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

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.

Capt Richard I P. - You are now famous!

SSgt James Atkinson - YES! You absolutely understand the situation.

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.

LTC Paul Labrador Not at all. I had to read your original post a couple times. I think I understood what you meant above.

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.

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.

SPC Eric Cunningham - Excellent

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.

I think you have that backwards. FORTUNATELY body armor is not covered under the Constitution. As such, the Federal Government has no authority to regulate it. Don't expect that to stop them though.

SPC Christopher Morehouse - No, I said it correctly. Unfortunately your assertion is not entirely true. The federal government is granted the authority, under the Constitution, to regulate commerce which can be loosely interpreted to allow the ban of body armor sales. In addition, even if the federal government didn't, since it is not s right protected under the Constitution, out of control state governments could still BSN it as well. Due to thee two realities, I stand behind my original statement!

I would, respectfully, disagree. Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution grants congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" The intent being that the States were not allowed to negotiate commerce between one another such that the national economy would be unified.

So there might be an argument to be made that they have the authority to ban the export or import of body armor, or to disallow body armor to be transported across State lines, but they have no authority to flat out ban the production and sale of body armor as a whole. This is another section of the constitution that is regularly misinterpreted and abused to justify legislation that has enough popularity to pass as a bill but not as an Amendment granting such authority. Frankly it is my greatest complaint about our government that we have become some complacent to such abuses that in this day and age they are not only accepted but expected.

SPC Christopher Morehouse - You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I personally do not believe that the power to regulate commerce should allow the Federal Government to ban the sale of body armor (or ban the sale of anything else). I'm telling you that federal courts have upheld the federal government's banning the sale of something utilizing the commerce clause of the Constitution (i.e. the criminalization of marijuana). Now, some states are finally pushing back against that utilization of the commerce clause (such as Colorado and Washington recently), but that does not mean that the government won't, at some point, fight back resulting in some sort of SCOTUS ruling on this application of the commerce clause. Regardless, even if you take the Federal Government out of the picture, not having armor protected in some form under the constitution IS still unfortunate because it doesn't prevent out of control states (such as California) from stepping on individual rights if they are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (and even when they are unfortunately)!

I think you're safe, its like a black powder gun, it doesn't really count....

Plus, heavy plate armor such as what you are depicting went out of fashion when crossbows (and Longbows) became strong and lethal enough with hardened steel point tipped Bolts and Arrows to penetrate even the thickest and best steel armor. So now you could have a lowly paid and illiterate peasant crossbowman, (or English long bowmen) taking out a thousands of pounds worth of expensive plate wearing knight with a 25 pound crossbow, and some rudimentary training. The French Knights learned this the hard way at the Battle of Agincourt: The Battle of Agincourt was a major English victory in the Hundred Years' War.[a] The battle took place on Friday, 25 October 1415 (Saint Crispin's Day), near Azincourt, in northern France.[5][b] Henry V's victory at Agincourt, against a numerically superior French army, crippled France and started a new period in the war during which Henry V married the French king's daughter, and their son, later Henry VI of England and Henry II of France, was made heir to the throne of France as well as of England. More recent studies involving computer modeling of crowd behavior, (the French troops got funneled into a narrow killing ground, that negated their combat power or numerical superiority) and the type of Mud that is (still) in the Battlefield (yes Mud played a significant role in the battle as the French Knights and their horses literally got bogged down in the mud), also significantly contributed to the French Defeat by the numerically inferior English forces. So the terrain played a key role (as it often does) along with the weather (mud) in deciding the outcome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Bwah ha ha ha ha Great post sir