California Dem moves to outlaw some civilian body armor

posted at 2:31 pm on August 30, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

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 California’s congressman from the 7th District, and his new legislation is Voxsplained in a rather curious fashion. He probably doesn’t want the police to be very “militarized” either, but he darned sure doesn’t 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.”

“We’re not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest,” he said. “We’re 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. There’s 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, it’s involves your ability to protect yourself against an armed enemy. Honda’s 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 don’t 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 aren’t likely to be out there shooting up some cop’s 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. You’d 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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Well, things must be going great in Kalifornia if they have the time to come up with laws like this.

Awesome!

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM

No surprise. Totalitarians all.

Jackson on August 30, 2014 at 2:39 PM

Wackadoodle!!!!

ladyingray on August 30, 2014 at 2:42 PM

Well I for one hope he gets it through.
We’ve had just way too many mass murders by psychos running around beating people to death with that deadly body armor….

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Why stop at banning body armor? Why not ban seat belts and airbags too?

VorDaj on August 30, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Dumb beyond words. In some ways this is opposite of gun restrictions (offensive vs defensive), but in at least one way it is the same: The only people who would suffer from it would be the harmless.

If some psycho wearing Level III body armor went on a shooting spree and lived to tell about it, what are you going to do? Add a charge of ‘illegal possession of body armor’ to his 20 murder charges? Yeah, that’ll do a lot.

Meanwhile, the only people that might suffer are harmless survivalists, or collectors or someone like that who happens to be unfortunate enough to get pulled over for running a stop sign and the armor gets discovered.

More dumb. It’s really more a manifestation of cultural hatred by Liberals. They just hate the KINDS of people that they imagine might be interested in purchasing body armor. It’s a slow, steady, incremental strategy of harassment of certain targeted Americans.

WhatSlushfund on August 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Oh! Let’s also ban antibiotics.

VorDaj on August 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM

Here in glorious Peoples Democratic Republic of Kalifornia we are just one ban away from total Utopian consciousness. So we got that going for us.

The future is going to glorious, GLORIOUS comrades!!!

jukin3 on August 30, 2014 at 2:49 PM

I hear there’s a bunch of people who run around in full armor suits and chainmail and attack each other with swords.
They call themselves the Society for Creative Anachronism.
I hear a lot of them gather with other violent people in various types of armor in places like ComicCon and such ….
Dangerous lot there – must be stopped!!!!!

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

“We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”

 
Can we get some numbers on how many LEOs are using ball ammo? I’m guessing exactly none, right?

rogerb on August 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Since this is only designed to make it easier for police to kill you if they feel they need to (criminals also, but I’ll accept that that’s merely an unintended consequence) is there any logical difference between this and banning front door locks, which would slow down police who feel they need to raid your house?

SoRight on August 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

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.

Lets just get to the point quickly. Rep Mike Honda is basically telling us that it should be a crime to make it more difficult for the government to easily kill you.

Reuben Hick on August 30, 2014 at 2:53 PM

Mr Honda would be a victim of his own stupid law. Obviously, his head is protected by homegrown Level IV armor.

vnvet on August 30, 2014 at 2:56 PM

is there any logical difference between this and banning front door locks, which would slow down police who feel they need to raid your house?

SoRight on August 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

This is a good point. If someone is home schooling their kids and they get a report that the kids are being taught about the Bill of Rights, this would create an emergency situation where the federal police would have to get the kids into protective custody without a moments delay before their minds were corrupted against the State.

VorDaj on August 30, 2014 at 2:58 PM

From DC v. Heller:

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 inter- pret 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.”

It would be interesting to see a challenge to this as a ban on “arms” under the 2nd amendment.

Ash on August 30, 2014 at 3:00 PM

You have to love California.

Cindy Munford on August 30, 2014 at 3:01 PM

is there any logical difference between this and banning front door locks, which would slow down police who feel they need to raid your house?

SoRight on August 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Exactly. The follow-up legislation would make it felony to own a gas mask or a crime to harden your home to forced entry. Probably have to have to sign waivers and get permission from the Sheriff to install battering ram resistant doors, bars over windows or plant a hedgerow on the perimeter of your homestead.

In Texas it is a crime to put a cover on your license plates that obscures the number to traffic control devices. Everyone else can read it, the fees and taxes have been paid, but it makes it more difficult to have a machine assign you a traffic citation. They also make it a criminal offense to deep tint the driver and front passenger side windows because it makes it more difficult for law enforcement to see if you are not wearing seat belts.

Reuben Hick on August 30, 2014 at 3:01 PM

Dumb beyond words. In some ways this is opposite of gun restrictions (offensive vs defensive), but in at least one way it is the same: The only people who would suffer from it would be the harmless.

No it is the goal of the fascist-democrats to give the citizens any protection (offensive or defensive) against their state sanctioned violence. Times may change but people do not.

jukin3 on August 30, 2014 at 3:10 PM

Choice is truly much more Conservative.

CW on August 30, 2014 at 3:15 PM

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.

Yeah, that’s just ridiculous. Next somebody will be trying to tell us that the government wants to make us buy some product like….oh like medical insurance. It’s the government they can do anything they think of that we don’t stop them from doing.

Oldnuke on August 30, 2014 at 3:18 PM

I hear there’s a bunch of people who run around in full armor suits and chainmail and attack each other with swords.
They call themselves the Society for Creative Anachronism.
I hear a lot of them gather with other violent people in various types of armor in places like ComicCon and such ….
Dangerous lot there – must be stopped!!!!!

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 2:52 PM

We therefore, must stop ALL Renaissance fairs! THOSE people, really, REALLY, frighten me! /!

LastRonin on August 30, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Except for politicians, Hollywood celebrities, millionaires and other really, really important people of course.

clippermiami on August 30, 2014 at 3:22 PM

It is already a felony in California for a convicted felon to possess body armor.

myiq2xu on August 30, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Clearly, this politician is nuts. The scope of what he attempts is far too restricted. I say BAN ANYTHING that a criminal might use for material support, self-protection, use in a crime –

Some things to start with: Vehicles, clothing, shoes, ropes, knives, internet access / books, electronic equipment, food….

MistyLane on August 30, 2014 at 3:27 PM

Add motorcycle helmet sales….

hillsoftx on August 30, 2014 at 3:30 PM

We therefore, must stop ALL Renaissance fairs! THOSE people, really, REALLY, frighten me! /!

LastRonin on August 30, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Huzzah! Ban the rennaisssance fair – gathering place for crazy people wearing armor.

Actually – we stopped going when they installed a PA system in the jousting arena and started blasting the soundtrack from “A Knight’s Tale” during the jousting matches.

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 3:32 PM

NEXT STEP: Californians must live in communal tent cities in order to cut down the authorities’ confusion as to the exact location of your residence. Of course they must have government-issued passes clearly stating destination and return time in order to leave…

/Jerry_Brown_leftist_wacko-land_logic>

landlines on August 30, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Some things to start with: Vehicles, clothing, shoes, ropes, knives, internet access / books, electronic equipment, food….

MistyLane on August 30, 2014 at 3:27 PM

…crowbars, tire irons, screwdrivers, hammers, duct tape, zip ties….

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 3:34 PM

So based on the authors opinions. I guess you would agree that ex felons should be allowed to own body armor as well? Why should they not be able to protect themselves?

Politricks on August 30, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Level IIIa soft body armor is the same, but will also purportedly stop a .44 magnum or an Uzi.

The vast majority of Uzis in this country are semi-automatic and shoot the anemic 9mm Parabellum. They may be scarey-looking, but they’re just semi-auto carbines in a pistol caliber. They deliver only slightly more muzzle energy than a 9mm pistol, due to the slightly longer barrel. They will not defeat Level II armor. Only full auto 9mm submachine guns can defeat Level II.

novaculus on August 30, 2014 at 3:37 PM

We therefore, must stop ALL Renaissance fairs! THOSE people, really, REALLY, frighten me! /!

LastRonin on August 30, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Gotta add – some years ago when I was a Cub Scout Cubmaster, I brought in a local SCA group as entertainment for a monthly pack meeting – do some demos and have their “Queen” hand out the scout awards to the kids that night. When I got home there was already an email from a dad who was just all bent out of shape about that “horrible violent display of deadly weapons” (husband and wife fencing display team – yes – the olympic sport of fencing) and how scarred all the kids would be….
Not kiddin’.

