PDA

View Full Version : Access to Body Armor


swsurgeon
May 12, 2009, 07:56 PM
Many jurisdictions restrict former felons from buying or possessing body armor. However, there seems to be more lobbying to restrict people with clean records for acquiring body armor. Living in a part of Calif. where it is nearly impossible to get a CCW, even though the law provides for them, I am concerned that "regulation" of body armor would actually come to be just a "ban". One of the weekly news mags is running a poll on the subject: www.parade.com/bodyarmor. If you have an opinion on the subject, it might be worth expressing it.

Thanks for your consideration of this issue.

diablo508
May 12, 2009, 08:03 PM
just glad I have full access and a few sets of whatever I need!

swsurgeon
May 13, 2009, 11:58 AM
I'm considering buying some while it is still "unregulated". The reason I've held off is because I had hoped to lose some weight and get a fitted vest for a somewhat thinner torso.:D Unfortunately, the weight gods have not cooperated....:(

Housezealot
May 13, 2009, 01:21 PM
I think it is ridiculous that there is any restrictions on an Item that is strictly defensive, mabey it's not neccasary for most people but what the heck, Purell isn't banned. I have heard people sight reasons about the intention of some one possesing body armor and its all crap.
I do not belive in or support firearm bans but at least that makes some sense as the can be used offensivley
sorry about the rant

Wildalaska
May 13, 2009, 01:40 PM
my right eyebrow raises over the thought of an ordinary Joe buying body armour (excluding folks with a need)

WildhmmmmAlaska ™

JuanCarlos
May 13, 2009, 01:43 PM
Most people's right eyebrow raises similarly regarding AR-15s.

Just sayin'.

onthejon55
May 13, 2009, 01:47 PM
I dnt understand why anyone would ever even consider banning armor. Its strictly defensive.

These's no difference between body armor and banning deadbolts on the door of your house.

Wildalaska
May 13, 2009, 01:49 PM
Most people's right eyebrow raises similarly regarding AR-15s.

Just sayin'.

Really? Not in the gun crowd.

Bet ya have more gun folks raising eyebrows about body armour than ARs:p

Just respondin':D

WildcallmekennykevlarAlaska ™

Technosavant
May 13, 2009, 02:06 PM
I really have no idea why you'd have a problem with law abiding folks owning body armor. It's like owning good locks or sturdy windows. Yes, they can be used to make your home a fortress against the police, but they aren't offensive items. You can't annoy your neighbor with them. The only reason body armor might be a problem for a citizen would be if said citizen was already engaged in a felonious pursuit. You might as well be against the private ownership of fast cars, since they can be used to run from the cops.

I don't own any body armor and am not in the market for any, but I can easily see why somebody might have the desire.

Vanya
May 13, 2009, 02:27 PM
I dnt understand why anyone would ever even consider banning armor. Its strictly defensive.

Well, I hate to belabor something that's sort of obvious, but... ya, shure, it's "strictly defensive" in the sense that you'd have to hit someone awfully hard with it in order to hurt them (and that would be even harder to do if you're wearing it).

But if you're a hardened criminal (oh dear, I just reminded myself of that old joke...) planning to commit an armed robbery, body armor would give you something of an advantage in case some fool -- er, good citizen -- or perhaps the cops, started shooting at you. So, it's "defensive" up to the point at which it gives a BG an edge in shooting back at someone.

Same applies to a cop or a soldier in a war zone, of course -- anyone in an environment in which likelihood of needing the protection it affords outweighs the inconvenience of wearing the stuff.

And one's eyebrow tends to levitate over the idea that anyone other than military, LE (I guess I might include private security guards here, if I were feeling kindly), or BG expects to be in such an environment, or is paranoid enough to find the discomfort and inconvenience worthwhile, absent being in one... :rolleyes:

OK, yes, "personal choice" and "freedom" and all that good stuff dictate that anyone who wants to wear it ought to be able to... but still, that eyebrow wants to do its thing.

Wildalaska
May 13, 2009, 02:28 PM
I really have no idea why you'd have a problem with law abiding folks owning body armor.

I have no problem with law abiding folks with a NEED....

