Posted on Feb 9, 2016
Does the right to keep and bear arms protect the right to keep and bear armor?
28.6K
406
95
20
20
0
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
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
Firearms and Guns
Constitution
Armor
2nd Amendment
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 52
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.
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.
(50)
(0)
SSgt James Atkinson
If we carefully look at what the Supreme Court has said, when they have said it, how they said it, and how they inter-meshed one decision to another, it is clear that anything a modern infantryman would carry or bear, that is in the form of a INDIVIDUAL item of offense or defense is automatically protected under the 14th, 2nd, and 1st Amendment. If any part of the military has issued the item to soldiers, or required that they have it, at any time from the colonial days to the present days, it is automatically protected. Guns, knives, bayonets, swords, rucks, armor, all of it, 100% protected as an enumerated right.
(2)
(0)
SFC Michael D.
They are proposing sell clothing and back packs with armor in them, I just don't see what the problem would be especislly with all the shootings going on. I have body armor and if anyone ever asked why I have it, I'd tell them that I don't want to get killed becasue another ass hole woke up hating the rest of the world. The world is such a dangerous place and they've brought it all home to us. All of us law abiding citizens should be issued the same ProMask, body armor and any protective equipment issued to the military. You can't go anywhere these without worring about some nut job shooting you for no appearent reason. Those who are meant to protect us are either laying there on the ground right beside us shot or running away with the rest of the paniced. The one's running in to save the ones being shot at are usually to late because the shooter already shot thenselves. It's very destressing when you don't feel safe anywhere.
(0)
(0)
27
27
0
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.
(27)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
LTC Paul Labrador Not at all. I had to read your original post a couple times. I think I understood what you meant above.
(2)
(0)
SPC Eric Cunningham
I agree with Sgt Kennedy. While the right to keep and bear arms was primarily for the governmental interest of raising a militia in times of need, the Supreme Court's ruling makes it clear that it not only protects those arms that are suitable for participation in a militia, but also for any other legal purpose one commonly owns arms for. It's finger/thumb argument - because thumbs are necessary to using tools, the right to fingers shall not be infringed - just because that right includes the ability to flip people off, the reason for the protection of all those fingers is so that one may have thumbs to use tools if necessary.
(1)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
The 2A is about Citizens being a militia as a check and balance against the government and a standing army and it is very much about self defense. Read The Federalist Papers and also Title 10 of the United States Code.
(1)
(0)
17
17
0
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.
The People should have "access" to the same equipment as the Government. Cannons, small arms, and even armor.
(17)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
I am going to jump on this post because it is in keeping with my line of thinking. If body armor is a direct evolution of the military process, then in keeping with the second amendment, it should be allowed.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google