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 3:39 PM

First you have to understand our State Assembly (probably the most corrupt in the country)….They try passing legislation banning things all the time (plastic bags, varnish) and try passing legislation requiring you to own things you don’t need (carbon monoxide detectors, eco-toilets)….Once the legislation is introduced, lobbyists show up with a truck load of money trying to buy votes either to encourage or discourage the new law…Who ever shows up with the biggest truck load wins….it’s that simple…..

repvoter on August 30, 2014 at 3:44 PM

So based on the authors opinions. I guess you would agree that ex felons should be allowed to own body armor as well? Why should they not be able to protect themselves?

Politricks on August 30, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Uh, well, do you think “felons” might have something to do with it?

fadetogray on August 30, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Waiting for the big one…. almost had it the other day……..

ultracon on August 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM

“We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”

I hate to rain on Honda’s parade, but once again we have a know-everything Democrat who actually knows nothing.

“Law enforcement ammuntions” don’t exist. They buy off the open market just like every other civilian.

Sure, you’ll find ammo marked “law enforcement only”. It’s BS. A marketing ploy. Like making products, painting them black, then using the adjective “tactical”.

There’s one born every minute.

GarandFan on August 30, 2014 at 3:56 PM

Sure, you’ll find ammo marked “law enforcement only”. It’s BS. A marketing ploy. Like making products, painting them black, then using the adjective “tactical”.

There’s one born every minute.

GarandFan on August 30, 2014 at 3:56 PM

So you’re saying that green tipped ZombieMax ammo doesn’t really have special powers against zombies?
Dagnabbit – I want my money back…..

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Waiting for the big one…. almost had it the other day……..

ultracon on August 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM

I’m hoping for the day we can get beachfront property in Nevada or Utah….

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 4:02 PM

I can see not wanting the bad guys to get this stuff, but maybe if we didn’t make excuses for them when the bust a cop’s face and try to take away his firearm…

formwiz on August 30, 2014 at 4:04 PM

I hate to rain on Honda’s parade, but once again we have a know-everything Democrat who actually knows nothing.

“Law enforcement ammuntions” don’t exist. They buy off the open market just like every other civilian.

Sure, you’ll find ammo marked “law enforcement only”. It’s BS. A marketing ploy. Like making products, painting them black, then using the adjective “tactical”.

There’s one born every minute.

GarandFan on August 30, 2014 at 3:56 PM

I’m still laughing at that “law enforcement ammunition” part. Honda is truly a moron.

chewmeister on August 30, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Sorry, but I know jack-squat about body armor. Wouldn’t being hit with a 2700ft-lb or 1200ft-lb projectile incapacitate someone regardless of whether it penetrated or not, or are we talking glancing shots here?

WryTrvllr on August 30, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Don’t know of any body armor that can stop a well placed head shot.

chewmeister on August 30, 2014 at 4:14 PM

Wackadoodle!!!!

ladyingray on August 30, 2014 at 2:42 PM

.
…and wacko birds!

ExpressoBold on August 30, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Sorry, but I know jack-squat about body armor. Wouldn’t being hit with a 2700ft-lb or 1200ft-lb projectile incapacitate someone regardless of whether it penetrated or not, or are we talking glancing shots here?

WryTrvllr on August 30, 2014 at 4:12 PM

No – with many types of armor, you can take a direct hit and survive – but it could knock you on your butt.
I don’t know where you got your 1200 or 2700 ft-lb figures – which is typically a torque measurement – correctly pound-feet (lb-ft).
Depending on the round, the bullet, which only weighs a few ounces, comes out with a muzzle velocity of around 1200 to 3000 feet per second.

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Hey dentarthurdent, I’ve been a card carrying member of the SCA for over 30 years and our armor was the first thing I though of when I read this. However our armor would not stop a bullet (or probably even an arrow). However, next weekend I am gong to a function that will be held at a replica of a Roman fort. Forward into the Past!

Tinker on August 30, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Hey dentarthurdent, I’ve been a card carrying member of the SCA for over 30 years and our armor was the first thing I though of when I read this. However our armor would not stop a bullet (or probably even an arrow). However, next weekend I am gong to a function that will be held at a replica of a Roman fort. Forward into the Past!

