Federal Bill Would Make Owning Body Armor a Crime Punishable by 10 Years in Prison gunssavelives.net‘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?