It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Owning a Bullet Proof Vest is illegal?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:10 PM
Why do mods have to change the thread title to make it the same as the article when the article title has nothing to do with the thread. I changed it back.

But back on topic, I can see if you are a felon prohibiting sales to them might be fine, maybe even intent of a crime I guess. At least it is good to hear they are not illegal.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:15 PM
Body armor is not illegal. You can buy it online. It is meant for personal protection. Should you use it while committing a crime then it could be used as an enhancement depending on what state you're in.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by Agent Styx

You posted this in breaking news before it got moved. If you post it there, and link to an article then the thread title has to be the same as the news article.

[edit on 4/5/2009 by Zaphod58]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:41 PM
In the same state of Pennsylvania you can get life in prison for sitting on a refrigerator in your yard. Obscure law that is to lol

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:44 PM
someone made a type of smart ass comment about deer not firing back

true and i understand your point and everything

and i understand about how the guys robbed the bank wearing body armor and all that

but just because someone can use something to rob a bank means it no longer should serve its purpose and it should be made illegal?

with that reasoning, everything would be illegal

in the case of hunting

it would be SMART to wear a bulletproof vest

im not sure of the statistics but every year people are hurt and killed in hunting accidents

something as simple as letting a hunter wear a bulletproof vest could provide safety for the situation

but just because a couple criminal jerks can use it for bad, it can no longer be used for good?

thats pretty ignorant in my opinion

plus, ive spoken on this before, and cops always argue with me about it

but if a guys wearing body armor, and the cop has to shoot him, the cop SHOULD be a good enough shot to hit him in the head or extremities

if the cop isnt a good shot, shouldnt have a gun and shouldnt be a cop

this is the U.S.A. it was originally founded as a free country with state oversight and now we have nothing but federally regulated rules on EVERYTHING

its not about body armor being dangerous, its about control, and fear on the governments behalf

imagine a country where we could all arm ourselves and wear body armor

we'd be a much more serious threat if the need to revolt ever arose

thats why they want to keep us with no body armor and a couple small rifles handguns and shot gun while the governments army has the highest tech weapons in the world

im not saying we should plan on having to revolt one day, but the forefathers did want to plan on having to revolt someday, because they knew someday our liberty would be in jeapordy

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by Dramey

Except that owning body armor ISN'T illegal. It's like owning a firearm, if you have a felony on your record you can't own it. If you have a clean record, you can buy it no problem.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 04:54 PM
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira

Your reply Godfather is exemplary of why the government continues to be able to take our rights. First off the Second Amendment is NOT about deer hunting, it is about the citizens banding together to hunt ‘Red Coats’ or our current government officials that have come to TAKE our weapons to enslave us. Remember that it was the personal ‘assault weapons’ in the hands of the Minute Men who had formed on the Lexington Green to protect the powder magazine from the British, who had been sent to collect all powder and disarm the colonials, that received the “shot heard around the world”.

Second: The Ninth Amendment reserves all rights for the people that are not detailed in the Bill of Rights. Which means that BODY ARMOR IS NOT ILLEGAL! Which is good because it looks like we’re going to need it real soon.

[edit on 4/5/2009 by SGTChas]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 05:04 PM

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Snisha

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.

Welding 3/4 inch thick steel plate to a vehicle can achieve this also. Should steel and arc welders be outlawed from public ownership also?

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
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.

Yes I recognize the validity of this statement. These particular methods are segments of my personal target training out on the shooting range.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
You underestimate the resilience and determination of hardened criminals.

This I can say is a utter fallacy. The town of my birth (in Mississippi) with a population of 45k people has a murder rate that is (per-capita) higher than New York City.

I have gleaned from the time I spent living there, as well as the 10yrs in Jamaica, 2 years in New Orleans, 3yrs in Austin,TX and 4 yrs. outside Destin,FL in the good ole violent "Redneck Rievera' ANYTHING BUT a...

>>>>>"underestimation of the resilience of hardened criminals"

If anything I have learned the value of the term "Peace Through Superior Awareness & Firepower"

The ONLY time I have ever been successfully mugged was when I was in Paris, France and when jumped by 6 thugs I got the shat kicked out of me for my cash.

There would have been a considerably stronger chance that the outcome would have been different (i.e. 6 dead thugs and me still in possession of my cash/credit cards) had my C.C.L. been able to transfer from the U.S.A. to France.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
Sun Tzu

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Snisha]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira

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.

Your whole concept is incorrect.

The Constitution does not specify every right we have. It specifies certain rights which may not be taken away from the people by act of legislation (or via judicial interpretation or executive order),. In the absence of a law specifically addressing it, all other potential activities are legal. Yes, before you go on some extremist ride, that even includes something like rape, which if not illegal under law, could not be deemed illegal under the Constitution.

I am always amazed at how some people (including yourself) have this warped view of what 'constitutionality' really means. I guess I shouldn't be, but every time I think I have heard it all, someone (like you) amazes me again.

Lot of hot air emanating from your post.

Nah, that's Global Warming. Go turn your thermostat down.

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

The whole point is, I do not have to. Whether or not something is 'needed' is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether an action is illegal. If it is not illegal, then it is by definition legal and cannot be questioned legally.

