Should Body Armor Be Legally Worn by Honest Citizens?

Currently, all 50 US states allow most people to legally wear bullet-proof vests or full body armor. Of course the ususal suspects, California and other states are considering bans for their residents.

If someone feels there is even a fair chance of being shot and carries a firearm, then it would make sense to do what the typical modern police and military forces do and wear at least a bullet-proof vest. Here is an extract of an article covering the current laws:

Federal Law

Under federal law, a bulletproof vest is considered “body armor,” which is regulated by statute, 18 U.S.C.A. Section 931. That law forbids anyone convicted of a violent felony to own or possess a vest, unless the person wearing the vest is an employee who is doing so in order to perform a lawful business activity and who has obtained prior written certification from the employer. A violation incurs a maximum of three years in prison. And using a vest during the commission of a federal crime of violence or a federal drug-trafficking crime will result in an enhanced sentence. (42 U.S.C. Section 3796ll-3(d)(1).)

The federal law has been challenged on several grounds, all of them unsuccessfully:
•No interstate commerce. The Constitution gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, which has been cited as underpinning the body armor statute. Defendants have argued that no interstate commerce was involved in the possession or use of the vest. But it was relatively easy to show that a vest was indeed involved in interstate commerce, with yarn grown in one state, woven in another, sewn in another, shipped to another, and ultimately sold in yet one more. Note that homemade body armor that stayed in one state would not fall within the federal law’s provision.
•Unconstitutionally vague. A law must be clear in order for it to be understood, and if it’s not, it’s a violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process. The federal law has withstood such challenges, but in at least one state, California, the challenge was successful (the state subsequently tightened-up its statute).
•The Second Amendment. Some have argued that regulating body armor violates a person’s right to bear arms. This argument has not succeeded, either.


State Regulation

A majority of the states regulate vests and other body armor, by prohibiting certain people from owning it, to enhancing sentences when armor is used in the commission of a crime (or making the use itself a separate crime).

Sentence enhancement

Several states add a term of years to the sentence for the underlying crime. For example, in California, judges may add one, two, or three years (Ca. Penal Code Section 12022.2). Or, a state may elevate the level of the felony if body armor is involved. In Kentucky, use of body armor makes the defendant ineligible for parole.

Body armor as a crime itself

In a number of states, utilizing body armor during a crime is itself a crime. For example, using body armor with a weapon in any offense (or just a violent felony) is a crime in some states. In a few states, mere possession (which is much broader than wearing the item) during a crime is a criminal act.

Possession by convicted criminals

Like the federal law, many state laws prohibit certain convicted persons from possessing body armor. But some states don’t restrict the ban to those convicted only of violent felonies; and may even extend the ban to violent misdemeanors. Other states list the crimes that determine whether an individual may possess the armor.

Like the federal law, some states allow possession for specified reasons, such as for work.

Restrictions applied to everyone

A few states prohibit the use or possession in specified situations or circumstances, without regard to the criminal background of the wearer. One state prohibits wearing armor on school property or school-sponsored functions (Louisiana), while in Connecticut, sale of body armor must be done in person—Internet and phone purchases are illegal.
​

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...e/when-its-illegal-to-own-a-bullet-proof-vest

So, what do ya'll think? Do any regular CC holders here use a vest outside of police and military carry?

Anyone think that such vests and/or bull body armor should be outlawed for law abiding citizens?

 

Why the hell would any state consider making body armor illegal for their citizenry? Wait... lemme guess... it all has to do with this delusion that if it's made to be illegal for everyone, the bad guys won't be able to use it either. Yeah right....

I own this vest and plates. I never wear it in public, but I would if I still was making large night deposits. Better to have and not need, than to need and not have, I always say.

 

The stated rationale is that they do not want police to have any trouble taking down armed robbers.
What that actually means is they want to keep everyone vulnerable so no one has the capability of resisting police. Really not so different from gun control, when we analyze it in this light.

Years ago I talked to someone who grew up in a bad neighborhood, and had been involved in some things he shouldn't have been. He told me he used to wear a protective vest everyday to school under a large hoodie because he feared for his life. Someone else who worked as a teacher told me that at the school where he worked (another bad neighborhood) there were seven shooting incidents within a 5 year span, including 2 drive-by shootings. Some students were severely wounded, and once they found a dead body in the parking lot. He said none of this ever made it into the news.

 

I wonder what percentage of "armed robbers" actually get confronted by police. I'd bet it was in the single digits, at best, and probably a fraction of a percent. Most often, police arrive just in time to put up the yellow tape, take witness statements, and draw chalk outlines.

No slam against the police, just most armed assaults are over in less than 90 seconds, and 911 isn't called until after the robber is gone. Even if the cops were called as soon as the assault happened, 911 response times are often 10 minutes or more, depending on a number of factors.

 

I have the same plates for front and the sides in a Condor rig. Walking around with the stuff in the summer heat is unpleasant at best. So I would only wear the kit in desperate times.

 

I have a level IIIa vest I would use for house clearing if I have to do that in my own home.

any scum bag in office who wants to ban honest citizens owning this stuff should be banned from using it or having his guards wear it

 

I believe it is a personal choice...You should have that option if you so desire...The thought of wearing body armor in a Texas summer is not something I'm willing to do personally. However if I was an ATM technician, Brinks armored car worker, or other that works with large sums of cash, then yeah I would wear body armor...I will probably purchase some before I retire to Alaska to have up there if needed.

