CA Lawmaker Proposes Banning Body Armor for All “Civilians”

Apparently it isn’t enough that the Democrats continue to find new ways to prevent citizens from defending themselves with firearms. Now they also seem dead-set on making Americans even more vulnerable in an effort to stop the occasional well-equipped criminal. The latest brain storm by California Democrat Mike Honda would ban “civilians” in the United States from purchasing body armor. The reason behind the move is ostensibly to discourage mass shooters from using body armor in their attacks, but we’ve seen how well that theory works. Just look at the success of “assault weapons,” so-called high capacity magazines capacity restrictions, waiting periods and firearms licensing and…the list goes on. The language being used to defend this proposal is eerily similar . . .

From the local NBC affiliate:

Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, has announced legislation that would block civilians from accessing military-grade body armor to prevent criminals from using them in gun battles with law enforcement.

[…]

“This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands,” Honda said. “It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be able to access enhanced body armor.”

“We’re not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest,” he said. “We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”

[…]

Honda said shootings by armored assailants are becoming a trend in recent years and said that according to experts, “access to military-grade body armor emboldens criminals and mass shooters to act.”

“There’s nothing more dangerous than an unstoppable, well-armored shooter,” he said. “The law enforcement community sees an increase in use of body armor in violent, gun-related crimes.”

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.

“We should be asking ourselves, why is this armor available to just anyone, if it was designed to be used only by our soldiers to take to war?” Honda said.

[…]

The proposed law would prohibit the sale, transfer or possession of military-level body armor by civilians.

Notice that this is being called the “Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” and yet it bans the sale, possession, transfer and usage of body armor for anyone except law enforcement and military. Apparently the California Dem’s idea of “responsible” ownership is to banned for the average citizen — something to keep in mind when Gabby Giffords blathers on about “responsible solutions” for firearms ownership.

This is the exact same logic that was used to justify the latest push to ban “assault weapons.” You remember, “weapons of war do not belong on our streets.” Or, “no one needs a military firearm to hunt.” The association of these firearms with the battle field makes them evil-er in the eyes of Democrats and their supporters, an cohort proud of their Vietnam-era baby killing accusations and anti-military rallies. But while calling something “military style” might evoke an emotional response form aging baby-boomer hippies, the fact of the matter is that body armor is one item specifically designed to save lives.

“Why is this armor available to just anyone?” the Representative asks. The reason is simple: because people value their lives. It’s also one of the few options available in places where owning a firearm or obtaining a concealed carry permit has been made nearly impossible. Places like, well, Californa, Congressman. Democrats like Honda are responsible for forcing citizens into a position where wearing body armor is a logical thing to do to protect themselves, and now he wants to take even that shred of personal defense away.

Mike Honda apparently wants everyone to be a victim.

comments

  1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

    “…by civilians.”

    Entire mentality explained in two words… Btw I’ve met this guy, he’s a f*cking douche

    1. avatar Linda Sinclair says:

      That CA democratic congressmen should be in a mental facility. He wants us all dead!! He is demented for sure!! Get rid of him now.

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        You jumped to a few conclusions I hadn’t quite reached. But if you’re still in CA and in his district, talk to your friends and neighbors and do something about it.

        The idea of voting a statist out of district 17 makes me laugh out loud to myself, however.

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      I would like to turn around the whole concept of Civilians first! Any new restrictions should apply first and always for the first decade to the politicians and their bodyguards, if still in place after the first five years then it should apply to all law enforcement. then only after a full ten years should it apply to civilians. If they want something, they should actually lead, none of this Bloomberg “I am better than you peasants crap.” While we are at i, I think we need a law from Congress that says all law enforcement within each state must abide with the same level of restrictions that the citizens of that state must! Lets see how long that 7 round magazine B. S. lasts when the NYPD has to live with it!

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        You’ve heard the “fart in the wind” analogy, right?

      2. avatar Michael C says:

        And just imagine how quickly the bans on open carry, the virtual no-issue CCWs, and the entire NFA will disappear. If the cops want their toys, we should be able to get them too.

