Legislation Pushing to Outlaw Body Armor

Rep. Honda (D-CA) has proposed H.R. 378 (HR BILL 378), a bill banning the ownership of personal body armor. It reads, “To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions.” The nomenclature ‘Responsible Body Armor Possession Act’ seems more than a little dubious, using the same sort of misleading, seemingly innocuous jargon we’ve seen in legislature relating to the regulation of ‘assault weapons.’

As with all bills, like we’ve been taught by “School House Rock,” it still needs to pass. Is this an audacious act by a “gun-grabbing” politician, or an attempt by a concerned congressman to stop needless deaths?

This taken from Congressman Honda’s website:

“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,” Congressman Honda said. “There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can do. This bill is common sense and long overdue.”

What the bill attempts to do may seem logical, and even in line with common sense, but would it stop what Congressman Honda’s own statement identifies as an “unstoppable shooter?” Those who support the bill say the following:

“By limiting civilian access to body armor that is designed to protect against ‘law enforcement ammunition’ and weapons that are ‘generally only used in tactical situations,’ the legislation would be an important step forward in reducing the availability of military-style gear that enables shooters to attack innocent civilians and confront law enforcement responders with a level of firepower that has no place on America’s streets,” said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center.

Mr. Frank Hamner P.A., a reputable Florida attorney and owner of “Strong Persuader Arms,” a concierge firearms sales and service firm, broke it down:

“The bill is very simple…it attempts to persuade the House to approve a bill to ban the purchase, ownership, or possession of Type III or better (by National Institute of Justice standards, Type III is rifle-rated as opposed to IIIA which is for common higher-caliber pistol rounds like .44 magnum or .357 sig) body armor by anyone in the future. Anyone who properly owned such armor prior to the enactment of the law, if it were ever enacted, would be exempt. Also exempt are any federal or state agencies that find a need for the armor.”

What the supporters fail to grasp is that a determined shooter will find a means—any means—to accomplish evil. This bill only prohibits Type III—anything less is legal. Innovation will be the ally of the reprehensible deed.

Another point to consider from the proposed bill is who is allowed to own the regulated plate armor? Private security/military contractors possess their own kit, which includes armor. Do they/we become outlaws?

We can “what if” this until the second coming. Just take into account that, before stockpiling armor and crashing suppliers’ websites, this is only an ordinary bill that needs to make it a long way before reaching Capitol Hill.

You have the ability to address this issue with your state representatives, either to support or kill this bit of proposed legislation.