Previous Post
Next Post


Federal Bill Would Make Owning Body Armor a Crime Punishable by 10 Years in Prison‘s headline proclaims. True story. “Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) has introduced a bill for consideration of the new Congress which would prohibit the ownership of certain types of body armor for civilians. H.R. 378 would make it a crime to own Type III body armor which would be punishable by up to 10 years in prison.” What possible justification could there be for making it a federal crime to purchase a product designed to protect you from ballistic harm? Here’s Rep. Honda’s reasoning (such as it is) via his website . . .

The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act – This bill allows law enforcement to respond to active shooting situations more effectively. The bill prohibits the purchase, sale, or possession of military-grade body armor by anyone except certain authorized users, such as first-responders and law enforcement.

That’s all we get. We can only surmise that the Golden State pol reckons police would have an easier time taking out active shooters if they (the active shooters, not the cops) were banned from wearing Type III bullet-resistant vests.

That “argument” presumes that A) active shooters wear Type III bullet resistant vests, B) a ban on Type III bullet resistant vests would prevent active shooters from obtaining and wearing such attire and C) active shooters (wearing Type III bullet resistant vests) are enough of a problem to warrant federal legislation. D’oh! Forgot D) banning Type III bullet resistant vests doesn’t limit law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves

It’s that last one that reveals Honda’s true agenda.

Like all gun control advocates, Honda believes that people are safer under the protection of the bullet resistant vest-wearing police than they are when they take responsibility for their own defense – which could include wearing a rifle-round capable bullet resistant vest. Self-defense is too risky! People who own guns – and wear bullet resistant vests – could turn into active shooters! Hard-to-kill active shooters!

And then there’s “seepage.” Perhaps Honda buys the Constitutionally irrelevant argument that the law-abiding American shouldn’t have access to “military grade” guns, “high-capacity magazines” and bullet resistant vests because criminals will steal the kit and use it against cops. I mean, defenseless citizens. And cops.

Then again, maybe I’m giving Honda and his ilk too much credit. Would it be cynical of me to suggest that the antis simply want to establish an all-powerful state? If so, anything that gives the police more power than the citizenry is a good thing, not a bad thing. Fully automatic rifles for cops? Sure! Bullet resistant vests? Absolutely! For the general public? Absolutely not.

Yeah, I’m going with that one. After all, that’s the reason we have the Second Amendment: to protect us against people like Mike Honda and the police who gladly agree with his disarmament agenda. Like this:

The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act is also supported by [the 67k member] Peace Officers Research Association and The California State Sheriff’s Association. [Links added.]

You know, I never really wanted to own a Type III bullet resistant vest. Now, suddenly, I do. You?

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Nice.

      When you outlaw POS oppressive representatives in California, only (every other POS blue state will have them).

      If you come from a blue state, you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal or a rino, the problem is Part-Of-You.

      Half the problem with our president is, all the worthless idiots that voted for him [and it’s looking like March 1861 again but who’s counting].

        • What’s your member number on with the liberal gun club? Maybe it’s time you wake up and smell the beans there buddy. If you can’t see gun rights tied directly into the socialist police state agenda then you just aren’t trying hard enough. Or you left your glasses at the liberal boot lickers conference. The 2nd-am has been keeping the tyrants at the very least afraid of the people. Hmm government afraid of the people… Didn’t somebody really smart say that’s the way it should be? Maybe I’m mistaken because after all the libtards have been rewriting history so it’s hard to see exactly what the regime says “really” happened and well. Then there is what has really happened in history but don’t pay attention to that because I bet america can dance or whatever dribble is on tv right now.

        • If I have any problem with Joe R’s post, it’s that he’s painting with a brush at all. Skip the brushes and just splash the whole friggin’ bucket o’ paint, I say. The point he made simply cannot be overstated.