Most folks don't need. Most folks don't need the LRH either :)

WilditssogoodtobebackinthelandofrudenesspoorserviceandbigportionsAlaska ™

B. Lahey
May 13, 2009, 02:37 PM
I first picked up a vest when I worked overnight shifts alone at a little stop-n-rob gas station. It came in handy again when my job was to handle $50,000+ of sound equipment and big sacks of cash late at night, often in bad neighborhoods.

Lots of non-cops have good reason to buy one and they aren't going to get any raised eyebrows from my direction. If they can hack the heat of wearing the damn things, more power to 'em.

csmsss
May 13, 2009, 03:21 PM
Just because a bad guy can take advantage of a tool or technology - we should prevent good guys from having it too? That makes no sense at all - we might as well ban all vehicles (bad guys can use them as get away cars), ski masks (they can be used to disguise identities), as well as any other tool or technology which can be used for any nefarious purpose. Ridiculous.

Fact is, law abiding folks have a cornucopia of reasons to fear for their own and their family's safety and security - now and in the days ahead, and any attempt to prevent them from obtaining body armor is a rather obvious revelation of authoritarian intent. Want to ban convicted felons from obtaining body armor? I've got no problem with that - but if you want to ban folks who have never been convicted of a crime from obtaining it? I have to question your motives.

Technosavant
May 13, 2009, 04:26 PM
True NEED never enters into anything at any point. The vast majority of our possessions are not purchased out of a real and justifiable need (and those we do need are usually in excess of the actual need, like clothing- we can get by with much cheaper duds than we usually purchase). You can even make the argument that we have no true NEED for even one gun- yeah, they're useful and you're worse off without one, but when it comes down to it our needs are food, shelter, clothing, and medical care (and not much of any of those four).

Seeing as how harmful acts are already illegal, I see no reason for body armor to be restricted.

SilentHitz
May 13, 2009, 04:50 PM
Seeing as how harmful acts are already illegal, I see no reason for body armor to be restricted. Neither do I, but after the 2 idiots in full body armor pulled that crap in Cali, I can see why they're anal about it. I don't agree, but I expected it out of that state. I don't think most ordinary folks want to rush out and buy body armor, I certainly don't, but I don't think it should be restricted.

scorpion_tyr
May 13, 2009, 06:08 PM
While I don't think it should be regulated, my own personal opinion is your "average joe" doesn't have any use for body armor. The only thing I would use it for off duty would be to wear while I run.

Tucker 1371
May 13, 2009, 06:22 PM
WilditssogoodtobebackinthelandofrudenesspoorserviceandbigportionsAlaska ™

Off topic but Alaska, do you really have 13,380 of these? No offense meant, I'm just jealous that I'm not as witty or creative as you :D.


I'm against a federal ban or limitation on body armor simply based on the fact that I think the government needs to stay the hell out of everything and start respecting the 2nd and 10th amendments. If my state decides to ban it I really won't give a rip, if Uncle Sam does I'll be a little angry.

swsurgeon
May 13, 2009, 11:04 PM
Thanks for everyone's interest in this subject. Much appreciated.

THEZACHARIAS
May 13, 2009, 11:16 PM
Wait, are we talking about a second chance vest you can wear under your clothes, or the full up ballistic kit with all the ballistic plates and extra coverage upgrades (head, shoulders, hips, neck and nuts)?

I can see the vest being ok. The issue comes when you start seeing lots of the high-grade military grade stuff flying off the shelves. Thats when the words "hollywood" and "bank shootout" start rolling past cops' faces.

Dr. Strangelove
May 13, 2009, 11:41 PM
"Restricting" access to body armor is completely ridiculous. Why should my government fear me having body armor as a "ordinary Joe"? These "feel good" laws and restrictions passed by overly ambitious politicians are seriously starting to cut into our personal freedoms and way of life here in the good old USA.

Where do we stop? Do we ban trees because sharp sticks can be made from them? Mandatory de-clawing of house-cats because someone may use one as a weapon?

I have no need or want for body armor, but; should I wish to purchase some, it's nobodies damn business why I want it until such time as I commit a crime with it. It's high time we started to push back against these hundreds of tiny encroachments on our freedom.