    3. avatar Barstow Cowboy says:

      CALIFORNIANS, PLEASE DON’T MOVE TO OUR STATES! Don’t track the mess you made into Arizona by moving here. Instead, clean up your mess and take your state back. That is all.

      1. avatar CA.Ben says:

        How about you take that stick outta your ass?

        I’m 20 years old, born in California, and moving to Texas in two years, once I graduate. And I guarantee it will be a redder state through my presence there.

  2. avatar T.G. says:

    Grrrrr….at a certain point….I just have no more words……And someone please tell me when “civilian” started excluding law enforcement? So much…..waste…..

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      He can’t refer to us a “peasants” or “serfs”…yet, so “civilians” will have to do, to distinguish us from the ruling class and the enforcer class.

      1. avatar whatever says:

        Only the “elites” are deserving of personal protection. Everyone else is prey to feast upon when the mood strikes.

    2. avatar danthemann5 says:

      Right around the time of the first police MRAP delivery.

    3. avatar Zach says:

      If police aren’t civilians, then should they be allowed to use hollow points?

      1. avatar Nicks87 says:

        That doesnt make any sense. Fire-fighters arent civilians either. Maybe we should take away their hoses because “civilians” have no need for heavy duty fire fighting equipment.

        See how silly you people sound?

        1. avatar MikeP says:

          Actually, they are civilians too. Non-civilians are in military service, not civil service (hint; “civil”). Generally the rule is this: if you can walk off your job and not get arrested by MPs for AWOL, you’re a civilian.

        2. avatar Nicks87 says:

          Look up the definition of civilian before you spout off your opinions.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Civilian means “non-military”.

          Police are only non-civilian in police states. In free states, police are civil servants.

        4. avatar MikeP says:

          By “look up the definition” I presume you’re referring to “common usage” dictionaries, such as “FreeOnlineDictionary” or “Miriam-Webster” or somesuch. That would be incorrect in a legal context. Common usage dictionaries frequently change the definitions of words to fit contemporary usage, often mass misuse, of words whereby the misuse becomes “common use”. Example: “abbreviation” vs “acronym”, where widespread misuse of “acronym” to describe an abbreviation has resulted in many dictionaries essentially making the two interchangeable. Legal definitions, however, are not subject to the democratic process of mass misuse – they must remain stable to be applicable to law over time. This is why only the legal definition matters when discussing matters of law. The common use of “civilian” is following a trend line that will eventually mean “those not employed by government” . However, the legal definition (the one that matters) is simple and stable: one who practices or is subject to civil law. This is in contrast to someone who is not a civilian by virtue of being under military jurisdiction. Hence my AWOL example (throw in court martial vs criminal trial for good measure, too). All who are not enlisted in the military, national guard, or in service to a state-sanctioned militia are, legally, civilians.

  3. avatar Lemming says:

    Does this ban the “bullet proof” backpacks, white boards, blankets, etc folks have been flogging over the last couple of years?

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      there you go – HONDA IS AGAINST THE CHILDREN!!!! Oh this will go over well. Now will Shannon rally for him or for her paycheck? Sage advice I learned long ago: always be on the whore.

      1. avatar Scott says:

        Is that a Freudian slip, or did you mean “…bet on the whore”.

        1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          yes

        2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

          damn apple product . . . should be bet on the whore, but since we are talking about Shannon, well, don’t say I didn’t try

  4. avatar IdahoPete says:

    And do keep in mind that California elected officials are NOT “civilians”. They are the RULERS, you stinkin’ peasants!!!

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Some animals are more equal than others.

  5. avatar Scrubula says:

    Have the police EVER been hindered by a mass murderer wearing body armor?
    I don’t want it banned either just on principle, but they are inventing new problems to ‘fix’!

    1. avatar T M says:

      Technically, yes. There’s been several cases where shooters running armor have lengthened their survivability against law enforcement. Didn’t save any of them in the end, though.

      Most ‘armor’, however, is homemade in these shooting, however. Only recently have we seen high quality AR500/polymer plates hitting the market.

