Bill to Ban (some) Body Armor

[WildCat]

Why do you think that military are not considered government "employees" in the context of this bill? Or in many other aspects as well? Especially given that the USA no longer has an active military draft. Service men and women apply for a position, sign a contract, are assigned specific pay grades, are assigned specific duties, and are paid a salary in return. There might be contexts where they are treated in a distinct manner from other employees, but why do you think that in regard to this particular bill?

Of course, I assume that the bill exempts the police from the body armor restrictions, but not post-office mail carriers (although I can see an argument for allowing them body armor). Do you know anything about this question?

I will simply pass on your question as to why police should have protections denied to civilians. In fact, I can't think of a single reason with which you might agree.

I can't think of any employment law that applies to members of the military. They're basically government property once they sign that line, never heard of them in the context of "employee" before unless they were civilians working for the military.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think pistol proof armor is good for the cop's buck shot, or his pistol. And not many patrol officers carry anything bigger than 5.56 in their cars. Which side if the line does 5.56 fall on?

Nah, this is a law in search of a problem. or do I mean votes?

Most cops wear vests rated to stop .45 rounds at point blank. The guy who developed the kevlar vest used to shoot himself in the chest with a .45.

 

[tyr_13]

Sorry but you will have to walk me through the logic.

Some criminals sometimes are interested in having body armour, which allows them to have much better odds in a shootout with police. It doesn't make them Superman, before anyone tries that straw man, but getting shot while wearing armour is clearly vastly preferable to getting shot while not wearing it.

Correct.

This is body armour which is fit for exactly that purpose. Therefore it is reasonable that some criminals in the future may be interested in this armour for unlawful purposes. Therefore making it harder for them to get it counts as a benefit, albeit not a huge one.

Not quite. This body armor is not preferred by criminals because it's bulky, not easy to hide, expensive, restricts movement, and is way overkill for what they're going to encounter. It helps them survive getting shot, but so do the other armors they like to use which are not covered by this that they actually do use.

It also might not actually make it harder for those who want this level either, because those have all been home brewed (which haven't quite matched Type III protection levels in any of the reports I've seen as in the North Hollywood gunmen), or stolen. The mechanism by which this might be a benefit hasn't actually been shown to effective at providing even this small benefit.

This armour has no everyday civilian application that anyone has yet raised. Its only use is to someone who is about to go into a situation where they are likely to get shot. Thus restricting it from civilian ownership has a cost of zero.

It does not. As I stated earlier, the only time I remember civilians buying these was to give to their soldier family members. That is a cost. Then there are non-tangible possible costs like a chilling effect on researchers and hobbyists, if we're going to count even small costs and benefits.

How do you put these facts together and conclude that they add up to a case against restricting this kind of armour from civilian sale? The implied argument seems to be that you think that criminals are not interested in this specific kind of body armour because they have not been in the past. However it seems implausible to think that criminals have a special love for home-made armour and a strict aversion to buying commercial-quality stuff.

Because the bill only even attempts to address this specific kind, a kind that hasn't even been shown to be a problem or have even been used. That there are other kinds this bill doesn't even try to restrict is a hit against the utility of this bill.

They do have an aversion to buying the commercial type III rated stuff. There are already natural mechanisms limiting the possible problems this kind of armor could pose. I listed some of them above.

My argument is this bill would do no good, or so little good it would be undetectable.

 

[Ranb]

Some criminals sometimes are interested in having body armour, which allows them to have much better odds in a shootout with police.

I think it would be more accurate to say that very slightly more than 0% of criminals have demonstrated an interest in the use of body armor. Do you have data that indicates otherwise?

Therefore making it harder for them to get it counts as a benefit, albeit not a huge one.

I would call it an extremely small benefit.

This armour has no everyday civilian application that anyone has yet raised. Its only use is to someone who is about to go into a situation where they are likely to get shot. Thus restricting it from civilian ownership has a cost of zero.

