1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    On Jul 31st 2014, US Congressman Mike Honda introduced a bill, labeled the "Responsible Body Armor Possession Act":

    http://honda.house.gov/news/press-r...ion-act-keeps-military-armor-out-of-the-wrong

    There is a petition to stop this, which makes it seem like HR5344 is banning all body armor.
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...w-abiding-citizens-owning-body-armor/GNrBKFrF
    However this is slightly misleading, as the text of the bill bans 'enhanced body armor'
    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/honda_responsiblebodyarmorpossessionact-1-pdf.8380/
    NIJ 0101.06 Defines type II (not banned) a protecting against anything up to a 9mm FMJ (Full metal jacket) or .357 Magnum JSP

    Or as describe by a body armor vendor:
    http://www.bulletproofme.com/Quick_Answers.shtml
    Level III-A (commonly refered to as 3A) is what is being proposed as being banned.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  2. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    So the conspiracy theory is that this is banning all body armour?

    , obviously incorrect - debunked
     
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, but then there's also a broader conspiracy theory that this is part of some government plot to take over, herd people into FEMA camps, etc.

    The intent of the OP was just to give perspective, since you can't really debunk things like the FEMA camp idea, I'm just trying to show what the bill is really about.

    Of course many people still find the idea of banning 3A body armor to be objectionable and suspicious.
     
  4. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Its reminiscent of the "gov't buying billions of rounds of ammo" bit from a while ago.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Similar, however in this case the government actually are proposing to restricting ownership of something that is currently legal. The "billions of rounds" was just a misunderstanding of the ordering process and how many rounds are used. But both raise similar suspicions.
     
  6. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    But what is the civilian use of body-armour? Is it part of hunting safety? Something people wear when they're out shopping just in case?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I know that next time I visit WalMart, I'd feel better if I knew I could wear some armor. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    "Preppers" buy it in case of a collapse in civilization.
    http://graywolfsurvival.com/2193/preppers-and-body-armor-safeguard-stealth-review/

    And for what seem like a list for the overly cautious, including "working at a school" or "taking money to the bank".
    http://www.theprepperjournal.com/2014/02/22/10-reasons-civilian-consider-buying-body-armor/
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Didn't people used to buy body armour and send it to soldiers in Iraq etc to make up for the poor quality they were being issued with? or was that just another anti-government story?
     
  10. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Owning body armor isn't a constitutional right.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Related story to help answer that question:

    Full article:
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm

    As a PERSONAL note.....this is a sad commentary on the United States military, and Congressional "over-sight" that allowed such a situation to develop.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    It might not be legal but a soldier could always give his family the information needed to purchase the armor. They could give it to anyone for that matter.
     
  13. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    OK....I think the gist and point of this thread OP is about limiting the availability for "non-combat" U.S. citizens (i.e., civilians) obtaining body armor "apparel".

    I would assume this, based on the concern about civilian citizens (NOT military) who, once so equipped, being a threat to legitimate LEOs and other enforcement agencies.
     
  14. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    I know what it's about, thank you though.

    Just pointing out that if the bill passed there could still be ways for a soldier (who is legally allowed to own it) to be able to purchase it even if they don't have the means to while in a combat zone.
     
  15. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    But by gum they gotta keep buying A1M1 tanks even when the Army says they don't need more of them.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    The video a few years ago, of the guys who robbed a bank in full armour and carrying pretty high power rifles demonstrates just how much of a threat this can pose to LEOs
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    Well this is the problem. Law enforcement wants civilian body armour banned to prevent just this kind of thing which HAS happened in the past and could get a lot worse as far as deaths of officers AND civilians is concerned.

    This will however fuel paranoia that if "they" want to herd everyone off to FEMA concentration camps etc, they will be helpless if Obama takes away their guns and body armour.. etc etc.
     
  19. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Is the ammunition that can penetrate enhanced body armour illegal for civilian use?
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2014
  20. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    One would certainly hope so
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Not entirely:
    http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-ammunition-regulation/
     
  22. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

  23. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    What does the hard core extremist gun lobby want? Neighbourhood militias with mortars, tanks, and full combat capability?

