Owning a Bullet Proof Vest is illegal?

Fight over urinating dog got police to ambush

www.msnbc.msn.com

Poplawski was also charged with possessing an instrument of crime: the bulletproof vest he wore during the gun battle with police. The criminal complaint does not say how Poplawski obtained the vest.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Mod edit: moved to forum where thread title is member's decision.

[edit on 4/5/2009 by JacKatMtn]

This is a snippet from the police shooting yesterday and when I read this I instantly became furious as this is against the law?

So we dont have the right to own things that could protect us in cases where a bullet proof vest would be necessary? I would think wearing one during hunting would be wise.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars, do not put on your bullet-proof vest, go directly to jail and don't think of every doing that again. That's the message.

reply to post by Agent Styx

I would think wearing one during hunting would be wise.

Yeah a lot of quail and deer have the nasty habit of firing back a few shots once you reveal your position.

The Second Amendment makes no provision for the right to bear body armour or any other explicitly "defensive measures" against firearms.

I don't see any reasonable need for ordinary citizens to start wearing body armour in public.

I do however see plenty of reasons why criminal elements in society would want to acquire it, a prominent example being the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997, in which two heavily-armoured bank robbers fought a pitched battle with police officers whose weapons simply couldn't penetrate their kevlar.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


Not to nitpick, but people do get shot during hunting accidents. Of course, most rifles suited to hunt larger game would knock a hole in the "bullet proof vests" that most people have access to.

Bulletproof vest ARE NOT illegal.

Jeeze,

You can be charged with "anything" under some obscure law here and there but go to EBAY, you will find a ton of them.


It is kind of like "owning" a knife, or a car, or a baseball bat. It is only a crime when USED in a criminal act.



And "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder.... In those wonderful countries like the UK they are "reasonably" buying protective vests for their children.

www.bloomberg.com...

www.thaindian.com...


With all the kooks and crazies coming out of the woodwork, I bet sale of vests will increase.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by infolurker]

reply to post by Agent Styx

Poplawski was also charged with possessing an instrument of crime

So if a cop wheres one it is perfectly fine, and infact mandatory for most police departments, but if I wear one, it is a crime?

Yet another example of just how hypocritical the justice system is now adays. This sound like another case of "I can do it but you can't" or perhaps it is a case of, "I am a cop so I am above the law and can do whatever I want,and you are not a cop and have to do what ever I say".

Such hypocracy,

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Agent Styx

 

I would think wearing one during hunting would be wise.

Yeah a lot of quail and deer have the nasty habit of firing back a few shots once you reveal your position.

The Second Amendment makes no provision for the right to bear body armour or any other explicitly "defensive measures" against firearms.

I don't see any reasonable need for ordinary citizens to start wearing body armour in public.

I do however see plenty of reasons why criminal elements in society would want to acquire it, a prominent example being the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997, in which two heavily-armoured bank robbers fought a pitched battle with police officers whose weapons simply couldn't penetrate their kevlar.
en.wikipedia.org...

It is arbitrary and subject to interpretation.

You could take the position that wearing this is a 1st amendment right.

Just as a contravertial T-shirt slogan etc...

I think it is a matter of use or intent, rather than ownership. One can be charged with carrying burglary tools if you have a bolt cutter, pry bar or similar tools. This would in general only happen if you were found breaking and entering or looting, or about to do so. It is perfectly legal to purchase bolt cutters at your local Home Center. If you are wandering the streets in a commercial area late at night far from your residence, and wearing all black while carrying B&E tools....yeah... you are gonna get busted.

You can legally buy body armor from a variety of sources. If you use it in the act of committing a crime, you may face additional charges.

I guess only criminals can wear bullet proof vest in some places as law abiding citizens are not worth protecting. Convicted felons can't have guns either, but have them they do.

I'm sure if you want a vest bad enough you can buy one as they are made all over the world. Money talks.

I don't know about other states, but they are illegal if you are committing a crime. In Texas, you can't wear one if you're a felon.

Originally posted by jhill76
I don't know about other states, but they are illegal if you are committing a crime. In Texas, you can't wear one if you're a felon.

