Does the right to keep and bear arms protect the right to keep and bear armor?

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:37:42 -0500

A new bill introduced in the House of Representatives seeks to restrict private ownership of body armor (level III and above). Is the right to keep and bear armor protected along with arms?

https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%22114%22%2C%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22H.R.378%22%7D

Legislative Search Results

Search Results from U.S. Congress legislation, Congressional Record debates, Members of Congress, legislative process educational resources presented by the Library of Congress

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Feb 9 at 2016 6:41 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:41:42 -0500

Self-defense is an even more basic right than the right to keep and bear arms.

Even if somebody has lost his right to bear arms due to violent crime, it shouldn't mean they have lose the right to shield themselves.

To those who say "well, why do you need body armor"... then how far do you want to take it? Why do you need an extra dead bolt on your door? Why do you need a metal door (should that be illegal?)? How about bars on your windows in a dangerous neighborhood? What about bullet proof glass on a private vehicle? Where do you draw the line? When you begin outlawing items that people can use to defend themselves, it cannot end anywhere good.

Response by SFC Justin Scott made Feb 9 at 2016 6:44 PM

SFC Justin Scott — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:44:49 -0500

Unfortunately, the right to body armor is not covered in the Constitution. On the other hand, I question that rationale and logic of a law making something as basic as armor illegal!

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 9 at 2016 6:48 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:48:17 -0500

Depends on if you feel the broader definition of the 2A is intended to allow the individual citizen to maintain the equipment (i.e. the 'arms") needed to be functional as militia in the event they needed to muster. In the 18th century, that meant a musket, bayonet or tomahawk or other melee weapon, powderhorn (or cartridge belt) and the means to carry individual kit. Today that means your firearm, your tactical vest/web-gear or plate carrier with your MOLLE gear. Personally, that is the definition that I ascribe to. The 2A is NOT about individual self-defense per se or hunting. It is the ability to function as militia in accordance with Title 10. You may never be called up on to muster in that manner, but that does not mean you restrict the citizenry from having that capability.

Response by SSgt David Tedrow made Feb 9 at 2016 6:58 PM

SSgt David Tedrow — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:58:38 -0500

No, there is no "right to own your own armor". That being said, if you can afford it then I suppose you should be able to own it. I do think there should be penalties against felons owning, possessing or purchasing such armor just the same as they cannot with firearms, especially in the commission of a crime.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 9 at 2016 7:04 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:04:55 -0500

I think this falls under fundamental Right of Self-Defense as opposed to the Protection of bearing Arms, though an ancillary argument could be used for "well organized" (equiiped the same) Militia could be made.

The People should have "access" to the same equipment as the Government. Cannons, small arms, and even armor.

Response by SFC Wade W. made Feb 9 at 2016 7:06 PM

SFC Wade W. — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:06:21 -0500

The right to defend one self and wear any type of clothing is not tied to the 2d Amendment but it is your right. And the right for a company to make and sell body armor should not be restricted either. I worked in LE for 25 yrs and I never expected the government to restrict the average citizen from anything to protect me in my job. That was my responsibility to be aware and professional to minimize any potential issues.

Response by SPC Paul Tillson made Feb 9 at 2016 7:16 PM

SPC Paul Tillson — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:16:28 -0500

We should have the right to protect our self.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 7:25 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:25:48 -0500

If we have a natural right to self defense, why would the government ban the purchase of a gas mask used by the military today? Outside of usage, what is the real difference between a gas mask and body armor?

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Feb 9 at 2016 7:35 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:35:52 -0500

No it does not. But why in the world would it need to?

Response by SSG Eddye Royal made Feb 9 at 2016 7:46 PM

SSG Eddye Royal — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:46:19 -0500

To bear Arms, is part of the Original version of the Constitution, so each state has its own Army. In today's environment each on knows we have to give up something to be safe, but how much is too much. I look back on History (i.e.) Marcathy Trials.