Tinker on August 30, 2014 at 4:23 PM

LOL – I’m quite sure your armor likely wouldn’t stop a bullet.
In fact even the padded wooden swords you guys use for practice can still smart a bit with a good hit.
BTW – ALL of the kids at the pack meeting and all but ONE parent loved the SCA group and what they did that night. The first time we brought in SCA for a pack meeting, a couple years earlier in a different pack, there were no complaints at all – EVERYONE loved it.

Now – will they be doing the Roman fort accurately – or would Dr. Sheldon Cooper be disgusted by all the things wrong? ;)

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 4:29 PM

California is the WETBAK capital of US…..

Realdemocrat1 on August 30, 2014 at 4:29 PM

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Approximate muzzle energies of 30-06 and .223. But seriously, body armor can absorb a 30 cal and you’d still be able to breath after that? That’s impressive. I want one.

WryTrvllr on August 30, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Well dentarthurdent, the Roman fort is being built by a guy who participates in the Roman re-enactments, so it is fairly close to accurate. He has a Celtic village also. I am hurriedly making some Celtic costumes for next weekend. (Google Roman fort at Lafe, AR )

Our local group did demo at the intermission of the local hockey team’s several years ago. (We called it Stupidity on Ice.) One of our members who did not go down to the ice reported later that some woman got upset and took her children into the lobby because she did not want them exposed to the “violence” — at a hockey game.

Tinker on August 30, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Approximate muzzle energies of 30-06 and .223. But seriously, body armor can absorb a 30 cal and you’d still be able to breath after that? That’s impressive. I want one.

WryTrvllr on August 30, 2014 at 4:30 PM

It all depends on the type of armor and the size and speed of the bullet. As the total energy of the bullet increases, at some point it no longer matters what armor you have, the force of the impact is going to do some damage.

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 4:38 PM

What an idiot.

weedisgood on August 30, 2014 at 4:44 PM

One of our members who did not go down to the ice reported later that some woman got upset and took her children into the lobby because she did not want them exposed to the “violence” — at a hockey game.

Tinker on August 30, 2014 at 4:37 PM

LOL!
Must have been a relative of the dad from my cub scout pack. My answer to him was along that line – “that fencing demo was less violent than what your kid sees in a football game on TV.”

And we once had a scout night at a local minor league hockey game where people started leaving early because the game descended into a steady brawl of nothing but fights – no SCA people doing scary dangerous things.

Our fencing demo was done by a husband-wife team who very carefully explained all rules and the sportsmanship of calling it (surrender, yield, whatever) when you receive a hit, and so on. A VERY “professional” pair.

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Sorry, but I know jack-squat about body armor. Wouldn’t being hit with a 2700ft-lb or 1200ft-lb projectile incapacitate someone regardless of whether it penetrated or not, or are we talking glancing shots here?

WryTrvllr on August 30, 2014 at 4:12 PM

The best 9mm rounds produce about 465 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle (115 gr bullet at 1350 fps). A typical .45 ACP produces over 500 ft/lbs and commonly available loads can produce over 800 ft/lbs.

Most .357 Magnum loads produce over 700 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.

Even if you’re wearing armor, it hurts to get hit. If you get hit center of mass twice in quick succession by .357 Mag or .45 ACP bullets your capacities will be significantly degraded. In many cases you will be out of the fight.

novaculus on August 30, 2014 at 4:51 PM

If you are not afraid of law abiding citizens, do not pass laws that only law abiding citizens will pay any attention to. Making it unlawful to sell the armor in one state would be ineffective as it would be easy to get in another state; so criminals will have not problem getting it and being charged with illegal body armor is hardly a worry for those who expect to get into shoot outs.

KW64 on August 30, 2014 at 4:52 PM

OK, but no armor for police or politicians, either…..

HBowmanMD on August 30, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Even if you’re wearing armor, it hurts to get hit. If you get hit center of mass twice in quick succession by .357 Mag or .45 ACP bullets your capacities will be significantly degraded. In many cases you will be out of the fight.

novaculus on August 30, 2014 at 4:51 PM

That argues against surviving a full on 308/30-06, which is what I would have thought. Still, even to stop the bullet is truly amazing. Thanks

WryTrvllr on August 30, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Show me a state or a city with overly strict firearms laws and I guarantee their attitude towards the populace is one of mistrust and disrespect, with plenty of other laws proving the point: stop sign and speed cameras, zealous over-enforcement of minor infractions (revenue based), excessive permitting required for any activity, etc.