          • Well, lots of tea partiers would consider me a “RINO” because I don’t agree with a lot of their silly nonsense. Yet on 2A issues, we would probably agree. And there are a few “libtards” out there who are pro-2A

      • Please do not generalize self-defense and gun rights as a democrat/republican issue. Its a fast way to subject gun-rights advocates subject to divide and conquer, and it reinforces the idea to democratic representatives that in our cookie cutter world they should be anti-gun. You do that and you have people voting for known gun-grabbers simply because they’re more passionate about other issues. You have to weed them out before it even becomes a blue or red issue.

        Get liberals to start supporting gun rights, and shutting down the MDA types at a Primary level? Then you’re cooking with gas.

      • Given his opponent, voting for Obama was entirely rational.

        We’re not going to have any good choices for president until we eliminate the “money primary” where the uber-wealthy decide which candidates can be allowed to run.

      • Its not that black and white, but on the whole, yes – that’s the trend.
        Understand that Gun rights was LOSING in a big way for several decades because they tied themselves to one political party and (albeit unintentionally) shunned most who weren’t white middle class conservatives.

        We have gained much of our success in the last 15 years BECAUSE we have worked to make the Second Amendment a fundamental civil rights issue, NOT A REPUBLICAN ISSUE.

        You can be a Conservative, and you can be pro-gun, but please don’t ever think those two words are interchangeable – and neither is their opposite.

        We (pro-gunners) are a big tent who welcomes all people interested in the individual and collective right to bear arms. We can disagree, live radically different lifestyles, and still agree on our core belief – there is nothing more American than that.

        • Conservative and Liberals are not the same, and most liberals conveniently play with notion of what determines what allows “Societal Agreement” to persist as though those things are (or even can be) decided by them (or even within their lifetime). One of those most basic things is the sovereignty of each individual within themselves and what means and measure they will use to maintain that despite whatever “allowance” others may attempt to yoke them with. Such things have already been decided in the ebb and flow of human interaction to date, and you can’t get “progressive” and get around it because we are animals stuck on a planet, and we need apportionment of needed things, and we human animals do not take to people attempting to regulate our own providence for need, especially when they also tax our self-providence. [loosely paraphrased: TERMS, J.M.Thomas R., 2012]

          Liberals chip away at the foundations of Societal Agreement as though it was not as fragile as a filled balloon, i.e., you can chuck this little part because it doesn’t matter to you, and I will chuck the rest because nothing matters without it. It IS the same thing with relation to the argument over abortion, as you cannot claim you care enough for my life if a person created by your own invitation or negligence in consideration is worthless and disposable. These ideas translate through everything we do.

        • I think you have your timeline mixed up. We lost for decades while many, many Democrats considered themselves pro-second amendment. We started winning in 1994 when the Democrats outed themselves as second amendment supporters in name only.

          It was not the NRA or a change in political strategy that made the difference between winning and losing, it was the developement of new media and hundreds of thousands of second amendment activists who made the difference. Most of them consider the NRA a rather wimpy organization. (in 1993, it was).

          How this happened is detailed in Rise of the Anti-Media, by Brian Anse Patrick.

        • This isn’t going to happen. US politics is getting more polarized, not less, and unfortunately gun rights were picked as one of the wedge issues.

          This won’t change until one of the parties emerges as a winner. Based on demographic trends, it won’t be R. Which sucks, because they’ll drag a lot of good stuff down with them. Those who come after (Libertarians, probably) will have hell of a time recovering it all.

        • Tell that to La Pierre and his ilk, who insist on inviting the most rabid of right-wing idiots to speak at the national convention.

  1. BAN Medeco dead bolts! According to Consumer Reports, it makes it more difficult for police to kick in the doors of an active shooter’s home!

  2. Good luck enforcing that. Something tells me that I will wind up with a lot of ceramic SAPI shaped coasters and tactical MOLLE vests with SAPI shaped “map pockets”…

  3. Rifle plates just jumped up a few lines on my “to buy” list….AR500 or Spartan Armor. Any thoughts people?

    • I would say AR500. The steel and PAXCON coating and curved steel is great. The carriers they give you are decent also.. Just got mine and its pretty great.

