Where do you stand?

house Bill H.R. 378

Banning Civilian-Owned Enhanced Body Armor

Argument in favor

Ensures that first responders are the only individuals with access to military-grade body armor — not violent criminals.

Steven's Opinion

···

01/01/2016

If you're job doesn't call for it then what do you have in mind when you buy it? Are you going to where it to the beach? Or for grocery shopping? Drive around in your car wearing it? Unless you're planning to go shoot up a school or abortion clinic then you don't need it. And if you are then you shouldn't have it!

Like (5)

Dirtrhino's Opinion

···

08/02/2016

There is absolutely no reason on earth someone needs body armor unless they intend to commit a crime. None. All its availability does is permit people to engage in crime and to escape.

Like (2)

AndrewGVN's Opinion

···

12/16/2015

Regular people don't need this enhanced body armor, and we shouldn't give terrorists the ability to purchase this armor, the only way to restrict access of body armor from terrorists, is to make sure that no one is able to purchase this armor legally in the first place.

Like (2)

Argument opposed

The government shouldn’t be allowed to regulate the sale of body armor to citizens who are buying it for their own protection.

GrumpyMSgt's Opinion

···

07/29/2015

Next it will be shoes so you cannot runaway from the government police

Like (31)

Doug's Opinion

···

07/30/2015

You should have the right to protect yourself however you see fit.

Like (26)

LibertyForAll's Opinion

···

12/19/2015

So the government wants to outlaw 3/8 inch AR500 steel, cut into a 8x12 rectangles and sprayed with rhino lining? If the Federal Government was a doctor, they would constantly be sued for malpractice...Due to misdiagnosis and negligent treatment.

Like (23)

What is House Bill H.R. 378?

This bill would prohibit civilians from purchasing, selling or possessing enhanced body armor. In this context, body armour is any resistant material that meets the performance of Type III armor, as defined by the National Institute of Justice.

The only individuals and/or entities allowed to possess body armor would be:

Appropriate state and federal agencies,
Individuals who purchased body armor before the bill was enacted.

Type III armor can be used to protect against certain types of rifles and most handguns, and is the highest classification of armor that can be concealed.

Impact

People who plan to purchase military-grade body armor; people who already own body armor; law enforcement agencies.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 378

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA) argued in a press release that there was no reason to allow civilians to buy armor that could be used in violent crimes:

"There is no reason this type of armor, which is designed for warfare, should be available in our communities except for those who need it, like law enforcement. There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue."

Of Note: Proponents of this bill point out that military-grade body armor has given criminals a deadly edge when fighting law enforcement officers. In the summer of 2014, a man equipped with enhanced body armor killed two California sheriff’s deputies during a shootout.

This argument doesn’t fly with the bill's opponents, who point out that criminalizing body armor won’t stem violent criminal activity, like mass shootings, and may be an infringement on the rights of private civilians.

Media:

(Photo Credit: The Fan Carpet)