Rant over.:)

grey sky
May 14, 2009, 05:49 AM
Also how many guns do you "need" and how much cash does the honest citizen "need" Lets see how much gold does a citizen "need" Know it that nthere are those who would say none to all.
It never stops the Ted Kennedies of the world will always want to decide what I "need" :barf:

Housezealot
May 14, 2009, 08:36 AM
I have no problem with law abiding folks with a NEED....



Its a real slippery slope when you start requiring people to justify why they NEED something. These types of things tend to snowball. I am sure there is a lot of people who would say none of us NEED firearms at all.

stargazer65
May 14, 2009, 10:03 AM
Who or what even decides what body armor consists of?:confused: If I make a breastplate out of an old boiler, would that become regulated? Where would they draw the line?

JuanCarlos
May 14, 2009, 11:13 AM
Its a real slippery slope when you start requiring people to justify why they NEED something. These types of things tend to snowball. I am sure there is a lot of people who would say none of us NEED firearms at all.

Of course there are. Hell, I'd say it. Well, maybe not "none," but I'll go out on a limb and say a vast majority have no real need of a firearm. Including myself.

I just don't think that's adequate justification to ban them. Nor do I dare to appoint myself the authority on what anybody else needs, at least on an "official" level.

Wildalaska
May 14, 2009, 11:57 AM
Its a real slippery slope when you start requiring people to justify why they NEED something. These types of things tend to snowball. I am sure there is a lot of people who would say none of us NEED firearms at all.

The difference is that firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not.

Dangerous and unusual wot wot. Civilians who need body armour due to their unique circumstances need body armour. Folks who don't but buy it anyway get the eyebrow. the LRH syndrome is probably the most psychologically innocuous in that crowd.

WildtheeelwasmagnificentAlaska ™

Glenn E. Meyer
May 14, 2009, 12:11 PM
Since we know that the AWB had NO effect on any measurable crime indices, I'm willing to bet that a armor ban would be similar. It's just a feel good measure for those in that banning paradigm.

The NY Times has an hysterical rant editorial about an attempt to allow EBRs in DC. How dare folks allow battle rifles in the home? Right now, my EBR is tied down as it is struggling to get loose and cause mayhem. When I shoot a carbine match, those guns go home. How dare TX allow this!!

Just BS - the general principle of not having bans is separate from someone who is ninja-ing up and waiting for the Apocalypse. There is no need for such a ban.

B. Lahey
May 14, 2009, 01:59 PM
firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not

I think you may be wrong about that, eel-man.

I'll see if I can find it later, but I'm pretty sure there was a chunk of Heller that talked about armor as being a classification of "arms".

People have always tried to stop bullets with various protective stuff. That was true when the Bill o' Rights was written, well before it was written, and well after it was written right up to the present day. Armor has never been unusual, and I think any argument that it is dangerous is pretty flimsy also.

B. Lahey
May 14, 2009, 05:44 PM
Found it:

b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the holder of the right-“the people”-to the substance of the right: “to keep and bear Arms.”


Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

Take that, fishy!:p

Wildalaska
May 14, 2009, 05:48 PM
Take that, fishy

Obiter dicta droog:D

WildgimmesomeunagiAlaska ™

JustDreadful
May 14, 2009, 07:17 PM
The difference is that firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not.

So absent 2A you'd be OK with gun bans?

There are no fundamental differences between the arguments raised in this thread against body armor, and the Bradyite arguments against classes of guns, and in fact against guns in general. The position of your eyebrows is immaterial and uninteresting.

And if someone decides to ninja up and wait for the Apocalypse, what business is it of yours?

TheFacts
May 14, 2009, 07:17 PM
The difference is that firearms are constitutionally protected, body armour is not.

Hmmm...don`t forget about the 9th Amendment. One could make a strong arguement for our right to keep our skin and viscera intact. In fact, even the 4th amendment could be construed to protect body armor.

Dangerous and unusual wot wot. Civilians who need body armour due to their unique circumstances need body armour. Folks who don't but buy it anyway get the eyebrow. the LRH syndrome is probably the most psychologically innocuous in that crowd.

