The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 12, 2014, 06:26 PM   #1
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
This is Not a Second Amendment Issue...

Seems to be a renewed call for a ban on body armor.

Quote:
Honda’s “Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” introduced July 31, would prohibit civilians from buying or owning armor – including vests, shields, helmets and other items – rated Type III or higher on the National Institute of Justice’s penetration resistance scale.
Wants ban of level III and higher, turn in of items on hand. The goal is to make it easier for the police to shoot "trigger happy gunmen". Says it "is not a 2A issue".

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...body-armor-ban

Bill is at link as well as the usual crazy talk drivel.

I would say that this is about as second amendment as they come.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old August 12, 2014, 07:47 PM   #2
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,895
I don't know if it's a 2A issue (since body armor isn't a firearm), but I would consider it falling under one's basic right to life. It's a defensive item. You can't harm someone with body armor (well, the soft stuff anyway... but even with a ceramic trauma plate I don't know that you can get that great a swing with it). It's only an issue if someone is wearing it in commission of a crime that involves the use of deadly force by the police.

If the people should remain vulnerable in case the police feel the need to shoot them, should we not also prohibit anything else that might cause the police inconvenience should they wish to take us into custody? Where do we draw the line?
Technosavant is offline  
Old August 12, 2014, 09:20 PM   #3
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,357
In a way, it is a 2nd Amendment issue. Body armor is a form of self-defense, which is the core right protected by the 2A.

Consider a case brought around the same time as McDonald, which involved nunchaku.

Honestly, how often has Level III body armor been used in crimes anyhow?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 12, 2014, 09:38 PM   #4
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
Probably not the number of times but rather the portrayal of body armor turning people in to unstoppable killing machines during the few times it has been used.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old August 13, 2014, 01:53 AM   #5
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,364
Quote:
..the portrayal of body armor turning people in to unstoppable killing machines..
Where's the bill to prohibit this "portrayal" in our popular entertainment medias? What? its a civil rights issue? Really?????

Here's the mindset, rather then adding to the penalty for committing a crime with one (as if that would actually do some good), lets just make it a crime to have the darn things at all......

Are we going to need to get permits for a decorator suit of armor next?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 13, 2014, 11:20 AM   #6
Spooler41
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2014
Location: Port Angeles ,Washington
Posts: 10
Body Armor

There already laws on the books , that out law body armor during the
commission of a crime. If you play,you pay. leave the law abiding alone..


...................Jack
Spooler41 is offline  
Old August 13, 2014, 04:21 PM   #7
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,195
The voting public gets what they vote into office. Unfortunately, so do the rest of us it seems.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old August 13, 2014, 04:24 PM   #8
Jo6pak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,473
The question from the ANTIs is always "Why would you need that."

In a free society the correct question is, "Why should I be prevented from owning it."

That is something that has gotten reversed and needs to be corrected. SOON!!
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor.
Jo6pak is offline  
Old August 13, 2014, 06:48 PM   #9
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowTowner
The voting public gets what they vote into office. Unfortunately, so do the rest of us it seems.
Agreed. Get out and vote against people who try to bring about these laws.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old August 13, 2014, 08:12 PM   #10
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 692
Not that this is intentional or is even a realistically achievable goal, but limiting body armor is actually a better way of limiting the potential destruction posed by shooters than going after their guns.

Think about it; in a properly armed society, or even an unarmed society with official armed responders, the most likely force brought to bear against an attacker, regardless their weapon, will be pistols, at first. Pistols are what will end a threat in its infancy, before hostages can be taken or barricades made. But pistols are the most ineffective rounds against even simple homemade body armor, as has been seen occasionally but consistently throughout history (the LA bank robbers, and that famous outlaw character with the iron plate-armor who tore around Down Under years ago come to mind).

Anyone with any gun for the most part is capable of ending a threat up to and including a guy with a mobile belt-fed (probably the largest weapon wieldable by a single person) provided their bullets can hit vital targets. Body armor can make that flat out impossible, and it won't matter how many CCW'er or officers are around, the threat will continue while a stronger response is formed. That's why I've always thought body armor poses the greater threat to the public than firearms. If firearms have a civilizing/corrective effect by increasing the consequences for bad actors (the 'equalization' of Sam Colt), then body armor functions to remove or reduce those effects, allowing once more for a monopoly of force by the bad guys.

Now, this is not to say banning the stuff is at all helpful; it isn't, because the only easier to make in your garage than guns is probably plate-armor, and high-tensile fiber fabric is a technology with myriad uses that will permeate everything before long (I'd imagine carbon fiber makes a decent ballistic vest, for example). So, ignoring the whole 'criminals will not obey' refrain, the means to make the things will be available, regardless, so banning them is out of the picture. So what to do about this technological development that threatens to under the new balance of power wrought by civilian firearms? Embrace the arms race, and retire these idiotic, antiquated, and arbitrary rules governing pistol ammunition considered legally 'armor piercing'

Most all rifle rounds will punch through most soft armor, more and more pistol rounds are fast enough to do so, and body armor --for police, Joes, and crooks-- will only become cheaper and more available with time. When officers did not wear body armor, they got by being just as vulnerable as Everyday Joe; it's not like the presence of 'officer-penetrating' ammo sent hordes of criminals after officers' blood (and I think we can all agree that tactics was as much to blame as equipment for officer fatalities in the old days). While I highly doubt the loss of police 'bulletproofness' will lead to substantial increase officer deaths or injury (a significant increase, maybe), the important thing they need to realize is this development is inevitable. Vests will eventually be made obsolete by ballistic developments, at least for a while, so the important thing is to keep up. Part of keeping up with the criminals' capabilities is making sure non-leo citizens are not left behind in the dark ages, so that they can defend themselves as well as assist officers if needed; in such a scheme, there is less need for the officers to put their gear to the test in the first place.

TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old August 14, 2014, 06:18 AM   #11
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
I just keep thinking "dumb and dumber". Without going into the politics of the thing it does appear consistently through the years as though one side of the political spectrum wants to solve all the world's ills by banning offending items all while devolving people of personal responsibility for their actions. The other side seems to mostly want the opposite.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old August 14, 2014, 11:28 AM   #12
Hugh Damright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
Webster's handy 1828 dictionary says:

ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
Hugh Damright is offline  
Old August 14, 2014, 04:36 PM   #13
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,326
An interesting link. It appears that Honda is using false information to peddle his bill.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old August 14, 2014, 06:31 PM   #14
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 641
^^^ From the linked article:
"Since 2002, it has been illegal under federal law for convicted felons to possess body armor of any sort. This has been prosecuted in U.S. courts even in states that do not criminalize the possession of body armor."

So....it's already against the law for felons to have it. What will this accomplish?
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old August 14, 2014, 09:21 PM   #15
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
Thanks for that HD. Strange how meaning shift over time. What would have been well understood back then is not remembered today.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old August 14, 2014, 09:36 PM   #16
gyvel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 5,229
Barnbwt, are you saying that private individuals should not have body armor? I'm having some trouble interpreting your response.
__________________
MIIAA
SIFE
gyvel is offline  
Old August 14, 2014, 09:55 PM   #17
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,818
Quote:
So....it's already against the law for felons to have it. What will this accomplish?
Why, it'll make it ..... MOAR Illegaller! That's it! ...... and it that does not stop the problem (and it won't), we'll pile on even more suffixes and say it louder! Making something MOAR Illegaller-est-ness-ment may not do anything either, but it will make it appear like we are doing something, and show you little proles that we REALLY, TRULY, VERY DEEPLY, CARE......... so vote for me b/c I CARE SO DEEPLY FOR YOU, LITTLE PEOPLE .......

Sincerely,

John Q. Politician
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old August 15, 2014, 10:28 AM   #18
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 692
Gyvel,
My point was that body armor is a bigger force multiplier than "assault weapons" or, especially, armor piercing ammunition. Bullets cannot negate bullets, but armor sure can, allowing a bad guy with a gun or otherwise to continue striking with impunity (see Hollywood). I go on to say, that body armor cannot practically be purged from the populace (or criminals), so a ban is impossible. Therefore, armor piercing ammo should be legalized in order to somewhat negate the disruption to the balance of (firearms) power offered by body armor.

A hi cap mag only matters if the shooter lives long enough to burn through it. In body armor, he stands a greater chance of doing so, for good, or ill.

TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old August 16, 2014, 02:02 AM   #19
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,813
2A is not limited to firearms. This is definitely a 2A issue.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old August 16, 2014, 10:06 AM   #20
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 692
One more point of interest, in light of the Fergusson riots; what about gas masks?

I saw every single police officer wearing those Halloween masks at certain points during the hostilities (still ongoing, from the sounds of it ), and not one demonstrator/looter/whathaveyou. Long before unrest rises to the point of shots fired, there will be a lot of tear gas, so from a RKBA balancing-the-state perspective, tear-gas rated masks are probably more important than body armor. You won't wear them daily of course, but the same can be said for all but the lightest armor.

TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old August 17, 2014, 10:14 AM   #21
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,364
Gas Masks (APRs -Air Purifying Respirators) are common, in wide use in various industries, and required by law as safety equipment on many jobs.

Even the most rabid politician won't get any traction trying to ban them as dangerous, evil, or useful only for police and terrorists.

In fact, its a good thing we are "allowed" gas masks. Wasn't the Aurora shooter spotted by a sharp eyed officer because the gas mask he had wasn't the same as everyone else's? Apparently his AR and ninja suit let him fit right in.....but his off brand gas mask gave him away as he waited outside the theater...or so I heard,
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 17, 2014, 04:53 PM   #22
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,797
This is the picture guaranteed to make Mr Honda wet himself.



That is an unlicensed, unregistered semi automatic military style rifle with a fully loaded 30 round magazine, on top of an AR500.com Urban Go armor plate carrier by Condor, holding two more 30 round magazines, also loaded and two loaded 18 round CZ SP-01 magazines. All of this horrible hardware is resting on an AR500 hard plate Level III with the new anti spall coating, which has easily defeated .223 AP and up to .308 AP, IIRC. Each plate weighs 7.5 pounds. Total cost on the carrier with plates is well under $300.
Know what the thing that will really send him over the edge? It's completely and totally legal. This equipment has never ever been used in any crime, and exists for one purpose only. Personal protection. Admittedly, the rifle is also fun to shoot and with changes in AZ law I can actually hunt with this rifle as well, but the armor is purely a defensive item. Heavy, hot, pain to get on and off fast, not something I lug around all day, but even with the limited practicality of the stuff, I have the basic right to my arms and armor. When the 2A was adopted, most armor had been abandoned, but not all - I believe British cavalry may have still worn curiass on horseback. Arms and armor were synonymous. So I agree - this IS a 2A issue. And while I can give the above explanation on what purpose I intend for my 2A protected items - I shouldn't have to do so. Mr Honda can bluster and blather all he wants, but he should take care to not wander Eastward of Blythe - all of that Freedom might give him a heart attack.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12527 seconds with 9 queries