Or for people who are involved in hazardous activities. Searching for civilians whose lives have been saved by body armor is not easy as most of my Google searches come back with the more famous crimes (like North Hollywood) where criminals used armor but ended up dead or hits about bills to ban civilian possession.

Ranb

 

[BStrong]

...I note that the proposer of the bill is a Democrat from California, which is interesting, because California had a long-standing tradition for the right to bear arms, that is, until the Black Panthers started carrying rifles when patrolling their neighborhoods. There's some powerful imagery there, and it's resulted in a situation where California leads the nation in silly imagery-based gun control...

I edited your post down to this paragraph - just for the record California has no Second Amendment or anything similar in the state Constitution, and long before the Black Panthers showed up in Sacramento, California had a mandated waiting period for handgun purchases (1924), required handgun registration(1924), banned concealed carry w/o a "May Issue" permit (1924)

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Time_Line_of_California_Firearms_Laws

And in general, through both legislation and law enforcement SOP made it as difficult as possible for anyone that wasn't white to legally possess firearms - Asians, Blacks and Hispanics found in possession of firearms (in wholly legal situations w/o any criminal complaint or allegation) often faced confiscation of the firearm in question w/o due process. Somebody that had their rifle, shotgun or handgun confiscated by a LEO was basically SOL, even if he or she had the money to hire an attorney and file suit for the return of the firearm.

This has not changed a hell of a lot, as S.F. and Alameda counties have refused to release legal firearms to the lawful owners even with a California State Attorney General's office Law Enforcement Gun Release (LEGR) order.It only took until 2013 to solve this...or maybe not, as both departments haven't exactly rushed into compliance:

https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2...le-cgf-federal-lawsuit-on-return-of-firearms/

Like a friend of mine said over 30 years ago "if you're a hook (fisherman) or bullet (Hunter) man, California doesn't want you.

Evidence?

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jul/23/local/me-25465

"A California appeals court declared the law irrational and unconstitutional in 1998. That was overturned by the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the Legislature passed a 1999 amendment that condemns guns based on vaguely identified features. Originally, the 1999 law turned Olympic target pistols into "assault weapons" and junior Olympic shooters into felons. Red-faced legislators fixed that in 2001, over the objections of the original bill's author, Sen. Don Perata (D-Alameda), who suggested that the affected Olympic shooters move to Texas."

I thank the FSM that our agency and county (in general) had adult leadership, and I didn't have to work under the political pricks that ran S.F. and Alameda.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Meh. Who needs body armor when we have all these guns for defense?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Correct.

Not quite. This body armor is not preferred by criminals because it's bulky, not easy to hide, expensive, restricts movement, and is way overkill for what they're going to encounter. It helps them survive getting shot, but so do the other armors they like to use which are not covered by this that they actually do use.

I'm not convinced that this is a watertight argument that no criminal will ever use this kind of armour. Incidents with heavily armed and armoured criminals are scarce, but are obviously a serious law and order problem when they do happen.

It does not. As I stated earlier, the only time I remember civilians buying these was to give to their soldier family members. That is a cost. Then there are non-tangible possible costs like a chilling effect on researchers and hobbyists, if we're going to count even small costs and benefits.

I'll agree that they are costs, but allowing civilians to buy military-grade body armour seems like a poor solution to soldiers not being given military-grade body armour.

Because the bill only even attempts to address this specific kind, a kind that hasn't even been shown to be a problem or have even been used. That there are other kinds this bill doesn't even try to restrict is a hit against the utility of this bill.

Isn't that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? The US political reality seems to be that you need to nibble away at problems like this piecemeal, so this is a step in the right direction.

My argument is this bill would do no good, or so little good it would be undetectable.

Alone, probably. As part of a long-term strategy to demilitarise US society it could be part of a larger whole that does detectable good.

 

[Giz]

Isn't that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? The US political reality seems to be that you need to nibble away at problems like this piecemeal, so this is a step in the right direction.

Ah, the 'heroin is a problem, so let's outlaw cannabis' approach.

