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.
“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?”
There’s already an arms race, and we are losing. Pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.
Honda continues to try to disarm the people he holds responsible for defeating his countrymen - Japan - in WWII.
Born in a Relocation camp, he still harbors nothing but hate and resentment for America.
So he wants us vulnerable to attack.
Soon he’ll be banning leathernecks so that John the Headchopper won’t have any worries when he comes for us.
Body armor is part of “arms” protected by the second amendment.
I may like the way body armor looks. . . I may want to wear mine to church on Sunday. The government needs to back off big time!!!!
armor is just another form of ‘arm’ which we have a right to bear
When a Government becomes concerned that it’s civilians are becoming too hard to kill, the people should take acute notice...
Because cops aren't civilians any more?
Ah, the VPC performs its usual sleight of hand with the truth. As the author points out, neither of the murderers cited was wearing the stuff they’re trying to regulate. The VPC is simply lying about the thing in order to pursue a political agenda. Again.
“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.”
I can not in any way argue with your logic. I can only point out that you are not the first one to say figure this out.
“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry” -Thomas Jefferson
Absolutely!
Of course his armor wasn't exactly stylish or unobtrusive but it you're out to do some killin' armor is armor.
The fact is that mass shooters tend to fold immediately, or even commit suicide at the first whiff of armed resistance. I won’t spend my time typing out all the obvious examples, just look it up. Consequently they don’t have a reason to wear body armor (I can’t think of any that have worn it) and even if they did it wouldn’t matter since they never engage in a stand up fight with an armed person.
Yep. I look at it this way: if the time ever comes when I need it, some nice federal thug will be delivering it to me on his back.
But not for HIM, right?
Interesting that when politicians name bills, the names are always the exact opposite of what the bills actually do.
The body armor manufacturers association of America thanks you Mr. Honda!
‘zackly.
Yes, just hose it off and let air-dry. Good as new.
Roger that.
That ‘bout sums it up.
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.