      Are they planning on banning all AR500 steel squares, or just those ‘marketed’ as body armor? How many bans are simply subverted by retailers putting a different term in the marketing title (Oh, this grinder and glass pipe is for use with tobacco only… sure it is… What does Virginia Creeper leaves doing on the label?) or a ‘for X use only’ on the product?

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        lol Virginia Creeper. I’d crack up if I saw something like that in person…

        That said, could the average person tell the difference between a photo of a Virginia Creeper leaf and a pot leaf? I’m guessing no. Slick advertising.

        1. avatar T M says:

          Go into almost any tobacco store / gas station with a tobacco section. Most are nothing but covert head shops, complete with a tie-dyed picture of Bob Marley over the glass pipes and rolling paper. There’s a company that sells flavored ‘tobacco’ rolling paper with names like ‘Purple Haze’ (I guess it’s grape). All in plain view and nothing is ever really done about it.

        2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @T M

          Nothing SHOULD be done about it, the market is filling a void left by draconian and questionable (at the very best) laws. They’re working around flaws in various legal roadblocks to liberty.

          My comment was about the irony of using one five-pointed leaf in a photograph over another and whether or not the average person could tell the difference. Not interested in the villainy of businesses selling products to be used/not used with marijuana. How a product is USED is up to the consumer, not the vendor.

        3. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          And in the ultimate case of irony, I referenced marijuana as having a five-pointed leaf…

          Life’s too short not to have a laugh at your own expense on occasion.

      2. avatar Tom Collins says:

        Oh, and these “solvent trap” adapters are just for catching the excess Hoppes #9 from creating a mess on the kitchen floor…

    2. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Rarely, but yes it does happen (video below) and the events are usually high profile. However that doesn’t change the fact that the very idea of this is f*cking absurd.

      http://youtu.be/wZg4mcYkIwU

    3. avatar Scrubula says:

      I stand corrected.
      Makeshift armor is still easy to make though.

      1. avatar Chadwick P says:

        Yes sir just make friends with someone in contact with a cnc plasma table or similar cutting apparatus. Oh wait! Looks like I’m covered. Do I see a “body armor build party” coming to the shop?

    4. avatar DonS says:

      They don’t count as “mass murderers” (since they were the only ones who died), but Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu (the two perps in 1997’s North Hollywood Shootout) come to mind. They were both wearing Type IIIA vests, and Mătăsăreanu had a metal “trauma plate”. LAPD service pistols and shotguns didn’t stop them.

      1. avatar Rainman says:

        You’ll note that IIIA is not military grade. Anyways, any logic to these proposals is irrelevent. All they’re doing is making emotional appeals to a subset of voters who don’t use logic in their thinking. As long as that keeps working they will continue to do it. We get what we deserve by who we vote in.

        The Bottom line – the agenda is to weaken the power of the individual as compared to the power of the state as this makes other agendas for the state much easier.

      2. avatar Tim says:

        “LAPD service pistols and shotguns didn’t stop them.” And this was the impetus to replace the shotgun in police cruisers with AR’s. So, now the “only ones” have AR’s AND body armor and the peasants of CA are in danger of losing their access to both. SMH

    5. avatar S.CROCK says:

      There are several incidents where police have been hindered by body armor. The 44 minute shootout in North Hollywood comes to my mind as probably the most epic of incidents. That said, let me be clear I still oppose this bill 100%.

    6. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Scrubula, why not ban its use by mass killers!? Couldn’t we all get behind that?

      1. avatar Jason says:

        Please tell me this question was a joke.

        1. avatar AZGarandGuy says:

          Please tell me this statement was a joke.

      2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        I totally agree. Body armour should be illegal for all criminals committing or contemplating a crime. This will work as well as gun free zones, safe passage zones, and the plethora of gun laws in general.

  6. avatar Joe Grine says:

    There may be constitutional problems with such a law. Hell, the Supreme Court has said that the government can’t make the use of dildos and vibrators in one’s home illegal, citing a “right to privacy.”

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        Concealed means concealed.