Yes, good point.... Another question I had is If this guy was dishonorably discharged and had past domestic violence incidents, he would not be able to pass a background check when buying a rifle.

So, did this guy have weapons illegally?

good question?

The law is that you can legally own a vest, provided you have no felony convictions. If you're in the state of Connecticut, you have to buy it face to face, it can't be shipped to you. Again, it comes back to intent. If you commit a crime in one, you're going to get charged harder for it. If you're wearing one during hunting season, then that's perfectly legal, as long as no crime is committed.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Agent Styx

 

I would think wearing one during hunting would be wise.

Yeah a lot of quail and deer have the nasty habit of firing back a few shots once you reveal your position.

The Second Amendment makes no provision for the right to bear body armour or any other explicitly "defensive measures" against firearms.

Thats only because they, well, didn't exist back then.

I don't see any reasonable need for ordinary citizens to start wearing body armour in public.

I do however see plenty of reasons why criminal elements in society would want to acquire it, a prominent example being the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997, in which two heavily-armoured bank robbers fought a pitched battle with police officers whose weapons simply couldn't penetrate their kevlar.
en.wikipedia.org...

Just because you don't see a need for it doesn't mean it should be banned. I don't see a need for lots of things. Like for example, I don't see a reasonable need for citizens to have access to burgers, I mean there's lots of other food. Lets just ban it huh?

What I am hearing so far is that having a bulletproof vest might not be illegal, but it is illegal to have one if you use it in a crime. WHAT?!!?

When did we as a society get away from prosecuting illegal actions and begin prosecuting illegal intents? How exactly do you prove someone's intent? The only person who can truly know an intent is the person who has it, who by definition is the accused.

What's next; do we start prosecuting desires? Illegal thoughts? We already have illegal words; can illegal thoughts be far behind? I'm all for prosecuting those who would harm others in our society, but when we cross that line between a person's actions and their intents, we no longer have a system of justice. We then have a system of manipulation instead.

There's one more thing I just have to address:
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira

Yeah a lot of quail and deer have the nasty habit of firing back a few shots once you reveal your position.

Actually, a lot of other hunters have this nasty habit of not looking where they shoot, or someone may miss their target and the bullet carry on to your position (through natural blinds such as overgrowth). Of course, your sarcasm indicates you didn't bother thinking your response through, so I can see how you could not see the obvious.

The Second Amendment makes no provision for the right to bear body armour or any other explicitly "defensive measures" against firearms.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to eat either. Should we outlaw that? How about walking down the road? It's not specifically enumerated. Maybe we should make walking down the street illegal too.

That has got to be the most insane attempt to define a Constitutional issue I have seen yet... and I have seen some doosies!

I don't see any reasonable need for ordinary citizens to start wearing body armour in public.

Aha! Here-in lies the real problem. "I don't wear one, so why should you?" I swear, that statement should be in a dictionary somewhere beside the word 'hypocrisy'.

I'd be willing to bet there are people who do a lot of things differently than you. Do you work in an office with climate control? Then why shouldn't we make coats illegal for construction workers? After all, you don't need one, so why do they?

Do you live close to a store? Then you can walk instead of using a car. Never mind I might live 20 miles from a store; you don't need a car, so I shouldn't either.

It's attitudes like this that have worked to place us all in danger of losing our freedoms to an oppressive and ever-expanding government. So take your attitude and... go away... not what I intended to say, but close enough... T&C restrictions and all that...

TheRedneck

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira


The Second Amendment makes no provision for the right to bear body armour or any other explicitly "defensive measures" against firearms.

I don't see any reasonable need for ordinary citizens to start wearing body armour in public.

Ya know G-Father, being that I live in America and that I place a HIGH value on the freedom of expression as well as the rights of *LIFE* *LIBERTY* & *PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS* I have no problem with you having your particular opinion on this subject.

I am curious as to where you come down on the subject of the Right of a law abiding American to possess ANY firearms that are CURRENTLY deemed legal in this country.

I personally know many law abiding people around this country who own body armor and they in no way, shape or form can be considered "criminal elements".

