be a clip.
It's like Mason said to Dixon, "You gotta' draw the line somewhere".
“Look. Its time. Mexico wants California. Let them have it.”
Why? Look at our history. We can dust off the 1867 Reconstruction Act. Reconstruction allows us to send in a military governor to take over California. The military governor has the congressional power to fire the governor, the California state legislature and ban the California congressional delegation from taking their seats in Congress.
We gotta think outa the box and use legal tools that have proven effective in the past.
***Were talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions. ***
Time to dig up my stash of black tipped ammo.
YOU CAN HAVE MY ARMOUR WHEN YOU STRIP IT FROM MY COLD DEAD BODY!!!
Maybe we can get some of this!
Ned Kelly’s armor
That was 30 years ago or so. LAPD has been “up gunned” since that mess.
After Newtown, the ahole sheriff of poverty-stricken Washington County, Maine, equated the citizen ownership of semi-automatic rifles to citizens owning nukes.
I would like a law that prohibited politicians from having locks on their doors.
It wasn’t thirty years ago.
First, it was February 1997, 17 years ago ... not close to 30.
And we just recently had another incident.
I won't argue that point.
But the topic is whether law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves.
Do you have a problem with that? Do you want to take body armor away? I mean, if protection is such an important concept ...
If body armor are outlawed, only outlaws will have body armor.
No, I do not want to take body armor away.
Why do politicians have doors to begin with? What are they hiding? Besides, cops can always be called if someone walks through the archway.
California allows AUTOMOBILES to vote? :-)
Time goes by too fast! (I watched it on TV!)
I don’t have a problem with the police protecting them selves from the bad guys, but don’t I have the same right to protect myself?
Oh; just to remind you of the facts, California has had only one incident of this type of fire fight in it’s history, the Hollywood shoot out.
So they don't have any trouble murdering you when they want to?
Yeah, that was my first reaction as well. Sub-guns aren’t known for firing really hot rounds. Who could control the thing?
only govt thugs can have body armor.
not you lowly targe- i mean unprivileged citizens.
They are banning body armor for the wrong people. If the police had to walk around without armor and had to same weapon restrictions as the average law-abiding citizen, they might act with a little more respect for people’s rights and they might be more supportive law-abiding people carrying firearms outside the home.
Wake up Laz, Honda is a Congressman!
Yes, you have a problem with that?
We just recently had another.
I don’t think you know LA at all. It was in the Valley, not Hollywood.
Doing so for ordinary citizens threatened by a rampaging mob is a felony. I'd have made them wait 7 days.
The police should be able to protect themselves from criminals.
We should be able to protect ourselves from criminals and police.
As another poster upthread mentioned, we should be able to get anything the police can.
And we just recently had another incident.
Wow. Two whole incidents in 17 years. Sounds like a crisis of epic proportions.
Sorry, but I never heard of the guy before. Since he was writing about guns, and apparently as some sort of 2A defender, I not unreasonably assumed he was some sort of an expert, and the notion that Uzis fire some kind of particularly high-powered round like .44 Magnum struck me as odd.
I am not even close to being an expert on firearms, and don’t make any claim to be. Certainly not like many on FR. But some things jump out at me.
There is clearly no end of weenies in the US.