  7. avatar Jim R says:

    That’s it. There’s the mindset that’s destroying this country. Law enforcement and lawmakers are convinced this nation is divided into two classes–the rulers and the subjects. They view themselves in a different category, one where the laws don’t apply to them. It’s why nobody trusts them and it’s why they have grown more and more corrupt and untrustworthy.

  8. avatar dave says:

    Louisiana actually has a state law prohibiting posessing/wearing body armor in a school zone (typical LE carve out). it is already illeagal to wear/use during the commission of a crime, just not within my mental capabilites to understand why the average person would be prohibited if he/she so chooses to wear such for whatever reason…but walk within the 1000′ buffer of a school and you could be popped.

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Body armor to sell out at gun shows in 3, 2, 1…..

    1. avatar Phil says:

      Yep! Sometimes I just think they do this kind of public announcement just to boost the American economy…

      But in the other hand, I know how it is in Europe and I know most of this stuff is now banned over there. For instance, in France, you can’t own a body armored vehicle, you can’t have night vision scope, you can’t have protection device against biohazard, etc… I’m not making this up, it’s in their new law fro 2013.

      So, when I look back at the Second Amendment, it just makes way more sense for anyone to be able to protect himself from any foreign or domestic enemy and tyranny!

      1. avatar D.G. Cornelius says:

        True that all over EU. Body armor is banned, with very few exceptions. In many places, is considered as a weapon in itself, with even more severe legal consequence than illegal ownership of a firearm.

  10. avatar Bob Wall says:

    Welp – Gonna do for the body armor business, what impending firearms/magazine, et al. restrictions did for those businesses.

    Maybe it’s time to by some stock in body armor businesses…

  11. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

    Just the top of a slippery slope to ban the bullet proof backpacks and blankets made for the schoolchildren. Because after a piece of paper is signed, no criminal will EVER get armor off the black market. He will always use the legal alternative.

    1. avatar T M says:

      http://www.chapelsteel.com/ar500-ar500f.html

      For that…uh, oil pan skid plate you’re making, of course!

  12. avatar Michael Davis says:

    Apparently Mike Honda owns shares in a body armor company. Nothing like legislation to boost sales. Armor and firearms companies aught to name progressives “sales pros of the decade”

  13. avatar Kevin L says:

    They’re going to confiscate people’s body armor? (It does ban possession after all) that’ll go over REAL well…

  14. avatar JeffR says:

    How do you ban steel plates?

  15. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    The title of the proposed legislation says it all to me… “To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor **by civilians, with exceptions**”

    Emphasis mine. A carve out for LEO’s who, for some reason, aren’t considered civilians.

    One rule for me, A different rule for thee.

  16. avatar John says:

    I’m waiting for them to propose a bill to literally disarm the public.

    “[Redacted] has announced legislation that would block civilians from even picking up military-grade equipment entirely to prevent criminals from using them in battles with law enforcement.

    “This bill will keep people from using their hands,” Honda said. “It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be manually able to access such equipment.”

  17. avatar rob says:

    I would bet good money there is an exemption in it for members of the California legislature.

  18. avatar John Galt says:

    Behold the coming police state.

    Webster’s Dictionary will soon denote the word “citizen” as archaic.

    ar·cha·ic

    1 : having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses

    2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time : antiquated

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archaic

  19. avatar Toggle12 says:

    The MOST DANGEROUS thing about this bill is the legal precedent it sets. If passed, it would strengthen the Federal Govt’s authority do dictate what Americans can own. Everyone should think this way when it comes to legislation; it’s not about the damn body armor it’s about the direction of the legal precedent. I don’t give a crap about body armor, but I am outraged by this bill!

    1. avatar Buster says:

      Exactly. Next thing you know they will be going for your golf clubs.
      “Crazed sumbitch walks into a school, church, mall, etc., with a Ping 9 iron, dressed in body armor……

  20. avatar ProfBathrobe says:

    Popvox Page for the bill in case anyone wants to throw some opposition against it:
    https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr5344

  21. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    Just for clarification, this is not a California legislative bill, this is in the US Congress, yes?

