Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

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)
Follow
Share
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)
Follow
Share
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)
Follow
Share

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)
Follow
Share
Doug's Opinion
···
07/30/2015
You should have the right to protect yourself however you see fit.
Like (26)
Follow
Share
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)
Follow
Share

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)

AKA

Responsible Body Armor Possession Act

Official Title

To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with exceptions.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
    IntroducedJanuary 14th, 2015
    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)
    Follow
    Share
    Next it will be shoes so you cannot runaway from the government police
    Like (31)
    Follow
    Share
    You should have the right to protect yourself however you see fit.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    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)
    Follow
    Share
    We shouldn't ban anything used for self defense.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    why should the police be better protected than the innocents on the street? What are they preparing for?
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    ALL civilians should have access to body armor. In the event of civil unrest, repeat home invasions, taxi and bus drivers, jewelry store owners, attorneys, judges, bail bondsmen, hunters. The list goes on... http://www.bulletproofme.com/Who_Needs_Body_Armor.shtml
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    I agree with the shoe guy. Stop telling us what to do, wear and own.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Why? So it's easier for you to murder us?
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely NOT!!! If I want bosy armour the government has no damn business telling me I can't have it. They're already up our ass on every damn thing and I'm getting real damn sick and tired of all the bullshit stupid rules and regulations choking the shit out of us!!!!!!!
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Shouldn't civilian patriots have the same opportunity for protection as Big Government? Maybe that vest protection is the only thing between Freedom or Tyranny. Remember, a rifle without ammunition is just a club.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    No no no. Stop trying to reduce law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Criminals will find a way to illegally obtain it regardless of laws...
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    2Nd amendment
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    No more regulations on private citizens!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Those who are that paranoid to require body armor are not usually your enemy. The California case where criminals wore body armor still did not get away and were captured/killed. A bill like this is unnecessary.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Civilians should be allowed to protect themselves
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    I have never known body armor to kill anyone or body armor to commit a crime. By this bills logic we should ban breathing just in case the terrorists do it too.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely not! The people should be able to acquire the same kind of protection the government gets. Even now current laws do not allow people to have the same types of weaponry as the government. The government works for the people, if anything we should be deciding what they get to have.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    All citizens should have the right to protect themselves.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Armor is a protective covering, applied for the purpose of preventing damage from outside forces - so, by definition, purely defensive. Laws only affect those that respect and obey the law. Therefore, this law is essentially limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Do you really believe that a criminal will be prevented from obtaining or using prohibited defensive gear just because you made a law against it? Perhaps we need mandatory urinalysis for our representatives.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE