0
champu

Proposed Ban on Type III or Higher Body Armor

Recommended Posts

This bill is in its infancy, and I don't actually think it will go anywhere, but I'm curious as to what people think about representatives proposing laws like this, as a gesture or otherwise. What does this law say to you when you read it?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5344/text

To save you the trouble of looking it up, type III basically means anything that will stop rifle rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'm a little worried that the steel plate I have in my basement ( for fabricating things ) could be considered a "shield". Or the engine block in my car could be considered a "shield". Or ... In other words, when Congressmen start solving problems that aren't problems, how many other problems can they cause.
You don't have to outrun the bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has there been a recent epidemic of violent incidents involving criminals in body armor that I somehow missed?

Maybe we need a law requiring politicians to wear ball gags at all times, just in case they say something stupid. Which seems a pretty high probability event.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asinine.
When your government makes passive defensive items illegal, it is time to be scared of the government.

What's next? Brick or concrete block homes made illegal because police bullets can't penetrate them?
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When your government makes passive defensive items illegal, it is time to be scared of the government.



Quote

Mr. Honda (for himself, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Pascrell) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



Who are they?

Mr Honda - Mike, Democrat, California

Ms Kelly - Robin, Democrat, Illinois

Mr Hastings - Either - Alcee (Dem, Florida) or Doc (Rep, Washington),

Mr Pascrell - Bill, Democrat, New Jersey

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Honda seems, then, to be a very reactionary person, or his constituents are very reactionary. (This might also be a good time to reference the whole - emotional vs rational - discussion and how it plays out in politics). But it's a pretty sad thing for any congresscritter to have happen in his district for sure.



Anyway - everyone that watches movies knows that bad guy bullets are stopped by objects in pockets.

- usually a lucky coin given by grandpa from way back when

- or a whiskey flask given at a law enforcement forced retirement party

we should pass a law to distribute whiskey flasks to everyone that doesn't own a gun - just to even the odds. Bill Gates can afford it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it funny as hell that the same people here that are against guns which are used for good and bad, and would like nothing better than to have them all removed from the us.

When it comes to body armor which is used for good and bad they get up in arms about how the government is overstepping and needs to back off taking away their liberties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I find it funny as hell that the same people here that are against guns which are
>used for good and bad, and would like nothing better than to have them all
>removed from the us.

>When it comes to body armor which is used for good and bad they get up in arms >about how the government is overstepping and needs to back off taking away
>their liberties.

So far it looks like all the people on this thread support ownership of guns _and_ body armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scubanaff

I find it funny as hell that the same people here that are against guns which are used for good and bad, and would like nothing better than to have them all removed from the us.

When it comes to body armor which is used for good and bad they get up in arms about how the government is overstepping and needs to back off taking away their liberties.



You seem to be very well informed about posters here considering that you only registered a few days ago. Sock puppet, anyone?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most times politico's use the word reasonable, it really means the exact opposite......"The Reasonable Body Armor Possession Act". ........with prison terms up to 10 years (sounds "fair") sarc switch off.

Seems like a solution looking for a problem, in other words, more politico hackery. It is amazing what these hacks and their staffs can come up with around election time to crow about.

As far as type 3 goes, I believe pretty much any round larger than 7.62 and over approx. 1500ft/per sec will penetrate.

Maybe as a fund raiser these clowns could put a vest on and auction off live fire tests on them. Hell, broadcast on pay per view, I'd buy in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My extensive google research says type III is rated against .308/7.62x51 whereas one level down is IIIa which is rated up to .44 mag. So basically they're drawing the line against body armor that protects against most rifle rounds.

.30-06, .338, etc. not withstanding.

My cynical translation of this proposed bill is, "if you get shot by a rifle round it means it was by a cop and you deserve it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
champu

My extensive google research says type III is rated against .308/7.62x51 whereas one level down is IIIa which is rated up to .44 mag. So basically they're drawing the line against body armor that protects against most rifle rounds.

.30-06, .338, etc. not withstanding.

My cynical translation of this proposed bill is, "if you get shot by a rifle round it means it was by a cop and you deserve it."



Correct. IIIA is the light version (stops most handgun rounds) while III will stop most rifle rounds. IV is rated to stop at least one AP rifle round.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob......does that mean the Canadian police will start arresting those evil, wicked, mean, politico's that drive around in those armored SUV's (approx. $100K plus cost of vehicle)?

Oh that's right......they're so special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
riggerrob

The media in Vancouver tell us that the only civilians wearing bullet-proof vests while driving around in their armoured SUVs are evil, wicked, mean and nasty drug king-pins.
Canadian police are trying to use armour as an excuse to arrest drug-dealers.



same argument used for window tint

therefore: window tint = body armor
therefore: window tint stops bullets

isn't "armour" some kind of hot dog?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

same argument used for window tint

I'm more on the fence about the window tint issue. Enough cops are actually shot/killed during traffic stops that I think a reasonable argument can be made that they should be able to see what is going on in the car. Also when the tint is too dark it compromises the driver's ability to see clearly, especially at night.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon

Quote

same argument used for window tint

I'm more on the fence about the window tint issue. Enough cops are actually shot/killed during traffic stops that I think a reasonable argument can be made that they should be able to see what is going on in the car. Also when the tint is too dark it compromises the driver's ability to see clearly, especially at night.

Don



When you're cool, the sun always shines.

I have lightly tinted windows, but it was a Florida car.

It is, however, a grandpa machine that no self respecting desperado would have anything to do with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon

Quote

same argument used for window tint

I'm more on the fence about the window tint issue. Enough cops are actually shot/killed during traffic stops that I think a reasonable argument can be made that they should be able to see what is going on in the car. Also when the tint is too dark it compromises the driver's ability to see clearly, especially at night.

Don



I'm more on the fence about the body armor issue. If enough cops get shot by criminals wearing protective armor, I think a reasonable argument can made that these things should be made illegal. Also when the armor is too heavy it compromises the wearer's ability to move, and it's not comfy when hot.


so, it's apparently another 'where do you draw the line' discussion on how much big brother do you want then?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0