I’m looking to move now that I’m retired, and found that gun laws are the number one indicator for an areas politics.

Tard on August 30, 2014 at 5:07 PM

WryTrvllr on August 30, 2014 at 4:54 PM

There are a lot of variables. All other things being equal a bigger person can absorb more energy to less effect than a smaller person. A man whose adrenalin is already flowing will take a hit better than a man taken by surprise. Only shots that are captured by the armor (or penetrate and end up in the body) dump all their energy into the target, glancing shots only convey a fraction of the bullet’s energy.

novaculus on August 30, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Can I wear it in my own house in case some of Honda’s voting base do a home invasion on me?

Buddahpundit on August 30, 2014 at 5:23 PM

They want a higher body count so they can complain more about guns.

The Notorious G.O.P on August 30, 2014 at 5:34 PM

What does “voxsplain” mean; where does it come from?

davidk on August 30, 2014 at 5:39 PM

What does “voxsplain” mean; where does it come from?

davidk on August 30, 2014 at 5:39 PM

vox.com is a site run by Ezra Klein and a clown posse of know-it-alls who purport to explain the difficult subjects in the news in simple terms for the rest of us idiots.

It’s pretty much an un-limed outhouse of Liberal and Progressive ignorance, prejudice and bias. And they’ve made some hilarious factual errors.

novaculus on August 30, 2014 at 6:07 PM

It calls out, in full sunlight, the real reason liberals want to take your guns away (not everyone’s – not theirs, just yours) They are consumed by the fear that you racist mass murderers will take away their power and kill them, or try to prevent them from taking power, and kill them. Insecure petty despots have ALWAYS sought to diminish their subjects, lest they want THE POWER too.

Skip2014 on August 30, 2014 at 6:15 PM

The fundamental defining characteristic shared by by all progressives, liberals and Democrats is FEAR. Everything they do is to mitigate their fear – all the nanny-statism, the gun control, the health legislation, the immigration issue, its all motivated by fear. Afraid of the gun, a disease, an errant distracted driver, and unhappy un-documented immigrant. They won’t help the Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Christians, women and a multitude of other crises because they are afraid to act. The First Chicken Sh!t is a walking mumbling shell who, now, won’t, can’t, even wear the clothes of authority – the tan suit is capitulation personified. “Look, my suit and I are the same color – you can’t see me…”

Skip2014 on August 30, 2014 at 6:24 PM

It’s really more a manifestation of cultural hatred by Liberals. They just hate the KINDS of people that they imagine might be interested in purchasing body armor. It’s a slow, steady, incremental strategy of harassment of certain targeted Americans.

WhatSlushfund on August 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM

This. It’s the only explanation that makes sense to me: “Progressive” bigots in power, wanting to stick it to those “hateful gun nuts.”

Aitch748 on August 30, 2014 at 6:24 PM

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.

I disagree. A law that would penalize the use of body armor while committing a crime would solve that problem without impacting law-abiding citizens.

Kingfisher on August 30, 2014 at 7:01 PM

While I have not yet read the law I’ll bet a month’s salary that this law would exempt senior-level legislators. They’re always putting their own welfare first.

Kingfisher on August 30, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Sure, you’ll find ammo marked “law enforcement only”. It’s BS. A marketing ploy. Like making products, painting them black, then using the adjective “tactical”.

There’s one born every minute.

GarandFan on August 30, 2014 at 3:56 PM

So you’re saying that green tipped ZombieMax ammo doesn’t really have special powers against zombies?
Dagnabbit – I want my money back…..

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 3:59 PM

You need the silver .45ACP Pow’rBall MHI ammo. It does a number on zombies and werewolves.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on August 30, 2014 at 7:07 PM

It is already a felony in California for a convicted felon to possess body armor.

myiq2xu on August 30, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Interesting.

But the thing is that “convicted felon” can mean all sorts of things from white collar crime to murder.

