Police Abuse

California Congressman Wants to Ban Civilians from Buying Body Armor

|

U.S. Government

California is already notorious for its strict regulations on firearms, but now one public servant in the golden state wants to take that prohibition-happy mindset in a new direction by banning body armor.

The bill, H.R. 5344, the Responsible Body Armor Possession Act of 2014, comes from Rep. Michae Honda, a San Jose Democrat, and it would "prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions." That is to say, Honda wants to treat innocent civilians like convicted felons.

Honda announced the legislation last week at a press conference with various law enforcement officials in his district who have endorsed the propsal. From NBC:

"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." …

"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.

ODOT

Of course, Honda is overlooking a lot of other scenarios, and outright ignoring the possibility that law-abiding citizens would have any reason to wear protective garments, whether they're in danger from armed criminals or a no-knock police raid gone awry. The San Jose Police Department's ethics are questionable already: One of its former chiefs has been sounding the alarm for years about the dangers of police militarization, meawhile the department has been pushing for greater surveillance capabilities and was just caught lying about owning a camera-equipped drone. Even if the force were squeaky clean, its snipers, air support, and camo-covered SWAT team, cannot and should not be expected to be there to protect every endangered individual.

NEXT: Harsher Sex Offender Restrictions Won't Make Anyone Safer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The fuck is up with this guy’s face!?!?

    1. It looks like he’s allergic to himself.

    2. Soooo punchable

  2. There’s nothing worse than indestructible peasants.

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

    What about a collection of individuals and institutions dedicated to protecting our unstoppable well-armored shooter from any consequences harsher than a two-week paid vacation?

    1. You could just say ‘the state’ there’s nothing worse than it.

    2. Don’t be silly, Hugh. Those things aren’t dangerous to a Congressman.

    3. If he weren’t such a mendacious prick, he could ban body armor for everyone, since there is nothing more dangerous than an unstoppable well-armored cop. (shooter is redundant.)

    4. By that same standard, there’s nothing more dangerous than an unstoppable lawmaker bent on taking away personal liberty. Perhaps he should lose any of his personal protection designed to keep him safe… ya know, just in case someone think’s he’s out of control.

  4. Over/under on number of months before we find out he’s been running body armor for Yakuza?

    1. So these pols pus legislation to ban things so they can drive up the black market prices, yeah? It’s so crooked I bet it works.

  5. “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.”

    Considering that “law enforcement ammunitions” are nearly always pistol rounds or shotgun ammunition (though that is changing) a “standard” bullet-resistant vest will protect against those “aumminitions” just fine.

    And what the fuck is he going to do, ban AR500 plate?

    1. Did he just say that the police are using military grade weapons against civilians, or that the police are at war with the civilian population?

  6. My Facebook feed is full of people “liking” Anonymous for threatening the police in Missouri. What the hell do they think they’re going to do? People are shooting in the streets, and they’re going to hack a public facing webpage?

    1. Maybe they will put on Guy Fawkes masks and strut about indignantly?

    2. Wait, what? There’s live fire going on?

  7. “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.”

    In other words this guy has absolutely zero understanding there is a difference between law enforcement and the military.

    1. He also has zero understanding of ammunition and armor in general.

      In other words, he’s the perfect one to try to ban it.

  8. “””We’re not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest,”””

    (GASP)

    ASSAULT VESTS??!!

    These ratfuckers have a little card that tells them “insert thing you want to ban in the following sentence…”

    “X has military-style features!”
    “X isn’t like your gradfathers X!”
    “People will drive a car while using X!”
    “The wrong people might use X in a crime!”

    1. Nobody needs a bullet proof vest that stops bullets.

  9. I guess he’s not a fan of this guy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3CzYw5-qdA

    1. Grizzly Bears carry baseball bats?

      jesus, they are mean.

  10. “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.

    Um, am I the only one who remembers civilians purchasing this shit for their own friends and family members in the military, to take to war?

    1. One of the proudest moments in modern American history. Spend a trillion inflated bucks on a war, then have mothers buying and sending their kids civilian body armor via FedEx because the WH didn’t prioritize it.

