This is Not a Second Amendment Issue...

MTT TL · August 12, 2014, 06:26 PM

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.

Technosavant · August 12, 2014, 07:47 PM

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?

**Tom Servo** · August 12, 2014, 09:20 PM

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?

MTT TL · August 12, 2014, 09:38 PM

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.

**44 AMP** · August 13, 2014, 01:53 AM

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?

Spooler41 · August 13, 2014, 11:20 AM

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

CowTowner · August 13, 2014, 04:21 PM

The voting public gets what they vote into office. Unfortunately, so do the rest of us it seems.

Jo6pak · August 13, 2014, 04:24 PM

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!!

Fishing_Cabin · August 13, 2014, 06:48 PM

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.

barnbwt · August 13, 2014, 08:12 PM

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

MTT TL · August 14, 2014, 06:18 AM

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.

Hugh Damright · August 14, 2014, 11:28 AM

Webster's handy 1828 dictionary says:

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

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

2damnold4this · August 14, 2014, 04:36 PM

An interesting link. It appears that Honda is using false information to peddle his bill.

2ndsojourn · August 14, 2014, 06:31 PM

^^^ 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?

MTT TL · August 14, 2014, 09:21 PM

Thanks for that HD. Strange how meaning shift over time. What would have been well understood back then is not remembered today.

gyvel · August 14, 2014, 09:36 PM

Barnbwt, are you saying that private individuals should not have body armor? I'm having some trouble interpreting your response.

jimbob86 · August 14, 2014, 09:55 PM

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

barnbwt · August 15, 2014, 10:28 AM

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

johnwilliamson062 · August 16, 2014, 02:02 AM

2A is not limited to firearms. This is definitely a 2A issue.

barnbwt · August 16, 2014, 10:06 AM

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

**44 AMP** · August 17, 2014, 10:14 AM

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,

armoredman · August 17, 2014, 04:53 PM

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.

August 12, 2014, 09:20 PM	#3
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	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

August 12, 2014, 09:38 PM	#4
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	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. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

August 13, 2014, 11:20 AM	#6
Spooler41 Member Join Date: June 12, 2014 Location: Port Angeles ,Washington Posts: 34	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

August 13, 2014, 04:21 PM	#7
CowTowner Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: Cowtown of course! Posts: 1,747	The voting public gets what they vote into office. Unfortunately, so do the rest of us it seems. __________________ NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor *“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......”* President John F. Kennedy

August 13, 2014, 04:24 PM	#8
Jo6pak Senior Member Join Date: August 5, 2010 Location: West Coast...of WI Posts: 1,663	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.

August 12, 2014, 07:47 PM	#2
Technosavant Senior Member Join Date: May 29, 2007 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 4,040	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?

August 13, 2014, 08:12 PM	#10
barnbwt Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 1,085	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

August 14, 2014, 06:18 AM	#11
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	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. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

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.

August 14, 2014, 04:36 PM	#13
2damnold4this Senior Member Join Date: August 12, 2009 Location: Athens, Georgia Posts: 2,526	An interesting link. It appears that Honda is using false information to peddle his bill.

August 14, 2014, 06:31 PM	#14
2ndsojourn Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2013 Location: South Jersey Posts: 1,416	^^^ 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?

August 14, 2014, 09:21 PM	#15
MTT TL Senior Member Join Date: October 21, 2009 Location: Quadling Country Posts: 2,780	Thanks for that HD. Strange how meaning shift over time. What would have been well understood back then is not remembered today. __________________ Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.

August 14, 2014, 09:36 PM	#16
gyvel Senior Member Join Date: August 30, 2009 Location: Northern AZ Posts: 7,172	Barnbwt, are you saying that private individuals should not have body armor? I'm having some trouble interpreting your response. __________________ As always, YMMV. __________________________________________ MIIAA SIFE

August 15, 2014, 10:28 AM	#18
barnbwt Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 1,085	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

August 16, 2014, 02:02 AM	#19
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	2A is not limited to firearms. This is definitely a 2A issue.

August 16, 2014, 10:06 AM	#20
barnbwt Senior Member Join Date: May 17, 2012 Posts: 1,085	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

August 17, 2014, 10:14 AM	#21
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,839	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.

August 17, 2014, 04:53 PM	#22
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	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.