Though I despise criminals, they do have fundamental rights including the right to defend themselves. I understand they can lose certain Constitutional rights, but I still think that’s questionable. If they are to rejoin society and (hopefully) become responsible citizens, then I would think they should be allowed to participate with the same rights that the rest of us (hopefully still) have.

Now, common sense would dictate that an armed robber should be banned from owning firearms (or at the very least the right to conceal carry), a child molester should be barred from jobs at daycare centers, etc.,-in other words, on a case by case basis with guidance from specific laws.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 30, 2014 at 8:01 PM

I can see the logic in banning body armor

nonpartisan on August 30, 2014 at 8:23 PM

his proposal would discourage criminals from wearing enhanced body armor to commit mass shootings.

What the what? If they are already willing to commit ‘mass shootings’ (whatever that means), they probably don’t care about a law ‘discouraging’ them from wearing this armor. Are they going to be in even worse for wearing it, or killing all those people? Moron.

“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.”

So LEO’s, firefighters and first responders are now in the military? And what about the militia laws passed by congress? WE THE PEOPLE are the unorganized militia.

“We’re not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest,” he said. “We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”

Once again, if you are having the LEO’s and first responders wear them, I guess you are saying that it is like warfare out there. Why shouldn’t citizens be allowed to protect themselves against this national problem?/

Yes, they are designed to protect against more deadly types of rounds. With cops busting down doors in the middle of the night killing innocent people with these ‘military weapons’, I think that people need to be afforded that option.

I hate liberals.

Patriot Vet on August 30, 2014 at 8:37 PM

I can see the logic in banning body armor

nonpartisan on August 30, 2014 at 8:23 PM

No shit.

Axe on August 30, 2014 at 8:38 PM

This would clearly be unconstitutional. Arms historically also includes armor and defensive implements such as shields.

Othniel on August 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM

I can see the logic in banning body armor

nonpartisan on August 30, 2014 at 8:23 PM

No shit.

Axe on August 30, 2014 at 8:38 PM

A village idiot can see the logic in just about anything.

CurtZHP on August 30, 2014 at 10:26 PM

So, when does ducking at the sound of gunfire become illegal?

WryTrvllr on August 30, 2014 at 11:09 PM

I can see the logic in banning body armor

nonpartisan on August 30, 2014 at 8:23 PM

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Zooid on August 30, 2014 at 11:21 PM

Our fencing demo was done by a husband-wife team who very carefully explained all rules and the sportsmanship of calling it (surrender, yield, whatever) when you receive a hit, and so on. A VERY “professional” pair.

dentarthurdent on August 30, 2014 at 4:44 PM

We gave all our kids fencing gear one year for Christmas (gift money from grandparents, who were very surprised we didn’t buy video player and games with it). Kids had a great time (one kept it up through college and “inherited” his brother’s wife’s father’s gear).
Our family did demos at Scout activities quite often, never had any complaints (to our face, anyway).

That was Texas in the 90s, though.

AesopFan on August 30, 2014 at 11:26 PM

The ammunition for my Soviet-era bolt action rifles will punch through Level III armor at up to 400 yards. It is all steel core and considered armor piercing. It may not go through Level IV, but I’m sure the impact would be traumatic.

Picaro on August 31, 2014 at 4:36 AM

Picaro on August 31, 2014 at 4:36 AM

Got some of that, too and started in on some research about armor piercing ammo in general.

The idea of using a steel core for penetration was something that was fielded by multiple countries in WWII trying to get better anti-material penetration against lightly armored vehicles. Not only 7.52x54R for the Soviets but 45ACP had some shipments of steel core projectiles to see if they could do just a bit more against some of the lighter Nazi vehicles.

Results were, at best, mixed and started the entire field of armor piercing research that started to settle on the main factor not being hardness, as such, but density differential between the incoming projectile and what it has to get through. Dense metal tends to be more effective at armor piercing if it doesn’t deform much, thus while lead has great density it deforms all over the place which is not good for anti-material work. Thus the search was on for a metal that had low deformation characteristics at high velocity.