        • Wow, I put in a Form 4 for a suppressor in October and I expect it sometime in August 2015. 2.5 months ain’t that long….

      • I just watched this video, and agree that the coating is pretty great.

        Considering that it wont actually stop a .50 cal bullet (which I thought lvl 3 was designed for), and they still want to ban it, I think that’s pretty messed up.

        • There is no body armor (at least publicly available, but who knows what the government is developing) that is designed to stop a .50 cal. The NIJ has a standard, with the most recent being the 2008 standard (0106.06). Current, reputable vests available on the market should be built to this standard and certified by the NIJ. The body armor is not only required to stop the rated threat, but it is only allotted up to 44 mm of backface deformation in a calibrated clay backstop for soft body armor.

          There used to be six levels, but under the updated 106 standards, there are now only five (level I was eliminated and I have never seen a level I vest or an agency that would have approved it). The new standards increased the velocities of tested rounds and also modified shot placement. Other things that were changed consisted of long-term durability to moisture and heat, etc. Soft body armor is only rated and warrantied for 5 years. Gold flex, aramid fibers, kevlar, etc. all break down over time due to heat and moisture. Around 1998, a new fiber was developed in Japan called “Zylon” by the manufacturer Toyobo. Second Chance tested the fiber, and it had a much higher tensile strength than Kevlar per the same weight. They were able to create a lighter and thinner vest that effectively worked the same as their heavier counterparts.

          Within two years of the vests being certified to the old NIJ 0104.04 standards and being produced, several tragedies occurred. The fibers had not been correctly tested for long-term durability and resistance to heat and moisture. Two law enforcement officers were injured or killed in shooting incidents where bullets that should have been stopped completely passed through the Zylon panels. Both incidents had taken place in hot & humid climates. The first incident that had occurred involve a PA officer being shot when a .40 cal went right through the vest. He was seriously injured but survived. The second involved an Oceanside, CA officer that will killed when one of the three bullets was not stopped by the vest.

          Florescent and visible light were also proven to degrade the fibers at unacceptable levels. Second Chance ended up recalling all of the vests and replacing the panels with their proven Monarch panels after things came to light that they had know about the issues since 2001. My agency at the time restricted the use of Second Chance products. They were then bought out by Armor Holdings Company when they were going to have to file for bankruptcy. Many lawsuits and litigations were filed for the injuries and deaths caused by Second Chance. It had come to light by Toyobo over two years prior to Officer Zeppetella’s death that the fibers were degrading rapidly at unacceptable rates. The only other three manufacturers that used Zylon were Point Blank, Gator Hawk, and First Choice Armor. Both above-incidents took place with Second Chance Ultimax vests.

          The newer 0106.06 standards were developed from the Zylon issue and a realization that a lot of newer “hotter” loads were being used. The testing increased velocities of rounds tests for IIA, II, and IIIA standards. It also changed testing protocol from a 6-minute “water spray” to a 30-minute immersion test, etc. A level IIA vest will still typically stop all of the threats of a IIIA vest, but it usually cannot do it within the correct deformation standards causing too much trauma to the wearer. Level’s III & IV are rifle rated plates.

          These are the standards and rated threats listed from lowest to highest:
          IIA – 9mm FMJ 124-grain (1225 ft/s); .40 S&W FMJ 180-grain (1155 ft/s)
          II – 9mm FMJ 124-grain (1305 ft/s); .357 Magnum JSP 158-grain (1430 ft/s)
          IIIA – .357 SIG FMJ 125-grain (1470 ft/s); .44 Magnum SJHP 240-grain (1430 ft/s)
          III – 7.62 x 51MM FMJ (steel jacketed M80) 147-grain (2780 ft/s)
          IV – .30 ’06 FJM AP (M2 AP) 166-grain (2880 ft/s)

          There are some “hybrid” plates available from several manufacturers to go with concealable body armor that are rated to stop “special threats” including the 7.62mm Tokarev and .223. I have one that I wore under my soft and hard trauma packs. It must be noted though, that there are no standards for those threats, so you are basically trusting “independent testing.” The one I have came from a reputable manufacturer, and it was being worn in conjunction with my IIIA soft armor vest. I figure it can’t hurt things, only improve them.