Maybe we should figure out whether there is a compelling reason to prohibit free citizens from owning 'X' before we ban it?

 

[Giordano]

Ah, the 'heroin is a problem, so let's outlaw cannabis' approach.

Maybe we should figure out whether there is a compelling reason to prohibit free citizens from owning 'X' before we ban it?

As I see it, it is like saying heroin is a problem, so let's ban super strong heroin. It doesn't really solve the initial problem (crooks wearing body armor) but it does try to prevent further escalation. I would prefer a bill that banned them both (because of the events previously documented here), and I could see an argument that it is silly to ban super armor and not regular armor, but your argument is actually the opposite direction from what is actually proposed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Correct.



Not quite. This body armor is not preferred by criminals because it's bulky, not easy to hide, expensive, restricts movement, and is way overkill for what they're going to encounter. It helps them survive getting shot, but so do the other armors they like to use which are not covered by this that they actually do use.

It also might not actually make it harder for those who want this level either, because those have all been home brewed (which haven't quite matched Type III protection levels in any of the reports I've seen as in the North Hollywood gunmen), or stolen. The mechanism by which this might be a benefit hasn't actually been shown to effective at providing even this small benefit.

The Slate article from earlier in the thread finds a fair number of other cases where criminals were using body armor, and a few that seem to indicate that their use of body armor played a roll in the death of police officers. Now it is only a certain kind of criminal who would use this, mainly one expecting to be shot at, but it indicates that body armor is not uncommonly found in gang arsenals and such.

If any of it is the kind of armor being discussed here and has been used in the cases involved and if this would be effective in preventing it as opposed to buying stolen military armor for example I don't know. But part of the problem is that there are no statistics being gathered on this issue.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm not convinced that this is a watertight argument that no criminal will ever use this kind of armour. Incidents with heavily armed and armoured criminals are scarce, but are obviously a serious law and order problem when they do happen.

That's not the argument I'm making. I don't believe it is required to prove that no criminal will ever use this kind of armor to show that banning this type of armor would be the wrong call.

I think this might be an ideological difference. I don't believe things should be restricted or banned unless it can be shown that both there is a plausible problem greater than the benefits, and that the ban or regulation would meaningfully address this. That criminals use this type of armor rarely if ever, and civilians use this type of armor rarely if ever, and this ban wouldn't even remove the rare uses by criminals, means I choose to err on the side of less banning.

I'll agree that they are costs, but allowing civilians to buy military-grade body armour seems like a poor solution to soldiers not being given military-grade body armour.

True, and as far as I know the supply of body armor for troops was sorted out and they've now finally ridiculously late come around to rolling out armor specifically made for female troops. However, there are a lot of things where the poor solution being done is better than the actual alternative of no solution being done.

Isn't that letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? The US political reality seems to be that you need to nibble away at problems like this piecemeal, so this is a step in the right direction.

That presupposes that both that his bill would be good and that banning all body armor would be closer to the perfect. I do not believe that banning lower rated bullet-resistant armor would be 'the good'. That discussion is more complicated. It's much more clear that criminals have used those to enhance their criminal activities, and it has cost law enforcement lives. The 'benefit' is much easier to argue. However, so is the cost, as well as there still being factors that mitigate the benefits (theft and home made still being issues). Civilians have much more use for vests lower rated than type III. The obvious one is against being shot in high crime areas, but it isn't even close to the only one. I'll throw the hobbyist issue out there, but I'm sure that will be dismissed as a very minor cost. Any ban on lower rated vests would be completely ineffective if the basic materials were not also heavily regulated or banned. These materials have many other uses. I have several costume, safety gear, and vehicle/structural designs that in part rely on kevlar fabric and/or kevlar reinforced carbon fiber. In my configurations they wouldn't be bullet resistant, simply light, strong, flexible and super tough. However, making them bullet resistant would be as simple as adding layers at different angles. Jamie Hyneman from Mythbusters made what is basically type II rated armor with household stuff, and it even got the military to ask him to help with their vehicle armor. The number of materials that would have to be regulated for such a ban to be effective would be fairly large.