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made Feb 9 at 2016 7:48 PM

SGT Jimmy Carpenter — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:48:08 -0500

I think the government needs to stop intruding into our lives. When they want to start regulating what we can and can not wear, they are over stepping their boundaries big time.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 8:15 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:15:07 -0500

It's only a 2nd Amendment question if you look at it as being ready to stand muster in a militia. As it was pointed out earlier, the current Supreme Court interpretation is that the 2nd Amendment refers to weapons owned by all people regardless of intent to stand with said militia if the need arises. While not in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence states that all "men" are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Wouldn't the option to own body armor just be exercising the right (I know it is not a "right" as defined by law, as the DoI is not law) to life? Its sole purpose is to protect your own life. You can do no more harm to others with it than you could a with a hammer. Not to mention that unlike most guns (flintlocks and slap-fire pipe guns being the exception), body armor is incredibly easy to manufacture in the home. Anyone halfway decent with a sewing machine and a cutting torch could whip up a (very heavy) plate carrier in less than a day. Given the ease of manufacture, the only way to enforce such a law would be to tack on one extra charge to another crime. Also given the seriousness of the charges likely to be issued to anyone using body armor in the process of committing a crime (armed robbery, mass shooting, etc.), does something as basic as a body armor charge seem like it would be worth any extra years on a sentence?

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Feb 9 at 2016 8:45 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:45:38 -0500

Watch out for the trap. If we start qualifying the right to wear armor with the well trained militia claus then the gun control advocates who interpret the 2A as pertaining only to a militia can say they "got cha". The bottom line is, the purpose of government is to preserve our freedoms not take them away. If I want to buy armor or a 60mm mortar, I should be able to.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Feb 9 at 2016 8:47 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:47:35 -0500

Absolutely, it does.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Feb 9 at 2016 8:48 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:48:53 -0500

Well, there goes the price of body armor!

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 8:56 PM

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:56:18 -0500

We need to stop going after the law abiding citizens and enforce the laws on the books.
1.) The instance back ground check given when purchasing a gun is not up to date and over 38 states have submitted less than 80% of the list of their convicted felons, gang members, and the mentally ill to the national back ground list. This leaves millions people off the list. You have heard the saying if you only put crap in than you will only get crap out. All the recent killers including both Fort Hood shooters, the Aurora movie killer, Oregon college killer, WDBJ killer, Charleston church killer, D.C Navy yard killer, Virginia Tech Killer, etc., etc. they all passed a back ground check.
2.) Recently 80,000 prohibited people committed a felony by trying to purchase a firearm. Just 44 where prosecuted. What about the other 79,956?

Enforce the laws and stop making new ones.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 9:30 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 21:30:33 -0500

I don't think this is an issue necessarily related to the 2nd Amendment, at least from the "letter of the law" perspective. There is more of a point to be made if looking at the "spirit of the law." Regardless, I fail to see any reason why private citizens should be unable to purchase body armor.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 10:28 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:28:40 -0500

When I see proposed legislation like this two questions come to mind 1.) who proposed it (Rep. Michael Honda D-CA) and 2.) who has contributed to their campaign to allow them to have the ear of the Representative for them to propose such a bill. I did not dive too deep into Rep. Honda's campaign finance history to make an educated guess on the answer to number 2. I think more often than not "We the People" fail to realize who is "in bed" with our elected officials, and who has their ear. Yes on the campaign trail we are all schmoozed’ beyond belief, but has anyone ever tried to meet with their elected official once in office? There is no way every elected official can know everything there is to know about a proposed or recommendation for proposing a law and I do not expect them to. This is why there are committees and subcommittees, even then those on the committee often rely on their constituents, constituents within the professional field and in my opinion unfortunately lobbyists for their education into the subject for advice. With often the ones who provide money allowing to have the ear of the representative whether that lobbyist is a true representation of what their constituents view is or not. Last year I wrote a paper towards my associate degree for a state government class I took, in which the Professor lectured me because he said my paper was “graduate” level and if he received more papers like mine he would not be able to grade as many as he did, I did get an A+ on that paper so “graduate” level or not I will take it. What was interesting is I came across some research by Paul Waldman who wrote for the American Prospect using data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance database that contains 43 variables on 172 countries to find what limitations if any, 34 member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED) have on campaign finance. He used the nations of OECD as they are most similar to the United States, with the removal of Mexico and Portugal as candidates do not take individual contributions. While there are variables and loop holes in every country there is only one other country that limits campaign contributions but has no limit on spending, Finland. The remaining have a combination of spending and or contribution limits. This seems entirely backwards to me. For those who do not know lobbying is a system that entertains a legislature to the views and interests of the individuals and groups paying the bills of the lobbyists. So if legislature propose and vote on laws who are they truly listening to the constituent that wrote them an e-mail with their view, or the lobbyist who took them to dinner? This has worked when in Texas it was proposed that bicyclist when traveling as a pack had to travel single file, and that legislature heard it from his bicyclist constituents and the proposal was reversed. Has anyone ever tried to meet with their elected official in Washington D.C., it is next to impossible so much in fact there is a company in D.C. that has the sole mission of setting up constituents with their elected official with meeting. I wrote that to identify that “We the People” need to understand our elected officials better and understand what they are or not proposing and or supporting. After all they are the ones who can declare War, and I am sure I will be called out but 1942 was the last time a joint resolution stating that a state of war existed, despite our war on Terror. Isn’t politics fun and confusing? I am neither a Republican or Democrat what I am is an American. People came to America to avoid the persecution in their home country. Is the persecution of religion that much different than persecution from wanting to own a body armor, or a metal door? Body armor does not stop a bullet to the forehead, and a metal door doesn’t stop it from being blown of the hinges by C4. To quote Commissioner Jim Gordon In Batman, “We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor piercing rounds.” What I did not see and I’m sure I missed it, but is limiting the sale of body armor being tied to interstate commerce on the justification of why Congress can regulate it? My Final question is this.
If the Bill of Rights were to be written today without any knowledge of the current Bill of Rights and the current system of the Department of Defense, Justice Department and Police and Fire Departments has been established is Amendment II A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed included in the Bill of Rights?

Response by MSgt Cayle Harris made Feb 9 at 2016 10:39 PM

MSgt Cayle Harris — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:39:08 -0500

Wow! Maybe they should outlaw bicycle helmets next.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 11:07 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:07:50 -0500

What if that is the way I express myself, by wearing protective gear? There are those who use all sort of disgusting and tasteless body piercing ornaments, and no one has an issue with it. If I have the right to own an armored car, where is the difference on having an armored suit?

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Feb 10 at 2016 1:09 AM

Capt Mark Strobl — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:09:14 -0500

I presuppose that any legislation banning personally owned body-armor would be to prevent a would-be terrorist from being able to acquire body armor in order to resist counter attack from law enforcement's fire-arms. Most of us don't wear body armor in our daily lives (police excepted, of course). Those expecting to be shot might just want to buy a protective vest --before they need it. Unfortunately, this seems like a wild clash between the letter and the spirit of the law... where neither can be preserved.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Feb 10 at 2016 3:46 AM

SrA Matthew Knight — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 03:46:31 -0500

I would say technically no, body armor at least as we know it now didn't exist at the time that amendment was written.

I personally don't see why people would need to buy it unless they are in a profession where they could use it but I also don't see why it should be restricted either. You want to keep yourself protected, go for it. I would find it very hard to take people seriously if I saw them shopping in Wal Mart with a bullet proof vest like the one above on though.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 7:37 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 07:37:14 -0500

nothing we can do ... general mass always fall for scary military related things that people associate with mass murderer ....

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 8:16 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 08:16:37 -0500

The entire argument against private ownership of arms and armor is flawed from the basic premise that there is a difference between "military" equipment and "civilian" equipment...There's just equipment. It's the man, not the machine.