 

Body armor is defensive by nature, not offensive. Might as well criminalize condoms too.

 

If gun violence is truly as pervasive as the gun control proponents claim:
1. Denying people the right to carry a handgun to defend their lives is wrong.
2. Denying people the right to possess materials that prevent gun shot wounds is wrong.

But the cognitive dissonance is too great. The gun prohibitionists wish to deny you every means to defend your life against violence, yet, while at the same time, being completely incapable of describing a gun control method that actually prevents the criminal acquisition of firearms.

 

For the gun control elites, firearms and vests are for the military and police (maybe) only. Oh, and for those security personal that protect themselves and their loved ones.

All others are unworthy.

 

I'd love to see civilians walking around in that stuff, because it would further illustrate just how utterly ridiculous our situation is right now.

 

Hey don't laugh about that, states have done that before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

 

I don't see the point of outlawing body vests. I am a supporter of carry and conceal freedom but I will say, if someone is that fearful of their life, then let them spend the money how they see fit if they want to protect themselves from either self-perpetuated fears or legitimate fears.

 

Risk is relative. I wouldn't say a person living in the middle of tornado alley in a place like Moore Oklahoma or Joplin Missouri would have an illegitimate fear of tornados if they built a tornado shelter. Perhaps you would see this as paranoia and a foolish waste of money.

Same concept with guns and body armor. What is the risk? Can someone living in or near a gangsta ****hole like Stockton, Baltimore or Detroit---where each person living there can have up to a one in ten chance of being a victim of a violent crime each year not have a rational fear of being attacked?

Even though I have a CC permit and live in a relatively safe place----I rarely carry a gun on me. If there is a natural or man made disaster like Katrina, or the Watts riots---both events which affected my life----then I can at least have what I need on hand.

Really, if dangerous armed attackers are coming to kill you and your family, and you are going to be exchanging fire, is a gun going to be enough?

 

I'm all for enhanced sentences for using body armor in the commission of a crime. Other than that, no regulations are needed.

 

I remember a study from a while back on the effectiveness of body armor for police. What they found was not only that it saved a bunch of lives, but that about half of the lives saved by the armor was attributed to accidents (or at least non-firearm sources). Falls, traffic accidents, impacting something sharp, anything that would produce some flying or falling debris, those sorts of things. Granted police are going to be much more likely to be in a high speed chase and then run around in a condemned building and so they are more likely to experience those sorts of accidents.

But the point is that there's a general safety advantage to vests as well.

Also I'm doubtful that there should be a serious concern about the common criminal getting them. If you've come to the point that you're knocking over a 7-11 I doubt you'd have invested a grand in some quality body armor. I guess some high profit drug cartels might get their hands on some, but police shouldn't be trying to raid them with a bunch of snub nosed .38s anyway.

 

As an old Army guy from eons ago, the only "body armor" I wore back then once was during a training exercise, was a flak jacket.. The thing stunk---because it had a dead mouse in a pocket.

The plate carrier rig I have now is big and heavy, and I'm not going to walk around with in on in our conservative subdivison and walking trails. Anyone not trained and conditioned to wear at least 20 pounds of crusing weight will only end up hurting themselves. Once a week I'll wear the backpack with water & stuff I keep in my trunk to keep up a basic level of fitness if the time ever comes when I'd need the vest.

 

I try to keep something called "OPSEC"--- but if I were more flamboyant, I'd post pictures of myself with guns & gear like a couple of guys in this thread.

My stuff looks more cool than I do. I might come off as a tacti-cool mall ninja if I were ever to put on all my multicam gear and post pictures.

 

I've considered getting a bullet proof backpack for myself or my kids, but schools are banning non-see thru backpacks for security reasons. At least I'd be covered while I am running for cover. They also make vests that can be worn under a shirt or jacket. They won't stop a rifle round, but they will help against pistols.

 

Depending on the size of your kids and the risk of them being attacked, it might be more cost effective to buy old police vests as small as possible.

I don't have a plate in the back of my plate carrrier---only on the front and sides. I only plan to fight back head-on if attacked or cornered---and then hopefully under the protection of proper cover.

 

My 13 year old is 5'8" and 150lbs, but I don't think he would want to wear body armor. The backpack would be practical and he wouldn't look like a dork in school with a hot, heavy vest. I'm not a cop, so I wouldn't wear it either unless SHTF or someone was about to break into my house and I had time to put it on. I live in a very crime free area. I would consider buying my 22 year old a vest to wear when he goes to the Middle East in November. His job keeps him on the base, but it's during the winter and he would be at much greater risk than my family at home and much more likely to wear the armor if it's available.

 

If he's not around Muslim's he should be OK.

 

You can get level 3A stab resistant concealable vests that weigh about 5 lbs and are washable. With a loose shirt, they are not noticeable. They are 3A, but don't have the thickness and mass of a big outerwear vest and so a bullet impact is going to cause some injury but most have optional blunt trauma pads to cover the chest and back to soften the blow. Some will accommodate plates. Obviously it can be worn on the outside and not concealed.