My body armor, my choice: California Congressman introduces a bill to ban body armor for civilians

A California congressman wants to keep you from protecting your self and your family. Based on exaggerations and falsehoods, The stated purpose of “The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,”  H.R. 5344, is to ban “the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians.” Convicted felons are already prohibited from possessing body armor, so this law would only affect the law abiding.

I will translate his justification, the Congressman wants to make sure that you are a soft target in case your government ever needs to shoot you. Government agencies are exempt from the law as are members of Congress. Their lives are more valuable than mine or yours.

The problem of CRIMINALS with body armor was already addressed back in 2002 with 18 U.S. Code § 931 – Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons. Unlike many Federal gun laws which go unenforced, this law has been charged and prosecuted in U.S. federal courts. It is a federal law, so all across the fruited plain, criminals are forbidden the mere possession of any type body armor.

You have probably never heard of 18 U.S. Code § 931 unless you are a felon. This is a actual common sense law, the kind we hear about so often from people trying to ban firearms. There was no talk about it or protest from the NRA or the gun community. Collectively, we support the suspension of civil rights AFTER a felony conviction.

Using the tried and true propaganda technique of assigning evil to a class inanimate objects, there is good body armor which the Congressman will graciously allow you to keep and dangerous “enhanced body armor” which is apparently a weapon of war only suited to battlefields. The bill restricts “body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard–0101.06.”

So, concealable armor, useful to criminals is A-OK, but “military” armor worn in a plate carrier is dangerous and must be kept away from civilians because they are weapons of war? Companies like Premier Body Armor go to considerable expense to certify some of their plates to NIJ standards. There is a lot of steel armor which is not rated at all.  If the armor plate is not rated by the very technical standards of National Institute of Justice Standard–0101.06, should it be available to civilians?

This same trick has been used to convince people that an AR or AK “assault rifle” with certain ugly features is a weapon of war with no civilian use while other less menacing rifles are safe. Meanwhile drug dealers with handguns cause most of the gun deaths in America. The propaganda theme has become more important than the facts. A bit of good news for drug dealers, body armor which stops most handgun rounds will still be available if this bill becomes law.

According to a San Francisco news story: “The congressman cited 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.” The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department press release provides a very different account and makes no mention of a shooter wearing armor at all.