Another use has been as safety equipment. Some at shooting ranges, especially those teaching new shooters, have vests for the instructors and students. Perhaps in such a ban would make exceptions for at the range. I'm betting I'm forgetting other uses too.

Alone, probably. As part of a long-term strategy to demilitarise US society it could be part of a larger whole that does detectable good.

You see this as incremental steps to gun bans and body armor bans, so even if this does absolutely no good in and of itself, it gets the foot in the door so to speak. I'll leave aside for now that I neither desire that outcome (although I would want what I would call demilitarization which differs from what you would call that I gather) nor believe it will come about. What I will say is that it's counter-productive if social engineering is the goal.

Take here, New York state, for example. In many of the gun control debates the argument is made that having a gun for defense is an invalid use, and one of the reasons it is said to be an invalid use is that there are better less lethal options are available. Except, here in New York, those options are already illegal. Tasers are basically illegal to have at all, and mace isn't supposed to be carried or owned at all expect for defense from wild animals. If you have it and use it in self defense from people, you could be in legal trouble. (It's one of those laws that is very selectively enforced.) There were people who thought, as you seem to be arguing, that starting by banning the stuff they could get banned because there isn't an amendment protecting them or a lobby fighting for them, they could work towards banning guns. What has happened is a huge political split. People upstate find the law onerous and petty, dig in their heels, and end up opposing even more sensible regulation. Then the SAFE Act has a couple of good things, but so many things that are disingenuous grabs a banning as much as they can regardless of if it's productive to the goal of reducing gun violence (no rational analysis of gun violence should conclude that heavy handguns should be banned), that I'm afraid it might get repealed and the good parts not reinstated. There is actually rumblings from state legislators about upstate splitting from NYC (which would be disastrous). Tactics like what you're suggesting give opponents real cause to point and accuse people for regulations as being dishonest. This makes useful regulation more difficult to get implemented, not less.

 

[3point14]

I can't address "this sort of heavy armour" (I don't know the armour specifications in these cases), but yes here are just 2 examples of crooks wearing body armour to protect themselves while committing crimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes

Here is an article that is a summary of multiple events:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._how_many_felons_wear_bulletproof_vests_.html

In a number of these cases, (e.g. those where the crooks did not immediately surrender) the body armour clearly protected the crooks from police gunfire. I don't know the total numbers or what you would consider "many instances."

Thanks.

I don't really know either, I'm just wondering what pormpted the legislation.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Armour is "defensive" in the sense that you can't kill people with it directly. However having more armour than someone else is an excellent way to win a fight in relative safety, which is why people use it. Since law-abiding civilians don't walk around in armour that can take rifle fire that I'm aware of I don't see the social cost in prohibiting it for civilian purposes, unless you're one of the people who is polishing their guns for they day they overthrow the government.

So what happens if a "law-abiding" person gets death threats, like abortion clinic staff?

 

[Giordano]

So what happens if a "law-abiding" person gets death threats, like abortion clinic staff?

I suspect that they will be able to borrow or get approval of this armor legally from the police if they can make a reasonable argument that they might legally need it. Of course, right now and even if the bill passes into law, civilans can also legally buy most current forms of body armor. Don't many armored truck employees wear body armor now?

Just being curious, I read up on body armor a few years ago. I was intrigued that body armor has to match the threat, and that there is/was no one type that worked great for all threats. Some armor that resists bullets quite well is still vulnerable to being penetrated by a knife.

Can I presume that body armor does not fall under the 2nd Amendment, even by current Supreme Court standards?

 

[luchog]

The name itself is pure imagery, exploiting the fact that Americans are too stupid not to tell the difference between the vaguely defined "Assault Weapon" and the properly defined "Assault Rifle," which has been strictly limited since the 1930s and got more restricted during Reagan. An assault rifle has only been used in one murder in the US since the 1930s, and that was by an off-duty cop who had access to them anyway.