    1. avatar Pascal says:

      Yes, it is a House of Reps bill which means, it is going absolutely nowhere. Many politicians do this so they can put crap in their newsletters making believe they are doing something or use it for election year propaganda.

      He can huff, and puff until the bill blows out his a$$, it is not going to go anywhere.

      1. avatar JohnC says:

        I was just about to buy a vest online until I realized that it was not something just for the state of CA. I doubt it will go anywhere in the House.

  22. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    If I were running a company making said body armor, I would make a statement that if this law is passed i would no longer sell the product to anyone in CA, not even law enforcement or military bases.

  23. avatar ThomasR says:

    They already have this law in California. It was after the L.A. shoot out. I was born and raised in CA, (head shake). I remember as a boy being able to legally own and shoot a gun when I was eleven. Being able to buy guns out of the paper without a back ground check. All illegal now.

    What a pit of tyranny and the enslavement of its servants that it has become. And the statists want to bring that abomination to the rest of the country.

    I have to keep reminding myself that it is because there are enough of the people(servants) that want to be enslaved that this is not only allowed but embraced by the population.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      But, if you’re still watching, has any of that crap ever helped a single thing? Did crime suddenly plummet when one was passed? I’d bet you could repeal all the restrictions tomorrow, with no warning, and nothing would change except the volume of the media screeching.

  24. avatar Mediocrates says:

    The obvious solution is to take away California’s representation in the Federal government. I’m still hoping to give it back to Mexico, an idea that seems to be gaining traction.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      An idea whose time has come.

  25. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    the bill won’t make it out of committee . . . this is just “hey I am up for re-election and I am trying really hard to show I am doing something” circle jerk off

  26. avatar Shire-man says:

    So mount your plates on a 2×4 and call them targets.
    You’d think after Yee made a world-class fool of anti-gun CA legislators they’d tone down their stupidity a bit.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      …and the anti-spall coating is applied to prevent bullet fragments from hurting mother Earth.

  27. avatar Steve says:

    “prevent criminals from using them in gun battles with law enforcement.” So tired of these claims that really should be laughed out of existence by all, media included. “Wait, wait…did you see this law” says the cop holding the printed law that will prevent and ensure that no criminal can wear body armor. As they hold the law higher, the criminal’s body armor slowly disappears. Let the battle continue.

  28. avatar James says:

    Remind me again, besides the BMW, what body armor was Eliot Rodger wearing the night of his little stabbing/shooting/ramming spree?

  29. avatar bontai Joe says:

    So if I buy my kid a bullet proof back pack to help protect him/her when walking to school, I’m now a “bad guy”? I get my wife a bullet resistant coat to try to protect her when walking on the street, and she and I are now gonna be “bad guys” to be arrested? Then I have one thing to say to Mr. Mike Honda, “Go to Hell, and today would be a good time to go!” AND I want his family stripped of any and all security personnel, no bullet proof anything for them either. They can risk getting blown away on the street like the rest of the “civilians”.

  30. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

    So, once again, legislators are trying to use black swan events as justification for infringing upon the general public in a way that will have no real impact on the very black swans they are claiming to try and prevent from occurring. /facepalm God save us from politicians so intent on keeping their position that they will back any stupid shit they think will get them media coverage as appearing to “do something.”

    Instead of spending all their time making up new shi… er, laws, maybe we should vote to make it mandatory for legislators to have to spend time sorting out the Gordian knot that is our current legal system. How about a 2 for 1 deal? Until the average person can understand the laws again, they have to remove 2 old laws before tthey can add a new one to the books.

  31. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    “access to military-grade body armor emboldens criminals and mass shooters to act.”

    Except for the fact that almost every single last one of them in recent history blows their brains all over the ceiling the second that armed resistance shows up.

    The nutjob at Aurora who was confirmed wearing body armor probably would have done the same as noted by his surprise that the police showed up so quickly, I don’t think he was near being done and had he been allowed to finish there would have been that freaky orange dyed hair stuck to the walls inside that theater as well.

    So his body armor did nothing for him like it would have done for Adam Lanza, or the others.