      1. You think that’s something to be proud of? You should see the stunning agility of the military acquisition system in action. A sight to behold!

        1. Yes, that was sarc, in case you missed it.

    2. I think you may be recalling people uparmoring their own vehicles. The stuff we started with was to Bosnia standard, not full insurgency standard…and until the uparmored HMMWV and MRAPs got out there, people would weld on a little extra to protect themselves….very WII “armor artificer” type stuff.

      1. Nope, the body armor scarcity was a thing as well. It got so bad that the military finally started reimbursing soldiers for the funds they spent on their own armor.

        As I recall, criticisms of supply problems was part of Rumsfeld’s dismissive “you fight with the Army you have” fuck-you.

        1. I never ran into body armor shortage – I saw unarmored vehicles…man, that took a while to get through 🙁

    3. Excellent point, but I’d much rather ask him why the police need this body armor. What “war” are they fighting? And if he says “War on Drugs”, rules of etiquette say I can punch him in the face.

      1. War on Terror, of course! Cops and politicians are constantly in terror of the pitchfork wielding proles realizing how suppressed they are.

        Hmmm…just googled “War on Terror” and they’re pretending it’s something else entirely. My bad.

    4. “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.

      So why are you happy to give it to cops, asshole? Cops are not fucking soldiers.

  11. If civilian body armor were more common, than perhaps the government might have thought twice about rounding up a young Mike Honda and shipping him off to an internment camp in Colorado.

    Jus’ sayin’

    1. That’s anarchist talk.

  12. “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.

    So the police having the same type of armor meant only “for soldiers to take to war” isn’t supposed to be taken that our average police department is at war? With whom?

    EXACTLY!

    Couple that with the ever increasingly horrible “laws” that are to be enforced, typically unconstitutional, you have the very REASON a mundane just might want to have the described type of protection.

    There’s a shitstrom a brewin’ and nothing is going to stop it. I’m too old to start something, even if I was inclined, but I’d like to have at least some option of self-defense when the raiders of whatever ilk come swooping through the neighborhood – revolutionistas, “legitimate” authority, or loosely deputized “red legs” out for some rape and rapine. No amount of weak tea banishment of icky-scary stuff will do a bit of good. The storm is coming. Having the maximum amount of protection seems perfectly reasonable.

  13. Not all body armor is bad. But really, we need to prevent criminals from owning the vests with that thing that goes up.

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

    63% of deaths in Iraq and 66% of deaths in Afghanistan would suggest that even “unstoppable, well-armored shooters” should be wary of IEDs.

    What a stupendous asshole.

  15. “This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands,”

    The bill won’t do anything itself, people enforcing the bill will try to keep it out of people’s hands.

    And, if the bill passes, obviously the illegal things will disappear. Because outlawing things makes them go away.

  16. We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.

    I’m no expert on body armor, but it seems to me the point is to make it as resilient as possible. If I had a choice between armors that could only stop a 9mm vs one that would halt a 30-06, I’d go for the latter.

    Impressive that his selling point for this legislation is that body armor makes it more difficult for police to injure people, as clearly anyone the police want to hurt is necessarily a bad guy. Good reminder of how different the democratic worldview is from the liberal one.

    1. I think that weight and comfort becomes an issue. It takes a lot to stop a rifle round.

    2. That’s when you get into plate inserts, which are heavy and generally suck to wear.

  17. Next time we write a Constitution, I think we should just go ahead and insert, “any agency given the power to detain, investigate, and arrest shall have access to only those weapons, tools, and equipment legally possessed by citizens of their jurisdiction without special licensure.”

    1. legally possessed by citizens of their jurisdiction without special licensure

      I’m skeptical. “Shall not be infringed, except through special licensure.” just doesn’t seem as clear-cut.

      I could dig some more “defense of self by any means necessary against threats real or percieved” though.

      1. I’m hoping that “well, we want the police to have this in their fight against criminals, so we’d better stop requiring licenses” will stem that tide.

  18. History shows that completely disarming when confronted with violence is the surest path to safety.

  19. I’ll need a 3D printer to make one of those fancy enhanced-to-the-EXtreme body armors.

    Does he know about 3d printers?