One quick correction; this incident involved a fully-automatic weapon. "Assault Rifle/Weapon" does not cover these, as they are covered in different legislation.

"Assault" weapons are standard semi-automatic rifles, modified with pistol grip stocks, flash suppressor, and barrel guards/grips. It is a purely cosmetic designation, not a functional one. The exact same mechanism and functionality with a bog-standard stock and no barrel covering of flash suppressor would be considered completely legal.

 

[Ranb]

I suspect that they will be able to borrow or get approval of this armor legally from the police if they can make a reasonable argument that they might legally need it.

I doubt it. The bill would ban possession by any civilian who was not grandfathered.

Ranb

 

[WildCat]

Can I presume that body armor does not fall under the 2nd Amendment, even by current Supreme Court standards?

It probably falls under the right to self defense, which is a common law right.

Why are you so gung-ho to ban something that isn't even a problem?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I doubt it. The bill would ban possession by any civilian who was not grandfathered.

Ranb

So get some loaner plate. Cops would rather loan armor than handle a murder case.

 

[Giordano]

I doubt it. The bill would ban possession by any civilian who was not grandfathered.

Ranb

Actually, in my read of the bill, the exemptions include body armor "purchased, owned, or possessed" by the government. I am not a lawyer, but the use of "or" instead of "and" suggests to me that any body armor purchased and/or owned by the government could still be loaned to a civilian (i.e. possessed) and fall under the exemption. However, I suspect that might be a point of argument in a court of law if the bill was passed. If this is your major concern, perhaps we need to fully clarify the wording now before passage to head off any possible problems in this regard in the future.

But in any case, civilians will still be allowed to purchase, own, and possess the level of armor that represents the majority currently sold.

 

[BStrong]

One quick correction; this incident involved a fully-automatic weapon. "Assault Rifle/Weapon" does not cover these, as they are covered in different legislation.

"Assault" weapons are standard semi-automatic rifles, modified with pistol grip stocks, flash suppressor, and barrel guards/grips. It is a purely cosmetic designation, not a functional one. The exact same mechanism and functionality with a bog-standard stock and no barrel covering of flash suppressor would be considered completely legal.

Yes, and no.

If you're going to look at current California law. a semi-auto M14/M1A w/o a "flash-hider" or other qualifying features is legal to possess, something that would be similar to this rifle:

While the same exact rifle in this configuration:

Would be illegal if not registered as an "assault weapon by features" under the second round of Ca. AW laws.

Most of the designs listed by name and model in the original California AW law, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Control Act were the then currently available semi-auto only versions of both battle rifle types (M14, G3, FAL, etc.) and assault rifle types (AR platform, AK) and pistol caliber cartridge carbines based on common SMG type designs (Uzi, HK MP 5, Sterling) All of these types started out in the basic configuration that were eventually sold to civilians absent certain mechanical features and barrel length, but outside of adapted variations on the AK platform and the standard rifle configurations of the 14 platform, none of these are adaptable to a standard rifle or carbine configuration.

What is important to note is that at least in the case in California, there are rifles on the ban list that most folks, including firearms collectors and LEO's have never seen outside of a photo, and have never been used in a crime - here's a few:

Spanish CETME from the mid 1960's:

SIG American Match Target:

FN G series FAL:

Australian L1A1:

The rifles above represent a class of firearms that politicians (as you noted) banned because of how they appear in their eyes - the fact that none of the rifles above have ever turned up as a crime weapon (a function of price and rarity, there were only 153 Aussie L1A1's ever imported, somewhere under 2000 G series FAL's perhaps 1500-1800 AMT's and similar numbers on the MARS CETME) and were essentially unavailable in 1989 (only the Aussie L1A1 was a currently available rifle, and in that case 153 examples isn't a mass market commercial product) had -0- influence on the legislators involved, it looks scary, on to the list it went.