    1. avatar RALPH says:

      Holmes wore a Blackhawk “Urban Assault” vest. It isn’t an armored vest.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        Ding! Neither the media or the pols know the difference. Anything that looks tactical is instantly labeled body armor.

  32. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

    So will this make knight’s armor with dents from early musket balls illegal to posess in a private collection? They were military grade after all.

  33. Shooter Equipment

    Figure 6 shows the most powerful weapon that shooters brought to the attack site. In about 60 percent of the attacks the most powerful weapon used was a pistol. In 8 percent it was a shotgun, and the most powerful weapon used was a rifle in about 25 percent of the cases. Shooters brought multiple weapons in about one-third of the attacks. Perpetrators brought improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to the attack site in 3 percent of the cases and wore body armor in 5 percent.

    Source: http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active-shooter-events-from-2000-to-2012

    Body armor worn by shooters is exceedingly rare, almost as rare as IEDs.

    (Of course, the police have MRAPs for IEDs tho)

  34. avatar PavePusher says:

    “This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands,” Honda said. “It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be able to access enhanced body armor.”

    “We’re not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest,” he said. “We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”

    Which body armor is “military” and which is ‘civilian’? What is “enhanced body armor”? Is there a specific list?

    I suspect the Congressman is talking from his fourth point of contact……

    1. avatar Robert W. says:

      The law calls out Level III body armor as the standard of military, so anything that can stop a 5.56, the most common rifle round carried by LEO.

  35. avatar Jomo says:

    The real problem is the unending legislative sessions that we have in the 20th century. The one and only thing I agree with Jesse Ventura on is the need to limit the length of time the Congress and legislature meet in a given year. If they aren’t meeting, they’re not under pressure to ‘do’ something. If there’s no impetus to ‘do’ something, then you get fewer laws and, as a consequence, fewer DUMB laws. It was the expectation of the founders that, given the difficulties of travel, your congress-critters would only meet for a few months a year and everybody would be home before the first snows. Now legislatures go on and on and on, and to justify their existence well… They got to write some laws. Even if those laws are ineffective.

    1. avatar Heathen says:

      Just being picky but we’re now in the 21st Century.

  36. avatar Robert W. says:

    I am pretty damn certain that this has NOTHING to do with “Mass Murderers,” but rather that now is a good time to throw up barriers to resistance like those seen at Bundy Ranch. Now that BR is officially out of the news, and out of most peoples minds, they can start throwing up laws to stop it from happening again.

    Imagine if this law were in effect while Bundy Ranch was happening. Every person wearing a Tactical vest could have been detained for the suspicion of having body armor. No resistance left on the field, or at the very least nobody with body armor capable of protecting them against the rifles carried by LEO.

  37. avatar Scythian Arrows says:

    Whenever someone uses the phrase “keep ____ out of the wrong hands”, it’s wise to remember that only members of the legislative and judicial systems get to define whose hands are “wrong”.

  38. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    “We’re not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest,” he said. “We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”

    Well, this explains it. Can’t let the public have something that may prevent the cops from killing you on a no-knock.

    1. avatar Scythian Arrows says:

      Bingo.

  39. avatar Shane in Chandler says:

    “There’s nothing more dangerous than an unstoppable, well-armored shooter,”

    Haven’t all armored shooters been stopped. Or are there still out there shooting, unstoppably?

  40. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    I propose instead that we ban California lawmakers.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      If the end goal is to save lives then that seems like the most logical thing to do.

  41. avatar BDub says:

    Politicians think anything that resembles LBE is body armor – it could be a camo or black backpack frame and they would shit themselves into a coma.

  42. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    So, because a handful of criminals have used body armor, we are supposed to give up our ability to own and use life saving body armor? How about no.

  43. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    UH yeah, can you say: Leland Yee?

    Next thing we’re going to hear is Ol’ Honda’s making a killing off of selling Body Armor on the black Market.

