Proposed Body Armor Ban

[Dame]

An "interesting" bill introduced this month. @DA SWO, better decide on that armour and buy it. And keep the receipt. I'd like to think this is just so much BS and common sense will kill this, but...

H.R.378 proposed to ban civilian ownership of Type 3 body armor.

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 378 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 378

To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body
armor by civilians, with exceptions.
_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 14, 2015

Mr. Honda (for himself, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, and Mr.
Danny K. Davis of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL


To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body
armor by civilians, with exceptions.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Responsible Body Armor Possession
Act''.

SEC. 2. BAN ON PURCHASE, OWNERSHIP, OR POSSESSION OF ENHANCED BODY
ARMOR BY CIVILIANS; EXCEPTIONS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 932. Ban on purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body
armor by civilians
``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful
for a person to purchase, own, or possess enhanced body armor.
``(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
``(1) a purchase, ownership, or possession by or under the
authority of--
``(A) the United States or any department or agency
of the United States; or
``(B) a State, or a department, agency, or
political subdivision of a State; or
``(2) enhanced body armor that was lawfully possessed by
any person at any time before the date this section takes
effect.''.
(b) Enhanced Body Armor Defined.--Section 921(a) of such title is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(36) The term `enhanced body armor' means 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.''.
(c) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 932 shall be fined under
this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.''.
<all>

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/378/text

 

[AKkeith]

I feel this is along the lines of the second amendment. If body armor had been around when the constitution was written I think it would have been included in the second amendment since this is exactly what a "militia" would need.

 

[Kraut783]

Why the hell does the federal government bother themselves with this kind of thing, states already have this for felons...why restrict it anymore?

 

[LimaOscarSierraTango]

Why the hell does the federal government bother themselves with this kind of thing, states already have this for felons...why restrict it anymore?

Why would the government trust its citizens?

 

[BloodStripe]

Home of the brave, except when we are scared. Which is growing more and more each day.

 

[pardus]

I need one medium sized SAPI plate if anyone has one.

 

[policemedic]

 

[Brill]

It's regulated here in Maryland.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=29.04.07.*

 

[JBS]

More democrat douchebaggery from Illinois.


But if you think this is bad, wait until Hillary gets into office.

 

[Dame]

It's regulated here in Maryland.
http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/SubtitleSearch.aspx?search=29.04.07.*

States regulate sales to some degree. Most forbid felons from owning it but don't require a permit either. Regulating it at the state level works. This is an overreach of federal authority to take over what states have already decided for themselves.

 

[CDG]

This is just like guns, ammo, high-capacity mags, etc. The good guys that want it for protection or zombie apocalypse scenarios get screwed, and criminals will figure out a way to get it anyways. I don't see any reason why law-abiding citizens shouldn't be able to purchase this. As has already been said, regardless of which side you're on, this should be a state issue. The federal government continues to insert itself deeper and deeper into issues it has no business in.

 

[AWP]

Regardless of what you think about the issue, the fact that the Feds are pushing this legislation should trouble every semi-intelligent American.

 

[Brill]

States regulate sales to some degree. Most forbid felons from owning it but don't require a permit either. Regulating it at the state level works. This is an overreach of federal authority to take over what states have already decided for themselves.

Maryland is also a "may issue" state but in reality, a private citizen will need to show extraordinary circumstances in order to get a CCW permit issued. Based on that, Maryland will probably not authorize Joe Sixpack to possess body armor.

Felons don't follow the law so regulations don't affect them.

 

[Gunz]

The sponsor is a California democrat. Imagine that.

 

[Salt USMC]

On behalf of Californians everywhere, I apologize for my state's shitty lawmakers.

 

[AWP]

On behalf of Californians everywhere, I apologize for my state's shitty lawmakers.

If you're going to do that, you'll need a sandwich and a Red Bull because you're in for a long day.

 

[Ranger Psych]

Considering that California legislators have actually had the gall recently to propose revoking the 2nd amendment altogether? That's the kind of stuff that the 2nd amendment was meant for.

 

[Dame]

You know, it occurs to me (after a couple of margaritas) that a good sized metropolitan yellow pages phone book could be made illegal by this.

(@x SF med: Troll man, please add commas as necessary to the above.)

 

[RackMaster]

It's legal to own and wear up to Level III in Canada. Except for Alberta and BC; both have restrictions and licensing requirements. Nova Scotia is in the process of legislating the ownership and use.

 

[fox1371]

From my understanding, this bill was shot down as soon as it was proposed. It gained zero traction.