    1. Kevlar is used to make all sorts of things includibg canoes. The vest would seem to be pretty easy to manufacture.

      1. The armor they are trying to ban is actually ceramic and steel. Kevlar will only stop pistol cartridge ammunition, where as the supposed “enhanced” armor is actually just whats rated for very standard rifle ammunition. Any sort of rifle ammunition. 5.56, .223, 30-06, anything. The truth of the matter is that this is like banning a car for being too crash resistant. The threshold they are setting for this is obscene and designed to give people armed with rifles a tactical advantage over people who have handguns. And I’m not wiling to make that a thing.

  20. But what about the guy they caught around here, heavily armed and wearing body armor?

    Actually, from the initial reports, he had a fully-automatic rapid-fire high-powered military-style folding-stock silenced flash-suppressed 9mm 12-gauge Assault Glock AK-15 shotgun rifle.

    With the shoulder thing that goes up, a bayonet, a compass in the stock, and this thing that tells time.

    Loaded with high-capacity magazine banana clips full of Teflon ‘cop-killer’ bullet cartridges.

    With the optional double-barreled over/under 40mm grenade launcher AND the flame-thrower.

    And, it was BLACK (possibly ‘WHITE-Black’), and in the 40 megawatt range.

    I think CNN confirmed this…or maybe it was a squirrel…

  21. “It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be able to access enhanced body armor.”

    Enhanced body armor is designed for incendiary rounds and body fluids?

  22. I’d say that I’d support this policy if they also banned police from being allowed body armor (as a teachable moment), but if there’s anything history has shown us, it’s that lawmakers, police administrators, and police unions are incapable of benefiting from teachable moments or recognizing hypocrisy.

  23. How can anyone see this as anything but utterly evil? Basically, he is saying that you can’t have this thing because it makes it too difficult for the police (or anyone) to kill you. He wants to ban something so that it will be easier to murder people.

    1. Yep, the important point here is they don’t want you to be protected from police guns. Well, I say tell the cops to quit being such upsides and carry .500 S&W revolvers and 7.62x51mm rifles instead, if they want to kill people so hard.

      1. Autocorrect should stop being such an upside and not freak out at “pussies.”

        1. “Upsides” is an odd one. Why do they assume people don’t want to refer to more than one cat?

    2. Well, if you labor under the delusion that police only shoot at bad guys, then you may not have moral qualms about banning something that makes it harder for police to kill whoever they’re shooting at.

      But then you’re left with a couple of questions. One, what kind of fucking idiot believes, in this day and age, that police only shoot at bad guys. Second, and perhaps more importantly, how did that fucking idiot get elected to the U.S. Congress?

  24. Another day in the life of a legislator, another war. On body armor? Tune in tomorrow.

  25. Get the rolling pins out, time to crack some skulls.

    http://www.AnonGalaxy.tk

  26. Congressman Honda has obviously been watching the Uwe Boll classic, ‘Rampage’.

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

    I think that my brother’s 750 Honda was smarter than this one.

  28. This mendacious ass was my congressman up to the last redistricting. I must have written at least 10 letters to him during that period for all sorts of statist crap.

  29. Hello!!!!!! What about security guards that do high risk jobs????

    Hello!!!!!! Many security guards work in bad neighborhood or haul lots of money!!!!!!!!!!

    People always forget about Security Guards and others who are not working for the wonderful government.

  30. So what I’m reading into this is…. they say enhanced, without really explaining that that just means that it stops the standard rifle ammunition you find not just on a battle field, but really just about all around the world. The kind of armor they are saying they’ll keep legal is only capable of stopping pistol ammunition. It’s a lot of bullshit and semantics such as “law enforcement ammunition”, without the admission that law enforcement uses civvie ammo almost all the time.

  31. RE:

    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.

    This idiot can’t even get his facts straight. I looked up 2 articles relating to this episode. One deputy was injured but will recover. Two civilians were murdered. Or maybe he is twisting the facts to make it sound worse. Either way he is a mendacious twit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.