If I can recall properly, many years ago, there was a clothing manufacturer marketing a line of Kevlar lined coats for children. At the time, it was selling quite well, but like all things... News reporters were interviewing parents who bought the coats. Guess what their reasons were for their purchases :rolleyes:

Try telling those parents that they do not have a right to coat their children in adamantium armor.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.

44 AMP
May 14, 2009, 08:26 PM
Albeit limited, of enhanced penalties for wearing of body armor during commission of a crime of violence (bank robbery, etc.), but other than that, I see no purpose or good that can come of any restriction on lawful citizens owning and wearing (if they so choose) body armor.

After all, don't we, the people, have as much right to protection from gunfire as someone who makes their living going in harms way?


And I, for one anyway, am sick of hearing anyone talk about need. Particularly when they use their opinion of what I need as justification for what I should be allowed, under law to own.

You can live naked in a mud hut (or not naked in an igloo) and only ingest the bare minimum of calories for survival, if you choose. After all, thats all a human being needs. But don't even think of trying to make a law that says I must do the same. As the bard has been oft quoted, "Man does not live by bread alone".

Wildalaska
May 14, 2009, 10:37 PM
So absent 2A you'd be OK with gun bans?

Your implication that I am is Post hoc ergo propter hoc

By the way, I would argue that certain gun bans would be constitutional

There are no fundamental differences between the arguments raised in this thread against body armor, and the Bradyite arguments against classes of guns, and in fact against guns in general.

Reductio ad bradium

The position of your eyebrows is immaterial and uninteresting.


Not to normal folks:p

And if someone decides to ninja up and wait for the Apocalypse, what business is it of yours?

I'm entitled to be bemused by the antics of my fellow fleshbots. And as they have the right, to date, to ninja up, so too do I have the right to condescendingly smirk and point out their vagaries to my fellow norms.

Guess what their reasons were for their purchases

Tell, pray tell......


WildanddontconfusemyraisedeyebrowwithsupportforalawAlaska TM

THEZACHARIAS
May 14, 2009, 10:48 PM
Ironically, criminals who commit a crime using firearms and body armor are more likely than any other offender to be killed by police at the scene.

By armoring those areas, they prevent law enforcement from delivering an incapacitating (as opposed to fatal) shot, meaning the only way to take the guy down is to introduce mr. JHP to mr. brain matter.

On top of that, a crime with an armored bad guy is a pretty strong cop magnet, so there will be lots of extra firepower aiming at said brain matter.

Shadi Khalil
May 14, 2009, 10:59 PM
Even if I had access to body armor I would not use it, no matter how vigorously Wildalaska furors his brow....


http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii22/teif666/unibrow.jpg

hogdogs
May 14, 2009, 11:38 PM
While the 2A protects the right to own guns it doesn't include CCP's... Most folks do not need to carry a concealed firearm any more than, and likely less than, the average person needs body armor. So WA, you would cock an eyebrow to anyone who applies for a CCP unless they need one due to certain special circumstances...
Brent

Csspecs
May 14, 2009, 11:38 PM
Even in the north hollywood shoot out I have read a number of views of it that they did not get hit for some time. That they hid behind overwhelming firepower (that ran out) and did not start getting hit until they lost their firepower advantage. And correct me if I'm wrong but their vest had been stolen right?


I'd own one if I had the money. I would not wear it all the time or even that often, just keep it handy if things ever got more lawless. Crime rate here has been going up pretty fast, kids (18-25) are carjacking and chopping the cars for cash. I'm guessing that these are junkies needing a fix doing the carjackings, probably lost their crap job months ago when everything slowed down.

AZ Med18
May 14, 2009, 11:45 PM
What exactly would constitute a unique need for body armor?

Last time I checked most crimes were committed against the private citizen.

Or EMS never gets attacked....

London for example

http://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/news/news_releases_and_statements/callous_thieves_attack_paramed.aspx

Ricky B
May 15, 2009, 12:30 AM
Not quite responsive to the OP, but somewhat on topic is my post in the thread "Sometimes being bullet-proof is not a good idea."

