Posted on Feb 9, 2016
Does the right to keep and bear arms protect the right to keep and bear armor?
33.4K
405
95
19
19
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 10 y ago
Responses: 52
3
3
0
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?
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
nothing we can do ... general mass always fall for scary military related things that people associate with mass murderer ....
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SSgt James Atkinson
Maryland was an interesting example, and a good study on this topic. Until fairly recently, all felony conviction in Maryland were maintained on a county by county basis, whereby a felon from county could merely move to a different county and apply of be granted a concealed carry permit, or even an explosives license. SO long at they lied on the 4473 forms, they got the guns, and nobody would know they were a felon in possession.
The Maryland state police would not even know about the convicted felon as only state-level convictions would show, not county level convictions. The DOJ demanded that all of the counties in Maryland provide them with records, and the Maryland executive branch told the DOJ to point sand... that was until one of the people in the executive branch was found to be a convicted felon, three different times, AND they had a Maryland Concealed carry permit, and had illegally purchase firearms in Maryland while being a felon, and a deeper investigation revealed that thousands of people who had been convicted of felonies in Maryland had merely changed counties to make their felony convictions vanish.
I was integral in busting some of these convicted felons, as I had encountered them professionally, and they kept behaving much like a convicted felon would act, so I did my homework, and found clusters of them, most of whom had active Maryland license, and one who had an FFL and who was supplying other felons. As it is a very serious violation of federal law dating from the 1790's forward to the present day) for a convicted felon to possess arms, the federal government swung into action... and they actually tried to hush up the entire matter, as a lot of the felons were working as snitches, so the matter then fell to the Maryland State Police who went on a crusade to bust the felons, and they did, and since that time Maryland is more than happy to report felony convictions and involuntary psychiatric commitments to the DOJ, so that felons and lunatics can be blocked from firearms or explosives purchases.
The Maryland state police would not even know about the convicted felon as only state-level convictions would show, not county level convictions. The DOJ demanded that all of the counties in Maryland provide them with records, and the Maryland executive branch told the DOJ to point sand... that was until one of the people in the executive branch was found to be a convicted felon, three different times, AND they had a Maryland Concealed carry permit, and had illegally purchase firearms in Maryland while being a felon, and a deeper investigation revealed that thousands of people who had been convicted of felonies in Maryland had merely changed counties to make their felony convictions vanish.
I was integral in busting some of these convicted felons, as I had encountered them professionally, and they kept behaving much like a convicted felon would act, so I did my homework, and found clusters of them, most of whom had active Maryland license, and one who had an FFL and who was supplying other felons. As it is a very serious violation of federal law dating from the 1790's forward to the present day) for a convicted felon to possess arms, the federal government swung into action... and they actually tried to hush up the entire matter, as a lot of the felons were working as snitches, so the matter then fell to the Maryland State Police who went on a crusade to bust the felons, and they did, and since that time Maryland is more than happy to report felony convictions and involuntary psychiatric commitments to the DOJ, so that felons and lunatics can be blocked from firearms or explosives purchases.
(1)
(0)
A1C (Join to see)
SSgt James Atkinson - Very interesting. I did not know that about Maryland. Thanks for sharing.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
SPC Eric Cunningham
I disagree with the first part of your response. while one purpose of protecting the right to keep and bear arms IS the ability to muster a militia for national defense, that does not imply that it is the ONLY purpose for the right or what it protects. As the Supreme Court has ruled, the right protects arms regardless of connection or suitability for use in a militia - that doesn't negate the fact that it also protects those arms and armor suitable for service in a militia as well. In other words, the right to keep and bear arms protects your 60mm mortar suitable for war as much as it protects your .25 caliber mouse gun that is all but worthless in combat.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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!
You have no constitutional right to one!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The purpose of government is to protect it's citizens and their rights, not limit or take them away.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Matthew Arnold
Big brother knows what is best for you. (I don't think the children in the House have read 1984.)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google