          If you really want to be nerdy (like some of us) and read all about the testing standards, this is a link to the actual NIJ 0106.06 testing protocol:

          So, all this to say, when you see a level III, it will stop a .308 FMJ, and a level IV will stop a .30’06 M2 AP round. Level III vests made of AR500 steel will typically take more strikes than a ceramic level IV plate, but a .30 caliber AP round will zip right through it. So, you may want to consider what realistic threats you may be facing since a level III steel plate can typically take hit after hit after hit with little more than dents, whereas a ceramic IV plate will break up from each hit.

    • If youre going to spend the money, imho go for the level IV option. Just a few hundos more and a little more peace of mind. Either way, something is always better than nothing.

  4. The other bills like the one about homemade firearms are a hoot. One says all homemade firearms must have a serial #. What are people thinking? never mind, they aren’t.

    • “What are people thinking?”

      Their thinking is just fine. They want registration and eventual confiscation. Without a serial number, kinda tough to register them…

    • Just to play with people’s minds, it would be fun to churn out hundreds of homemade firearms and stamp them all 666.

    • Interestingly enough, Honda and his family were rounded up and sent to an internment camp when he was 1 year old. Where you might ask? California (moved to a camp in Colorado during WW2). Makes you wonder how someone who experienced (even at such a young age) so many of his rights trampled on at the hands of a progressive Administration can be such a shit-bag statist.

  5. I’m growing weary of the laws that prohibit people with zero criminal intent from owning certain items. And people are asking for this nanny state.

    • Seriously. One of my first thoughts when reading this was right along that thread like “aren’t the types supporting this the same ones who were suggesting bullet proof backpacks, dry erase boards, etc?”

  6. Makes sense though. I mean its not like the extremists went to a different country to purchase firearms that weren’t legal in France to commit the atrocity. Oh wait…

  7. Just wait. After his bill passes and is signed by Gov. Moonbeam, Honda will get caught smuggling in a bunch of III-A vests.
    Cause stuff like that has never happened…

  8. This is a feel-good move for his constituents. Proposing a bill that will be popular with his leftist voters but has zero hope of even making it out of committee, much less passing.

  9. I really despise laws like these. If you have a problem with something like this then you should create a law that says something along the lines of “committing a felony while wearing a bullet proof vest doubles your sentence” or whatever. Owning a rifle with a short barrel, owning a magazine that holds more than ten rounds, owning a bullet proof vest, having access to both alcohol and a vehicle, owning a car that can exceed the speed limit, just freaking owning anything doesn’t mean you intend to harm anybody at all, whatsoever, ever, or break any laws ever. Why do bullet proof vests scare these people? Certainly (ostensibly) it isn’t the ownership of them by law abiding people for their own protection. It’s because of the possibility of a criminal using it in the commission of a violent felony and being a bit harder to stop with force because of it. So make that [more] illegal by upping the punishment for doing so. This would be similar to myriad laws that tack on additional punishment for committing crimes in specific areas, committing them with specific types of tools or weapons, perpetrating them against certain types of individuals, etc.

    • This is what happens when your idiot neighbors who need jobs (a/k/a the ‘gov’t’) manage to pull their thumb out but not their head.

      Like the 2nd Amendment – body armor permits you a vote in what comes next when idiots like this flush America into the terlot. [It’s only happened everywhere else in history these types pervert their thinking into believing they are equal to the founding fathers and can ‘do stuff’ and ‘make things happen’ for the common good]. It’s played out before (many times around the globe within the span of years that America has been around).

      Has this t_ rd taken a penny of foreign support to push this bill?

