New Bill Proposes a Ban on Body Armor


A new bill has been introduced to the House which could make civilian ownership of body armor illegal.

By Zach McAuliffe via Ben Swann

The bill, called the Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, would strip the right of civilians to purchase or own body armor. The bill reads, “It shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own or possess enhanced body armor.”

Enhanced body armor, as defined by the bill, is “body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor…” Type III armor protects against most standard issue rifles as well as many rounds used in handguns.

However, there is an exception to the bill. The bill reads all body armor will be illegal to possess unless the person in question is a government employee. All personnel who work for the various government agencies, departments, or “political subdivisions” are exempt from this potential new law as the bill is currently written.

The bill also reads any person who buys body armor before the bill would take effect would be able to possess their body armor in a similar manner as those government employees who are exempt.

Finally, if the bill were to pass and someone was caught wearing or owning any restricted body armor, the bill reads the person would receive a fine, possible jail time, or both as punishment.

The bill was introduced by California Rep. Mike Honda (D) and is co-sponsored by Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) and Danny Davis (D-I.ll).

Currently, the bill is still being reviewed by the House Judiciary. You can follow the bill’s progress here.

  • hvns

    For what reason??

    • Nikolai Macready

      To minimize the resistance when the fascists take over.

      • hvns

        Yeah, that would seem to be the intent, but what is their justification?

        • Nikolai Macready

          They’ll make up some bullshit about safety. Like always.

  • Supagloo

    Because obviously if you own body armor you MUST be a criminal….even if you haven’t done anything illegal. It’s yet another way our government is exercising their right to attempt to disarm the general public. I am so sick of all of this “ban this” and “regulate that” bullshit and all in the guise of having a safer America. Look how well the war on drugs campaign has worked…this is basically the same thing, only with guns.

    • Tothe

      But you HAVE done something illegal. they said it was against the law, and POOF! It magically becomes a crime!

    • TiredOfTinFoilHats

      Tell me something. When well you ever need Type 3 body armor? Like the ones used in the 1998 North Hollywood Shootout?

      • Zyn

        who are you to tell me what I need and don’t need?

        • TiredOfTinFoilHats

          But what situation requires Type 3 body armor?

          • WeaselClubber

            Again, what business is it of yours?

      • Martin Ekdahl

        Maybe if you’re stopped by the Ferguson police?

        • TiredOfTinFoilHats

          Mike Brown wasn’t innocent..Shush.

          • Martin Ekdahl

            So, he deserved to die?

          • WeaselClubber

            Charging LEO’s will often result in death. Even for choir boyz like Brown.

      • WeaselClubber

        Who made YOU the ‘Arbiter of Need’?

  • locsphere

    So the government is only worthy of the best protection? What is the government so afraid of. The government is suppose to be off the people not to rule them.

  • William556

    Take it away from politicians and their protective details as well, and those of their rich contributors. See if they really like the idea then.

  • Yams

    This is the stupidest fucking law in the world. How is owning body armor hurting someone? Laws are meant to protect people from people, not tell people what they can and cannot own when safety is not even an issue. Body armor protects people, it does not hurt them.

  • TZR

    Time to fucking rebel.


    If there were any justice in this world, it would be legal to do mean things to people that propose tyrannical laws. As it is, all we can do is say no and wait until they ask for it again.

  • Billy Clark

    They want to have body armer but don’t want us to have it ,they want protection but not us against them,thats the real reason.

  • IbFreeAmerican

    The Japanese outlawed long swords for the peasants cause the emperors guards armor was vulnerable to long swords. The monarchs banned cross bows for the peasants cause the kings guards armor wasn’t sufficient protection from the commoner or peasant armed with such. Modern peasants are seeing the same thing with guns (and armor). Let me just say, guns, like crossbows and long swords are archaic. we now live in the age of microwave, sound-wave and EMP weapons. Maybe the tin foil hat (Faraday cage) people were right, an sufficiently “armored”