The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
Posted on 08/22/2014 8:54:35 AM PDT by servo1969
Rep. Mike Honda, (D-CA), has submitted a bill to the U.S. House that would prohibit the sale, use or possession of what he terms military-grade body armor.
Honda reasons that this measure would aid law enforcement in taking out an active shooter, since the active shooter wouldn’t be able to obtain body armor.
“There is no reason this type of armor, which is designed for warfare, should be available in our communities except for those who need it, like law enforcement,” Honda said in a statement last week. “There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue.”
Honda’s bill, H.R. 5344, The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, would place a ban on what it terms ‘enhanced body armor.’ This type of armor as referenced in the bill’s language would include any wearable armor including helmets or shields that offer a ballistic protection of Type III or above as determined using National Institute of Justice Standard–0101.06. The only exceptions to the prohibition would be for law enforcement, military and government agencies.
Type III and higher body armor is commonly available both new and used throughout the country. Recently companies such as Bullet Blocker have even made efforts to produce school safety equipment such as bullet proof backpacks, whiteboards and children’s-sized nylon jackets up to NIJ Type III ratings aimed to protect youngsters from active shooters.
Honda advised in a press conference Wednesday that the reason for the bill was a shooting on July 22 in Riverside County, where a man wearing body armor and armed with an assault rifle shot and killed two sheriff’s deputies and wounded another.
However, this statement is not entirely correct as the shooting in question resulted in the deaths of two civilians, not law enforcement officers, and the injury of a deputy by fragments. Reports of the now-dead suspected shooter wearing body armor are likewise anecdotal and not reflected in the released information by the Riverside County Sheriff.
National gun control groups are coming out to support Honda’s initiative.
In a statement by the Violence Policy Center posted Wednesday, the group applauded the lawmaker’s measure, saying, “The gun industry has increasingly featured body armor in firearm company marketing materials, which display men wearing body armor and helmets while carrying military-style assault rifles.”
In the VPC’s statement, the group likewise list Adam Lanza and John Holmes, the mass killers linked to the shootings in Newtown and Aurora respectively as being protected during their sprees by body armor. However, like Honda’s statement, this one is flawed as well.
While in both cases the alleged shooters were described by media as being armored, Lanza was later confirmed to be wearing a ‘fishing vest‘ while Holmes was equipped with a tactical load bearing vest, neither of which offered ballistic protection.
Even if Honda’s bill does not make it into law, it is already against the law for criminals to add body armor to their toolkit. 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.
Honda’s bill is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and has three co-sponsors.
When he really means "The Body Armor Non-Possession Act."
Time to buy some is now.
When a Government becomes concerned that it’s civilians are becoming too hard to kill, the people should take acute notice...
Will the EXEMPT and their Staff be EXEMPT, again “? [/s]”.
“There is no reason this type of armor, which is designed for warfare, should be available in our communities except for those who need it, like law enforcement,”
If the government has it, and doesn’t want us private citizens to have it, then we need it. That’s the basic premise of the 2nd Amendment.
So the real target isn't criminals, it is political opponents. Who could've seen that one coming? < / sarcasm >
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
Because when an agent of the government shoots you,
you just gotta die!
Demorats always want to do some BS thing. Fortunately most of the time they don’t succeed.
Feinslime wants to go door to door and pick up all guns. Well to be accurate she doesn’t want to she wants to send out some stasi to do the dirty work.
The list is endless.
sadly, my full set was in the canoe with all my firearms when it capsized.
The average active shooter incident lasts what, about 10 minutes? It’s usually over, without a shootout before LE even arrives on the scene. Plus like so many other things, a resourceful person could make body armor in their garage.
Yea he wouldn’t be able to get body armor just like people can’t get illegal drugs.
What’s next?
No armored vehicles?
No bullet proof glass?
Houses must be paper thin for convenience of SWAT?
And on and on.
Honestly I don’t think this law would even pass the Rational Basis test if challenged in court.
These clowns need to stop trying to control is by regulating inanimate objects and leave us the hell alone.
Any society is going to have crime and problems, but the government is more likely to make them worse than fixing them.
Is the house back from vacation?
/johnny
I personally have no need for body armor, but the Congressman is a statist, full of crap, and should not be in office. I don’t think the police should be able to own anything that a civilian can’t own, and anything prohibited to civilians should be prohibited to them. Adherence to that principle might bring back some sanity. I’m not a cop hater, but like many I’m concerned about attitudes and tactics of police these days. Cops should be well trained and equipped, but it seems that they need to give more importance to civil liberties. I don’t care at all for the proliferation of SWAT teams who seem to operate in too many circumstances like the Marines attacking a pillbox on Tarawa.
“I want to ban armed bodyguards for all public officials.”
Can you imagine what would happen if Congress cut funds for the Secret Service?
Playing Devil’s Advocate. Wouldn’t that just encourage the further militarization of the Police? If citizens become more and more armed themselves, doesn’t it after awhile start to devolve into a kind a “Arms Race” between Citizens and Police?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.