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.