Access to Body Armor

[swsurgeon]

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]

just glad I have full access and a few sets of whatever I need!

[swsurgeon]

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. Unfortunately, the weight gods have not cooperated....

[Housezealot]

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]

my right eyebrow raises over the thought of an ordinary Joe buying body armour (excluding folks with a need)

WildhmmmmAlaska ™

[JuanCarlos]

Most people's right eyebrow raises similarly regarding AR-15s.

Just sayin'.

[onthejon55]

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]

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

Just respondin'

WildcallmekennykevlarAlaska ™

[Technosavant]

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.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by onthejon55

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 .


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]

Thanks for everyone's interest in this subject. Much appreciated.

[THEZACHARIAS]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

Who or what even decides what body armor consists of? If I make a breastplate out of an old boiler, would that become regulated? Where would they draw the line?

[JuanCarlos]

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]

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 ™