    Iraq almost had that in the years of the failed American occupation. Worked out so well for them.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  24. KAT

    KAT Active Member

  25. Surely this line:

    Stop H.R. 5344 from stripping citizens of our freedom and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

    would only apply in a combat situation where one would have the time to strap on the armour in anticipation of a perceived threat. With that being the case, presumably, there would be very little opposition to the bill as that kind of scenario is highly improbable in America is it not? So is this conspiracy mainly being raised by the types who anticipate a stand up fight with authorities and/or a lawless citizenry?
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You'd think. Body armor enthusiasts describe several use cases:
    http://www.theprepperjournal.com/2014/02/22/10-reasons-civilian-consider-buying-body-armor/
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  27. It's a scary, scary world that some people live in.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  28. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    If I were to use these points as guidance I'd be wearing body armour all the time. I'd be sleeping in the thing, burglars don't really work sociable hours.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  29. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Maybe they should stop people having guns???
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  30. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I'm sure tank enthusiasts could recite several use cases where possession of a QF 75mm+ gun behind 50+mm of armour would be justified....and that list from Mick looks pretty reasonable to me :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  31. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Mick's post number one in this thread states
    "Level III-A is a little thicker, stiffer, heavier and more expensive, but will stop more of the uncommon pistol threats, for example, it is tested for 9mm sub-machine-gun and .44 Magnum. Plus it gives you more blunt trauma impact protection – possibly better to return fire in a gunfight."

    I can tell when a LEO is wearing a vest and theirs are the thinner Level II. It makes them look quite barrel chested.

    Of course the bill only applies to the heaviest protection vest available, Level III. In the cases described in the list , the vast number of times those scenarios would occur will not require this level of vest. This line really gets me
    "Someone may attempt to rob you while you are going to and from your car. It can be a great way to protect yourself and not have to worry about anyone knowing that you are wearing the body armor at all" Since wearing the vests that this bill refers to WOULD be pretty visible to anyone looking at you (John, have you gained 25 pounds or are you wearing two extra sweaters?").Someone robbing you as you go to your car is right next to you. A level three vest may stop a bullet and save your life but its going to hurt. If the perp then notices you are still good to go he's as likely to recognize you are in a vest, at which point he may well assume you also have a weapon (its a pretty small leap of logic to make), and shoot you in the head.

    The courthouse bailiffs may have access to such armour. Is the stenographer going to wear it? The Judge sits behind a podium that could better be armoured rather than the judge him/herself.

    Threats from an ex or intruders in your home- what, you're wearing the vest 24/7? Really? Home invaders don't usually give you time to run to the closet and choose a wardrobe adjustment.

    Money to a bank - since these type of vests are going to be fairly obvious, the perp just shoots you in the head from close range. He has to get close anyway to take what you have. Wearing a less obvious vest might do you better. You can get a level I sport coat or business suit.

    Post Office/disgruntled employee - keep in mind that your co-workers will know you are wearing a vest of this type so if they go off the deep end they just shoot for the head. If you aren't wearing head to toe protection they target your upper leg, THEN shoot you in the head as you lay there in shock.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  32. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Well....then the answer seems to be: "Aim for the head".

    Slightly facetious, I know. The torso is the larger target...with many vital organs of course. Still, a person's legs and especially the thighs can be tempting targets, and sometimes fairly extensive in width........Bonus: Non-fatal (unless a major artery...the femoral... is hit), but certainly will bring a person down.

    It occurred to me that the torso is 'only' a large target when it is viewed directly front- or back-on. A person presenting a side-view? Very different. I don't shoot, so this is a layman's bit of thinking, here. Too much Hollywood, I imagine.....
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2014
  33. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Head??? you guys ever hear of helmets? legs can bed protected, to some extent, with a kevlar suit, which can look quite like a normal one (though make you stick out a bit in areas where everyone else is in jeans).
     
  34. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yes....but a Kevlar helmet as part of an "enhanced body armor" ensemble isn't exactly 'covert'...I think some of the discussion pointed out that certain types and designs of torso protection can be concealed under appropriate clothing.
     
  35. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    They ain't perfect.
     
  36. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    • Informative Informative x 1
  37. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Hmmm....suddenly I am reminded of this OLD trope:

    Reminded from this article.

    When it comes to any attempts to enforce restrictions, people (whether legally or illegally) tend to find a "way" around any such limits.

    Sadly.
     
  38. Hevach

    Hevach Senior Member

    Most of those cases mentioned above it seems to me the unaffected armors would be sufficient, some of them even preferable.

    Honestly, the best argument for level III armor I can think of is one nobody seems willing to make: Hunting accidents frequently involve shotguns, sometimes at very close range, and while I can't find much information on what kinds of body armors are effective with shotguns, I would imagine concealability isn't a concern but maximum protection is. I know it's a long way from the narrative gun rights groups want, but that kind of drunken stupidity does happen. A lot. Consider a particular vice president who showed an epic disregard for the 10 o'clock rule and muzzle sweep discipline, and imagine if the same mistake had been made hunting deer instead of birds.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    • Funny Funny x 2
  40. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    From post 26 arguing against the bill
    "Someone may attempt to rob you while you are going to and from your car. It can be a great way to protect yourself and not have to worry about anyone knowing that you are wearing the body armor at all."
    Yeah a helmet would offer added protection. Part of the supposed appeal though is that you aren't obviously wearing protection. I don't envision helmets becoming common fashion anytime soon so its going to be a bit obvious.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2014