Added to that came the basic armor piercing profile of a projectile that is 5:1 in length:diameter. There are many refinements to that, and how to stabilize a sabot round (as most armor piercing projectiles will have to come out of existing weapons systems that are only 5:1 with a sabot), but it is pretty close to a magic ratio. Get flight stabilization either from fins or via flight dynamics and you then have a very aerodynamic projectile with low drag qualities meaning longer range.

The first real metal that had this set of characteristics was depleted uranium: dense and rigid, and denser than almost all armor plating systems being deployed. It also has the characteristic of ablating as it penetrates, meaning that the surface turns into a plasma gas as it impacts and penetrates, meaning that round carries a high lethality not just due to penetration but due to the super-heated uranium plasma that comes with it. Uranium burns, to, so it becomes a flaming plasma, which is not fun for occupants of any vehicle it hits and even if it over penetrates the flaming plasma is left behind inside the vehicle (and on the side it comes out of, too, come to think of it). After that you start to get some titanium alloys and looking at cryogenically hardened materials and some truly exotic concepts.

Old steel core ammo is great where the steel is denser than the material it has to penetrate as it does have rigidity, compared to lead. The lead can be seen as a form of delivery projectile to get the steel core to its destination and so long as the deforming lead cleanly lets the steel core continue on its course, then the small mass of steel has some capacity for penetration. Not so good against steel sided vehicles, but against light weight relatively low density ceramics, it might do pretty well. It isn’t much steel in 7.62x54R, but it does have a lot of velocity and impetus behind it.

How anyone could be against purely defensive armament is beyond me. Go ahead, put on an armored vest, suit up and walk around in it every day. Keep your water bottle handy: you’ll need it.

ajacksonian on August 31, 2014 at 6:06 AM

How anyone could be against purely defensive armament is beyond me. Go ahead, put on an armored vest, suit up and walk around in it every day. Keep your water bottle handy: you’ll need it.

ajacksonian on August 31, 2014 at 6:06 AM

Don’t many LEOs wander around all day in II and IIIa?

Reuben Hick on August 31, 2014 at 8:41 AM

“We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”

Wait, what? There’s special ammunition just for law enforcement? That shouldn’t be. (I know, it’s mostly this tool being ignorant.)

Level IIIa soft body armor is the same, but will also purportedly stop a .44 magnum or an Uzi.

Level II should stop an Uzi, since that’s a 9mm round.

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.

They’re already banned in a few places – like California. (Might be where he got this idea.) If you go look at the various websites where you can purchase body armor, many state that the higher levels cannot be sold in CA. (IIRC, it’s been a while since I went looking.)

GWB on August 31, 2014 at 8:52 AM

Don’t many LEOs wander around all day in II and IIIa?

Reuben Hick on August 31, 2014 at 8:41 AM

Mostly, they are wearing IIa, maybe II, if it’s under their shirt.

GWB on August 31, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Got some of that, too and started in on some research about armor piercing ammo in general.

Of course, the crossbow with broadheads will punch through any soft body armor as if penetrating a yarn sweater. Though a stab plate would likely defend against that.

Back to plate armor and carrying around a lot of weight in non-breathable fabric plate carrier.

Reuben Hick on August 31, 2014 at 9:02 AM

Crossbow, heck a longbow will penetrate plate armor at a much greater distance. Just ask the French at Agincourt. Medieval snipers.

Tinker on August 31, 2014 at 12:08 PM

If you believe the State should have a monopoly of force then it makes perfect sense. It’s all about having the power to compel people to obey.

jnelchef on August 31, 2014 at 5:57 PM

This must be another way for Obama to try and increase spending. As now I see rather then put it off any longer, I have to use my charge card to purchase proper Body Armor while I still can.
As every one knows no gun zones are ignored by those that are looking to kill people, except that it makes their Passion easier. Now they want to make sure that even if you don’t carry a gun that if you are shot it will kill you. Way to go Liberals.
Isn’t that typical liberal thought. Lets stop the criminals that ignore our gun laws by making a law that stops them from using body armor.
No wonder this country is in the mess it is with a liberal in the White House and the Democrats running the Senate — these buffoons in the Senate are all idiots. they have the blood of many school children and Latinos on their hand. Never forget that Obama and Holder ran guns that killed thousand of Central and South Americans and unknown numbers of Americans.

pwb on August 31, 2014 at 6:13 PM