    • Under federal law, a bulletproof vest is considered “body armor,” which is regulated by statute, 18 U.S.C.A. Section 931. That law forbids anyone convicted of a violent felony to own or possess a vest, unless the person wearing the vest is an employee who is doing so in order to perform a lawful business activity and who has obtained prior written certification from the employer. A violation incurs a maximum of three years in prison. And using a vest during the commission of a federal crime of violence or a federal drug-trafficking crime will result in an enhanced sentence. (42 U.S.C. Section 3796ll-3(d)(1).)

  10. Hmmm 2a exists to ensure civies won’t be taken advantage of by an off rails system (avoiding using special words is fun); limit civies from having good armor in case stuff goes harp out of hell shaped. Yeah sure, good idea.

  11. His district is close to (if not overlapping) Leland Yee’s former district. Maybe the two are in business together, and they want to ensure Yee’s smuggled guns are useful to the criminals who buy them.


    “Washington, DC – Continuing his promotion of the modern progressive agenda, Congressman Mike Honda (D-Silicon Valley)

    On Wednesday, the Congressman introduced:

    The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act – This bill allows law enforcement to respond to active shooting situations more effectively. The bill prohibits the purchase, sale, or possession of military-grade body armor by anyone except certain authorized users, such as first-responders and law enforcement.

    The Homemade Firearms Accountability Act – This bill will require that guns that are self-assembled or manufactured at home be regulated the same as those that are purchased. It will require that all homemade guns have serial numbers, so if they are used in the commission of a crime, the police are able to trace the bullet back to the weapon.

    The Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act – This bill will ban the sale and purchase of “incomplete lower receivers,” which are easily purchased and converted into functioning firearms. Banning these transactions would severely reduce the number of untraceable weapons on our streets.”

    LET’S ALL REMEMBER , how all the shootings we hear about have been with “HOME BUILT” firearms.

    • None of these bills have text as of yet. The one for home built firearms currently says the following:

      H.R.376 : To prohibit the sale, offering for sale, manufacture for sale, distribution in commerce, or import into the United States of certain firearm receiver castings or blanks, assault weapon parts kits, and machinegun parts kits and to prohibit the marketing or advertising of such castings or blanks and kits on any medium of electronic communications.
      Sponsor: Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-17] (introduced 1/14/2015) Cosponsors

      This is the GHOST GUN Ban Bill with a vengeance. You would be unable to buy an 80% lower or the parts to complete it. If we ban “assault weapons parts kits,” I guess that means if your “assault weapon” breaks you cannot get it repaired.

      So yeah, he is a dyed in the wool gun banner from Southern California. My Northern California rep will not be backing this or any of the other Honda bills.

  13. I can’t remember all the details but I remember when he tried bringing forth this bs last year and he had originally referred to an incident that turned out after the initial reports to be completely devoid of reasoning for the ban. I guess he’s come up with a new reason now…if I can find the thread on Calguns I’ll modify this post.

    • Yeah, I think it was the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting that he quoted as the impetus for this when reporters were told the shooter was wearing a “tactical vest” they thought “tactical” was synonymous with “bulletproof.” Which it isn’t.

      But even now you’ll find some barely informed gun grabbers complain that the POS was wearing body armor based upon those initial errors by the news media.

      • Yeah, I fell for it too, in the first couple weeks afterward. I became very irritated at the thought my carry pistol at the time wouldn’t have been up to the task. All in all, though, it gave me an excuse to buy a bigger gun, so….

        As far as actual criminal use of body armor, wouldn’t North Hollywood have been the only time that’s happened? And I’m pretty sure those guys home-made most of their armor.

        • Tyler, TX Courthouse shooting is the other that comes to mind… but it’s not something you hear about more than once a decade… so obviously it needs legislative attention.

  14. “The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act is also supported by [the 67k member] Peace Officers Research Association and The California State Sheriff’s Association. [Links added.]”

    I sincerely hope that all of you in the Golden State contact the California State Sheriff’s Association and inform them as to why your prospective donation will now be going to purchase anything else (body armor?) instead.

    • If the CSSA supports this bill, no evidence of that support exists on its web site. And they list out all of the letters they send with respect to legislation.