B. Lahey
May 15, 2009, 12:41 AM
dicta

Yeah, but it's still a nice historical argument for us originalist/founder's intent nutjobs. Armor is "arms", and always has been, so the 2nd applies.

Scalia agrees with me, who agrees with you?:D

THEZACHARIAS
May 15, 2009, 12:42 AM
-"Sometimes being bullet-proof is not a good idea."

True, but its relevant only to felons. Joe Schmoe gun owner is, in a legal sense, unaffected.

Double Naught Spy
May 15, 2009, 05:16 AM
my right eyebrow raises over the thought of an ordinary Joe buying body armour

Ah, the anti-armor sentiment. "You don't need no armor, but we will sell you a gun."

Wildalaska
May 15, 2009, 12:16 PM
Scalia agrees with me, who agrees with you?

Me:D

Ah, the anti-armor sentiment. "You don't need no armor, but we will sell you a gun."

1. Misconstrues my comment. 2. Guns have purposes other than "defense"

WildiseewehavethebodyarmourwoobienowAlaska ™

Wildalaska
May 15, 2009, 12:43 PM
Most folks do not need to carry a concealed firearm any more than, and likely less than, the average person needs body armor.

Where do you get that conclusion from

So WA, you would cock an eyebrow to anyone who applies for a CCP unless they need one due to certain special circumstances...

Many folks get CCPs to avoid the NICs check. And quite frankly, I do cock my eyebrow over some folks getting CCPs...DLs too :)

WildtheleftoneAlaska ™

Housezealot
May 15, 2009, 01:38 PM
I am quite suprised how much opinions differ in this forum as to how much freedom a person should have. every body has there right to an opinion, I would think that most of us would not want any of our rights limited.
I also worry that some people think something that is right to them is a "privilege" to everyone else:(

Wildalaska
May 15, 2009, 01:51 PM
I am quite suprised how much opinions differ in this forum as to how much freedom a person should have.

isnt America great?:D

every body has there right to an opinion, I would think that most of us would not want any of our rights limited.

Bet ya 90% of the folks here agree it's OK to limit "rights"...the question is not whether, but how much...

WildfreedomisnotlicensewotwotAlaska ™

Vanya
May 15, 2009, 02:02 PM
No one in this thread has said body armor should be regulated, or that any law-abiding citizen should be legally barred from owning it. Some of us think it's a bit silly to want it, absent a good reason, but I haven't noticed anyone arguing for legal restrictions. Whether or not it could be, or whether armor is protected by the Second Amendment, are completely different questions from that of whether it ought to be, which, unless I've missed something, we've all answered with a resounding "No."

anddontconfusemyraisedeyebrowwithsupportforalaw

Exactly. Well tmesified, WA. I envy you the eel, by the way.

TheFacts
May 15, 2009, 04:06 PM
As fleshbots (Wildalaska, 2009) we are weighed down with personal and political ideologies. Most agree that body armor is a right protected by some vague aspect of the BOR. Others feel that that is a no no. If I see someone walking around in chain mail (other than at Medievel Times) with a sword strapped to his belt at the local shopping mall, I will raise an eyebrow. If I see someone walking out of a gun show with 5 SKSs, 4 Remington 870s, and 10 Glock 17s (that`s a lot to carry) I will raise an eyebrow. If I see someone at the supermarket check out with groceries and he is sporting a flak jacket with 2 1911s and a Kabar strapped to him, I will raise an eyebrow.

Now just because I raise my eyebrow does not mean that I have the right to deny that individual the right to be unusual. We raise our eyebrows because we experience events that go against everyday norm. Things that shock us may also plauge our logic circuits which can cause us to say silly things like:

1) "What do you need that for."
2) "There oughta be a law against that."
and my personal favorite...
3) "Why doesn`t the govt get involved."

I have personal convictions but I try to keep them to myself (even though I have a right to voice them). However, I do not have the right whatsoever to use my convictions to physically deny the convictions held by other fleshbots (Wildalaska, 2009). Please let the fleshbots (Wildalaska, 2009) have their body armor...if you scratch their backs, maybe they will scratch yours ;)



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.