Granted, we don't want Joe Blow owning a nuclear weapon or a fully armed and functional attack helicopter...but cost/skill/sourcing sort of rules any of that out.

Regardless of what the 'Sea Lawyer' of the moment says, the 2nd is pretty clear in what it is protecting AND promoting...the notion that American citizens are not a separate entity from their own personal and national defense. If we're doing it "right", then all Americans possessing a rifle, side arm and armor...and hopefully some training...are potential personnel towards maintaining the last line of defense. Any veteran with experience is a potential organizer/trainer/leader of said defense.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Feb 10 at 2016 9:43 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:43:51 -0500

I have seen some of the post here on this subject. I think if you where prior service that the right to muster would fall on us before the civilian. If something happened, say invaded by (insert country) and if the Military couldn't stop the advance, like in the movie Red Dawn, then it would fall to the Vets to form the militia. Therefore needing of the gear that is mentioned in a couple of the posts. Plate carrier, rifle of choice, mags, mag pouches, plates, helmets and so on.

Response by SMSgt Marten Matthews made Feb 10 at 2016 9:48 AM

SMSgt Marten Matthews — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:48:24 -0500

As an inalienable right to protect oneself, there should be no law against owning body armor. Also, there should not be a need for another law to protect yourself.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 10:58 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:58:43 -0500

The question needs to be asked: Who does the government not want to have protection from being shot and killed?
Criminals? Because criminals would totally follow this law, only to break others. Right.
Terrorists? Because terrorists haven't figured out how to get the tools they need. Oh, and they have a death wish anyway.
Law-abiding citizens? Because law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the people above?

Thought-provoking, when you consider it for a moment.

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Feb 10 at 2016 11:39 AM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:39:05 -0500

A better question would be, does the Constitution give the Federal Government the authority to regulate personal protective equipment like body armor? The answer is pretty clearly no.

The Constitution grants the federal government enumerated powers. It also goes out of its way to give specific examples of limitations on the Governments Power (Most of the bill of rights, including the 2nd amendment). Too many people confuse the fact that there is no enumerated restriction as meaning it is an authority the government can take. For example "The Constitution doesn't say the Government can't dictate what kind of light bulb I use, so I guess they can." This is wrong. The proper interpretation would be "The Constitution doesn't say the Federal Government can't dictate what kind of light bulb I use, and it does not say I am free to use whatever light bulb I want, so I guess that's up to the States to decide."

In short, the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to limit what you purchase for personal protection. There could be an argument that the State's might be able to, depending if you consider body armor "Arms". Don't expect this to stop them though. If history is any judge, the government will due whatever it feels it can get away with, and we let them get away with a lot.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 12:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:47:47 -0500

This damn government!! This is insane. How can you tell me what I can and can't wear to protect myself???? This is crazy. I bet they don't tell their secret service details what to wear for protection. I'm really sick of these topics. If you legally own firearms you can own body armor, helmets, gloves, etc. Does this have something to do with those two guys who robbed that bank in California years ago???? They were completely covered in armor and it took forever to take them out. That's the only thing I can think of.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 1:22 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:22:25 -0500

I guess I should get rid of this too?

Response by CPO Randy Francis made Feb 10 at 2016 5:18 PM

CPO Randy Francis — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:18:10 -0500

Let me guess, the bill was submitted by a Democrat.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Feb 10 at 2016 6:57 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:57:27 -0500

The 2nd no.. But the basic human right to protect ones self does. If I do that with body armor or passively though awareness, its my basic right to be safe.

Response by SPC Darren Koele made Feb 10 at 2016 8:43 PM

SPC Darren Koele — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:43:46 -0500

One (of many) issues I have with this is something the congressman said. They use the same argument in the gun debates. He stared this thing in 2014 and said "no one needs to be better protected than our law enforcement". Quite frankly, when your government tells you what you need and don't need, you are not free. Who is the government to tell me what I need? Message to government: We are citizens, NOT SUBJECTS. In a free society, the individual decides his or her own needs, not a two bit hack tyrannical government.
Okay, getting angry again. Need to sign off before the rant becomes even more nonsensical.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 10:25 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:25:02 -0500

Check this out
https://youtu.be/nQM6zLiSn1E

Bulletproof Clothing

Watch Ryan Duffy get shot in the chest as he tests the strength of a fashion forward bulletproof vest made by Steven Seagal's personal tailor. Hosted by Ryan...