  15. So logically inconsistent. You are trying to presumably legislate for safety, and you want to limit a purely defensive item that is built to save a life or limit injury (unless of course you hit someone with it).

  16. Here in CT it’s already illegal to buy body armor over the internet or via the mail – it must be purchased in person. I never really wanted a vest (got my fill back in the 1990s), but now I do.

    Any good stores in CT or NY for this?

    • You can try Amity army/navy, I believe its in the Waterbury area. I haven’t bought from them, but a friend picked up some sapi plates there last summer and was satisfied.

  17. If I have scrap steel plates and paracord, would that be considered constructive intent?

    I keep putting it off but I think I need to place an order with AR500 for just the plate carrier. I wouldn’t want to sink during my upcoming boating accident.

    • Now there’s an even more important question: would ownership of 500 steel plate targets constitute constructive intent? After all, anyone could take any of those steel plate targets and use them for body armor.

  18. ‘Would it be cynical of me to suggest that the antis simply want to establish an all-powerful state? If so, anything that gives the police more power than the citizenry is a good thing, not a bad thing. Fully automatic rifles for cops? Sure! Bullet resistant vests? Absolutely! For the general public? Absolutely not.

    Yeah, I’m going with that one. After all, that’s the reason we have the Second Amendment: to protect us against people like Mike Honda and the police who gladly agree with his disarmament agenda.”

    No, it would not be cynical, it would be exactly correct! Only when the Progressives have disarmed us and banned protective gear can they proceed to the complete oppression and control of us, which is their long-term goal. Next up they will want to ban First Aide Kits, anti-bacterial medications and non-prescription pain killers. And don’t forget anything that resembles head protection, eye protection and ear protection.

    In their agenda, NONE of our lives matters, not one little bit. Never forget that.

  19. The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act. Don’t you just hate these bills with some childish premise in the title? It’s not the Body Armor Possession Act, it’s the “Responsible” Body Armor Possession Act, meaning, if you oppose this bill, ergo, you are irresponsible. And who wants to be labeled as irresponsible? Responsible is the last thing this bill claims to be, in light of his utter contempt for the puling masses, in other words….we the people.

    We need a new law where it’s a felony for politicians to carry a loaded premise!

    • Yes, you’ve got it right. To be “responsible” means that it is irresponsible for citizens to own it because, peons that we are, we cannot be trusted to be responsible.

  20. Look, it’s got “Responsible” right in the name!

    It must be okay.

    Coming soon: The Common Sense Firearm Confiscation Act.

    Edit: Out_Fang_Thief, sorry about that. Yours posted while I was posting!

  21. I sort of doubt if this crap will pass the Republican controlled House and Senate. Not that there are a fair amount of RINOs, just that Obozo has been stirring the hornet’s nest as of late.

  22. I, too, have never previously been interested in owning my own personal body armor. But hey, now it seems like a great idea. Thanks, Honda!

  23. Protective suits protect anyone! So the thought is ban the good guys from having and the bad guys won’t have them. This Honda guy has a screw loose. CA needs to rid themselves of this ill person. Insane.

  24. There are places I’ve thought about going hunting where it would be a good idea to have such armor, there are such idiots out and about.

    What’s really silly about this is that there are materials in development right now that will allow clothes no heavier than a silk shirt to be made that would be bulletproof. From my perspective, anyone who wants to oppose misuse of firearms should propose federal tax credits for buying such clothing once it’s here — a credit equal to the purchase price of a full set plus $50, for up to three set per person.
    (For the curious, yes, a bullet would still deliver all that kinetic energy to a small point . . . and they’re working on that.)

    • Couldnt agree more about those certain places. During rifle season on public land, after some closer than Id have liked encounters, I sometimes seriously question something more than eye/ear pro.

  25. The two officers in the picture remind me of the future Detroit cops featured in the 1987 Robocop movie.

  26. Master hates competition. Shut up, submit and comply. Oh, and make it easy for us to bring you to heel while we’re at it. Run along now and generate some revenue for master.