As for the Hollywood Psychos who went on their murderous spree, the reason the police took so long in taking them down was that the police(in the beginning) were using small caliber handguns which would not penetrate the armor. Most policemen that I personally know nowadays carry(in their cruisers) weapons which will most assuredly penetrate body armor.

My point is that I have some friends who currently live in crime ridden areas and if they could afford it, they would feel a considerably higher degree of safety were they able to don body armor. But you I assume, would not consider this particular example a "reasonable need".... AM I INCORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTION?

reply to post by TheRedneck

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to eat either. Should we outlaw that? How about walking down the road? It's not specifically enumerated. Maybe we should make walking down the street illegal too.

Great, while we're broadly interpreting every amendment there is and reading between the lines to see things we want to see why don't we just assume the term: "Freedom of Expression" also signifies the freedom of a citizen to express his hatred for a particular individual physically as well as verbally?

These kind of broad, over-generalising interpretations of the Constitution only lead to a downward spiral of selective interpretation that allows all sorts of whackjob notions to pass as law.

It's attitudes like this that have worked to place us all in danger of losing our freedoms to an oppressive and ever-expanding government. So take your attitude and... go away... not what I intended to say, but close enough...

Lot of hot air emanating from your post.

You still didn't list one valid example of why somebody should be entitled to body armour as say a job requirement.

Instead you're letting your complete anger and disagreement with my stance cloud your judgement which is exactly the kind of attitude that makes the US so polarised and unable to resolve disputes like these rationally.

Don't blow a vein okay?

[edit on 5/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Originally posted by Snisha
My point is that I have some friends who currently live in crime ridden areas and if they could afford it, they would feel a considerably higher degree of safety were they able to don body armor. But you I assume, would not consider this particular example a "reasonable need".... AM I INCORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTION?

As long as they don't have any felonies on their record then they could legally own a bullet proof vest, with no problems. As long as it's for protection and not used in the commission of a crime, then it's perfectly legal in all states. I found a site that sells body armor over the net, and the only place you can't order it online is Connecticut, where you have to buy it in a shop and be face to face with the seller.

reply to post by Snisha

Most policemen that I personally know nowadays carry(in their cruisers) weapons which will most assuredly penetrate body armor.

Not a lot of Bank security guards carry .45 calibre handguns or steel-core rounds on their person.

The point of that example was to show, body armour can indeed be used as a means to evade the authorities and arrest and apprehension.

My point is that I have some friends who currently live in crime ridden areas and if they could afford it, they would feel a considerably higher degree of safety were they able to don body armor.

I'm not saying people who live in bad neighbourhoods wouldn't benefit from body armour but you have to look at the actual reliability of body armour and the cost-to-benefit ratio.

At point blank-range, a standard civilian grade vest can be penetrated by several 9mm rounds.

At almost any practical range, .45 calibre or greater rounds will defeat any type of body armour except those rating Category III or IV, which aren't easily available for civilian use.

I'd say it's more of a false sense of security than anything.

If someone really wants to kill you all they have to do is aim for your head or fire a few more rounds and you're done for.

And .45 calibre handguns aren't exactly hard to obtain, add to the fact that ordinary gangbangers and 7/11-weekend spree killers are a bit too "trigger-happy" and I'd say body armour isn't that incredibly useful in the types of situations you talk about.

If anything, once the word hits the streets that body armour is becoming common place amongst ordinary suburban citizens, criminals everywhere are going to start developing itchy trigger fingers.

You underestimate the resilience and determination of hardened criminals.

[edit on 5/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

reply to post by Agent Styx


I'm English so we can't have guns but...O.M.G. owning a bullet proof vest is illeagal?????
So let me get this straight....you can't go to do grocery shopping in a vest, BUT you can take your MAG.357
i've lived in America and love the place and the people but there are alot of stupid laws and THAT one has to be in the top ten most idiotic.

I can only guess its so the cops can put you down quicker if needed, but 'jeez a loo' are they really that trigger happy?

on a lighter note if everone was wearing a vest...THEY MIGHT HAVE TO LEARN TO SHOOT PROPERLY