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2016 7:31 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:31:37 -0500

No. Body armor would not have been considered "arms" at the time the constitution was ratified so it would not be an enumerated right. I own a set of AR500 body armor with plates because I compete in shoots that require it and its not a bad thing to have anyway. Why would congress try to ban something that gives protection to the wearer? Sure there have been instances (the Hollywood bank robbery/shootout) where criminals have worn body armor, those few instances are outweighed by the need for some people to be protected. So should body armor be a "right"? No, but we should have politicians concentrating on important issues instead of this one.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Feb 12 at 2016 9:34 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:34:36 -0500

I should think that it would. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the pre-existing Natural Right to Self-Defense by establishing a legal right, at the highest level of law, to prevent the government from infringing upon its exercise.

Response by SGT William Howell made Feb 15 at 2016 9:11 AM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:11:34 -0500

It does not and doesn't matter anyway. When the Gov has 500lbs bombs you body armor don't mean anything. In this day and age if someone were to stop tyranny, the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment, it would have to be through gorilla warfare until other options were to open up. Body armor does not fall into clandestine warfare, it basically would be a uniform.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 3:35 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:35:29 -0500

If we are going by the founder's original intent, to have an at the ready fighting force, seem like anything the military has we should have.

Response by Cpl Jim Hainen made Mar 13 at 2016 1:24 PM

Cpl Jim Hainen — Sun, 13 Mar 2016 13:24:19 -0400

Of course. it is nothing new or special. Sgt. James Hainen 1189639

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made Mar 15 at 2016 12:57 PM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:57:11 -0400

Of course it does but that does not mean that government will not infringe on the right as they do the second amendment. Remember that the Constitution does not and never did grant any rights, none, zero. The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, none, zero. Rights are God given and everyone has the same rights world wide. Our rights are just infringed upon at different extremes depending on the government you live with.

What the Constitution does is enumerate or affirm certain rights Citizens already have separate and apart from government as a means of saying "Hey stupid government, I shouldn't have to tell you but this a right you idiot!". The Declaration of Independence explains it well.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Response by SGT Aaron Atwood made Mar 20 at 2016 9:55 PM

SGT Aaron Atwood — Sun, 20 Mar 2016 21:55:13 -0400

I picked #2 per the laws of my home state, Connecticut (called the Constitution State, ironically enough). Especially after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 acquiring firearms and ammo in CT has become noticeably harder than in years before; even with the assault weapons ban from the 90s in place. Major Weiss summed up the reasoning to own body armor for me; the only thing I'd add is: if you're going to make it harder for me to own and use a firearm in defense of myself or family then at least let me own and use armor so I can get a second chance to get out of the line of fire and hopefully live through the gunfight.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jun 17 at 2016 4:46 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 04:46:46 -0400

I think that all safety minded shooters should be in possession of and use body armor when participating in shooting sports. I also think it prudent to wear at other times when you may be at risk.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Jul 28 at 2016 4:30 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:30:54 -0400

The purpose of government is to protect it's citizens and their rights, not limit or take them away.

Response by SPC David Willis made Feb 28 at 2018 12:46 PM

SPC David Willis — Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:46:25 -0500

It only mentions arms, any mention of armor and now its interpretation. We cant interpret our right to body armor and expect others not to interpret what things like "well regulated" and "militia" mean.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 28 at 2018 8:27 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Wed, 28 Feb 2018 20:27:24 -0500

you forget the 2-3 clowns that robbed a bank several years ago in body armor? Cops with pistols, kept them pinned down but couldn't take them out till SWAT showed up, and then it took awhile.