  44. avatar Gunr says:

    So, if they fix it so we can’t use our body armor anymore, what are we going to do with it all?
    Think about! What do cops like to shoot if not people? “FIDO” of course! So there you have it folks. There will be new businesses sprouting up all over. “Convert you armor for K-9 use” 5 to 15 pound dogs, $25.00, 15 to 40 pounds $50.00, and so on.
    Of course with the added weight, poor “Bowser” probably wont be able to keep up with you when you ride your bike to the store. Small sacrifice to keep him from taking the “dirt nap” courtesy of your friendly neighborhood swat team!

  45. avatar Anonymous says:

    A ridiculous proposal and the typical mentality of California legislators. Me owning body armor does what to anyone else? Lets ban it – because criminals “might” use it. Ridiculous.

  46. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    Wait…aren’t all of the people he wants to have exclusive rights to body armor all “civilians?”

  47. avatar Joe R. says:

    Hey CA

    “Disarm them before they disarm you” works both ways.

  48. avatar ChuckN says:

    I never wore body armor until I started volunteering for
    an ambulance. After one call with someone loaded up
    on PCP or bath salts you’ll wear a vest too. Since,
    technically I am a volunteer not an employee; does this
    mean I’m only a lowly civilian? Does this mean that Honda
    hates volunteer Fire/EMS personnel too?

    Or is it simply a mater of: if you’re not on the payroll you’re
    not one of the ‘family’.

  49. avatar Kyle says:

    I was wondering when someone would propose something like this. Also waiting for them to propose banning gas masks.

  50. avatar Matt G says:

    “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.”

    Lemme guess, a prohibited person with a prohibited sporting rifle? If thats the case then arguement for the new law is thoroughly busted. I doubt one more law wouldn’t stop him if the first two didnt.

  51. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Police are civilians, right? So are they going to stop wearing body armor as well? If DGUs didn’t exist and criminals only preyed on the police, well, this idea would only affect criminals. But that isn’t reality.

    The number of DGUs in the US alone should send this idea right back where it came from. Someone’s rear.

  52. avatar Rob says:

    Kiss my militia butt, douchebag.

  53. avatar Carry.45 says:

    Hey, Mike. Find something better to do. You’re heading down the path of full retard. There’s no turning back.

  54. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    No body armor for civilians?

    Why does he want to keep police officers from wearing body armor?

  55. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    I think we should make it illegal for elected officials to possess body armor.

    Anyone else agree.

  56. avatar J says:

    Someone should ask the apparently IQ-challenged Honda why the citizens of Chicago should be denied bullet proof vests. Was this his intent or is he merely incapable of considering the outcomes of his legislation?

  57. avatar Hannibal says:

    Wow… they are using ‘enhanced body armor’ just like they use ‘assault weapons’.

    So we’re still good with IIA and double-barreled shotguns, right?

  58. avatar Jeremias Hedegaard says:

    OK, what does “trend” mean? The high-profile shootings I’ve read over the past several years have not involved armor.

  59. avatar john says:

    They want to take body armor away from usgcom they are civilians and just lik they are civilians and just like us we have the right to have whatever law enforcem we have the right to have whatever law enforcement and the military has with some limitations you’ve given up enough of our rights to protect ourselves we need to take the power in our country back

  60. avatar lolinski says:

    Body armor is not that useful on the lonesome.

    Even with level 4 a 7.62×39 will ruin your day and put you out of action enough for the person shooting you to shoot again.

    Don’t get me wrong, it is nice to have body armor and all but you need to have someone pull you away from danger when you get shot wearing it. Body armor is not like in the movies where the bullets just bounce away unless they are “cop-killer” bullets.

  61. avatar Mr Bob says:

    If you want to take action on this bill, you can use these links.
    Sign the Petition: http://goo.gl/gv0yX4
    Voice your concerns: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr5344
    Track H.R.5344: http://goo.gl/z6efcW
    More H.R.5344 Details: http://goo.gl/qq2wpZ

  62. Doh! I was domain searching at namecheap.com and went to type in the domain name: and guess who already acquired it? You did! lol j/k. I was about to shop for this domain name but realized it was taken so I decided I’d come check it out. Wonderful blog!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email