  27. Outlaw something that can protect my person.
    The hEdouble L hockey stix to you.
    Im gonna go buy this stuff and then call swat on myself to test it out or better yet let a criminal steal it so he can call swat on himself too.
    There are more reasons then I can think of to own body amour. And none to ban it.
    What a moron this guy is.

  28. According to Websters 1828, America’s first dictionary (as far as I know):
    ‘ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]
    1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

    According to Johnson’s 1755, which was THE dictionary through the 1700s:
    Arms. n.s. without the singular number. [arma, Lat.]
    Weapons of offence, or armour of defence.

    So, our right to keep and bear arms covers armor for defense. Those founders sure were smart in using the term “arms” and not get all specific…

    • Now THAT’s interesting….the focus of the Second Amendment in public debate has always been firearms….we do make much of the fact that “well regulated” meant effective or efficient in the contemporary sense of the phrase in the 18th Century. To see that the accepted definition of “arms” in the 18th and early 19th centuries included firearms AND defensive armor….love it !

      I have a Level II for teaching or RSOing at the range….Level III just got a lot more attractive (and flipping’ expensive too)

  29. I would point out that the numbers of officers are simply membership in those unions, not proof of endorsement. There are various reasons but the VAST majority of officers do not agree with the union leadership.

  30. You know, there are times that I wonder if these pols are in cahoots with criminals, that would explain why the very laws they propose (and sometimes pass) are beneficial for criminals.

  31. Looks like it (the bill) isn’t about saving lives it’s about eliminating the ability to resist, like all anti-2a legislation. We’re like Little Red Riding Hood talking to the wolf just before the “Oh, what big teeth you have Grandma” line.

  32. I bought my AR500 when this first came up 6 months ago. It’s such a stupid bill considering LE has access to AP rounds.

  33. But wait, if gun control works, why does someone having body armor even matter? You wouldn’t need to worry about getting shot by a bad guy, so body armor would just be a fashion choice that harms no one, right?

  34. “…The bill prohibits the purchase, sale, or possession of military-grade body armor by anyone except certain authorized users, such as first-responders and law enforcement.”

    I don’t plan on buying any, but what I think, is a very simple concept: I am my own first-responder.

  35. Since you know TTAG likes to divide and let us be conquered – THIS LEO is against this law and any that formulate a body of laws where the public cannot protect themselves or take responsibility for themselves. This isn’t a liberal vs. conservative or Democrat vs. Republican or Law Enforcement vs. the People issue. It is an anti-gun vs. the Constitution issue. Let’s keep our focus on target and not start to alienate swaths of our side because we don’t like them.

    • Your point couldn’t be any more clear. Calling people names or speaking to people disrespectfully won’t win over any potential 2A supporters.

  36. In other news, some lawmakers back the gold standard.

    Articles like this, to me, are questionable. Honda’s bill wouldn’t have a chance in a Democratically controlled Congress, let alone in the current one. He just wants publicity and is getting it.

    The state of California, e.g., has not had proposed lately, or had pass out of committee a bill banning body armor. When it was floated about after the North Hollywood incident, they simply made the wearing of it while committing a violent felony an additional charge.

    Is there even any state that has banned it?

  37. This P.O.S. bill is co-sponsored by Alcee Hastings out of south Florida. He was a federal judge until he was impeached and removed from the bench by the U.S. Senate and disbarred for racketeering. Bill Clinton had to pardon him so he could be sworn into The House of Representatives. You can’t make this crap up.

  38. If you have an excellent server support plan, it will let you send a support ticket instantaneously and get fast response.
    Dream – Host is an online hosting company that offers products like domain registration,
    shared website hosting, Virtual Private Server (VPS), and public cloud services.
    These connections and resource sharing can even be made across
    different operating systems such as Unix, Linux and Microsoft Windows.

  39. Oh my goodness! an incredible article dude. Thanks Nonetheless I’m experiencing subject with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody getting an identical rss drawback? Anybody who knows kindly respond. Thnkx

Comments are closed.