Response by LCDR Robert S. made Apr 9 at 2018 12:39 PM

LCDR Robert S. — Mon, 09 Apr 2018 12:39:56 -0400

The right to body armor may or may not be included in the right to keep an bear arms. But whether or not one considers it to be included in that right, one has a right to self-defense, and since body armor is *only* defensive in nature, I consider it a profound violation of an individual's right to self-defense to prohibit body armor.

Response by LTJG Richard Bruce made May 9 at 2019 10:27 PM

LTJG Richard Bruce — Thu, 09 May 2019 22:27:45 -0400

Wearing body armor is no different than wearing a heavy coat in the winter. Body armor is 100% passive. It offers no threat to anyone. Armored vehicles are acceptable. "Bullet proof" glass is acceptable. Run flat tires are acceptable. Kevlar helmets are acceptable. Many forms of protective devices and clothing are acceptable.

Response by SPC Roberta Porter-Bannister made May 9 at 2019 10:32 PM

SPC Roberta Porter-Bannister — Thu, 09 May 2019 22:32:10 -0400

They're offering reinforced backpacks in the wake of Parkside shootings. So would it extend to That?

Response by MSgt Michael Bischoff made Jun 17 at 2019 9:39 PM

MSgt Michael Bischoff — Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:39:42 -0400

Body armor is not a weapon, gun or arms and have no civilian use other than making trouble.
You have no constitutional right to one!

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2019 11:50 AM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:50:01 -0400

Don't think so. Guessing their rationale is that armor is an enabler for bad actors. Not everyone that wears it intends ill will. Pawn shop owners, liquor store employees, armored car guards, merchants in high crime areas etc.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 19 at 2019 10:43 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:43:40 -0400

If we trace the use of the word Arms back several hundred years you will find it to mean "your kit". What you wore/used for defense, plus what you carried/wielded for defense and offense. A Knight's kit was comprised of armor, shield, sword, etc. In today's world, body armor makes sense. What does not make sense is wearing it everywhere.

The militia duty I have would mean I am equipped with what I need to defend myself and friends on a battlefield. Fine. I should have a (small) vault where my military kit is stored. For my everyday I would (conceal) carry a pistol of some sort.

Response by Bruce Ponder made Jul 7 at 2020 9:19 AM

Bruce Ponder — Tue, 07 Jul 2020 09:19:18 -0400

I recently stubbled upon an article about silences that contains some interesting verbiage that may have some bearing on the subject of second amendment and body armor: https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/tenth-circuit-cans-unregistered-silencer-sales-suppresses-state-law/
Contained within the article are quotes from the tenth circuit that may actually change the interpretation: “Even if silencers are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, are they a type of instrument protected by the Second Amendment? According to Heller, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” 554 U.S. at 582 (emphasis added). An instrument need not have existed at the time of the founding to fall within the amendment’s ambit, but it must fit the founding-era definition of an “Arm[].” Id. at 581 (citing two dictionaries from the eighteenth, and one from the nineteenth, century). Then and now, that means, the Second Amendment covers “[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence,” or “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” Id. at 581 (alteration in original) (citations omitted). A silencer is a firearm [*30] accessory; it’s not a weapon in itself (nor is it “armour of defence”). Accordingly, it can’t be a “bearable arm” protected by the Second Amendment.
Thus, because silencers are not “bearable arms,” they fall outside the Second Amendment’s guarantee.”
Please pay special attention to the portion above “any thing that a man wears for his defence.,
I don't know what this ruling will change in the minds of lawyers and judges.

Tenth Circuit Cans Unregistered Silencer Sales, Suppresses State Law - Omaha Outdoors

On October 16, 2018, three judges of the Tenth Circuit ruled on an appeal from the District of Kansas in a case called United States v. Cox. To make this article less boring and easier to read for normal people, I have omitted the legal Bluebook citations after every quote. All indented paragraphs are quotes from the Tenth Circuit decision above. Other cases are quoted or cited as appropriate to the flow of an Internet article.