As long as an action is not prohibited by the Constitution (which precious few actions by the people are), it is either legal or illegal based on the law. That law can be questioned as to why it does or does not deem an activity illegal. My personal view is that any activity which does not immediately endanger the liberty or safety of others in some substantial way should remain legal. Based on that philosophy, can you explain how wearing a bulletproof vest would in any way harm others?

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.

A few definitions for the reader:
  • complete anger and disagreement: not agreeing with whatever I say wholeheartedly.
  • cloud your judgment: make you think differently from me, which by definition is incorrect thinking
  • polarized and unable to resolve disputes: someone is not thinking I am always right, even though I am, so it makes it harder for me to have my way. If a stronger phrase is used, it means that someone is using logic that makes me look wrong, which is obviously impossible since I am always right
  • rationally: thinking like me
This is necessary since not everyone understands the language of leftist politics. You understand, right? No? Too bad, I let the cat out of the bag.

My vehement disagreement with you stems from the same thing that I see every day: people trying to impose their will on others, regardless of logical thought process or evidence they might be incorrect given differing circumstances that those they live under. In this instance, my stance is that since a bulletproof vest is not dangerous to anyone, and ensures safety for the wearer, why would anyone want to make such a thing illegal to have? I think people who want to buy and/or wear a bulletproof vest should be able to. Your stance, on the other hand (if I am reading you right; I believe I am), is that people should be prohibited from owning/wearing a bulletproof vest because you see no reason for them to do so.

I am proposing that people can make their own choices based on their circumstances and perceptions without governmental interference. Your stance is that governmental regulation is necessary based on what society (translation: you) deems appropriate. Now exactly who is a proponent of freedom and who is a proponent of tyranny in this discussion?

Don't blow a vein okay?

Then quit trying to control my (and others') lives. Or just make blowing a vein illegal.


posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 03:13 PM

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.

I can think of a few reasons why an ordinary citizen would want to wear body armor in public. The main reason is if you are walking in a major city, particularly the inner city (any inner city, doesn't matter). If I am ever caught in the cross-fire of a gang war, a drive-by shooting, or someone tries to rob me, I want some protection!

As for hunters wearing body armor, it's not the deer that fire the deadly bullets that have killed hunters, and you know that. It's other hunters who have accidentally shot a fellow hunter to death when trying to bag a deer. Again, some protection would be useful.

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:51 PM
They shot to kill the mofo... and they missed! They weren't concerned with hitting his gun and knocking it out of his hand like Barnaby Jones.

Everyone talking about legality of body armor.

It should be legal if it isn't... If it isn't, only criminals will have it anyways.

You can buy Kevlar fabric and shears to cut it to size.

What struck me as unusual in this whole story is imagining what the cops were thinking when taking down this cop killer... They must have really hammered him in the chest ... knocked the sucker out and all the frags hit him in the extremities but nothing fatal...

Imagine their surprise to find he has body armor!!! ONOZ OMG

That means a multimillion dollar trial and on infinitum...

It's amazing how many of these shooters get taken out or suicided and save us the agony of a long trial and the endless hours of Nancy Grace.

Reminds me of Judge Dredd; I need to see that movie again.

[edit on 4·6·09 by DrMattMaddix]

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:49 PM
Here in Southern Virginia almost any gun store will order a vest for you, but I wish they would run back ground checks we have a load of "Thugs" running around with IIIA and our .40 glock just isn't good enough.


posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:28 PM
I own 3 bullet proof vests, 2 citizen models, and one military issue vest a relative gave to me 4 months ago.

Owning a vest is NOT illegal, using one in a shootout is.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:38 PM
Wow. That's all I can say. While the whole situation that went down in your linked story is tragic and the criminal involved is trash, this is another fine example of an anti gun, anti rights story in the main stream media! It's a garbage story and obviously aimed to paint the rights and need for citizens to have weapons and body armor as needless ones. Using them to kill cops is terrible and the man who did this is obviously not right on the head but citizens have and need these rights to protect themselves from would be personal infringements not by other citizens, but by governments. If you think that our governments have, always have and always will have your best interests in mind, you need to go back and read your history books. And again this story is another example of a tragic situation twisted into an opportunity for anti rights propaganda... The whole thing makes me sick!

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:49 PM
makes be want to buy a bulletproof vest and use it to beat the hell out of someone with it, instead of wearing it for my own protection. i think that sounds acceptable enough.

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:18 AM
its interesting that people are under the impression it is legal

itd be nice if anyone might have some further insight into the legality of it

im not going to say anyone is wrong because i dont know for sure, but i am sure that i have read many news articles of people being arrested for being in possession of them

the rapper odb was actually arrested for having or wearing one once

that could be related to what one poster said about it being illegal for a felon, but i am pretty sure i have read articles regarding arrests of people with them who werent reported as felons

possibly it may be a statewide thing

but im still pretty sure there are at least a few places in the USA where it is illegal to posses them

im almost 90 percent sure of that for ny

but again i may be wrong, would be nice if someone knew for sure and could provide a source

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:29 AM
These vests are not illegal. These things are everywhere and if you want you could wear them into town. If you break the law while wearing one then additional charges will mount. Geez I hate the MSM.

Proof of legality.

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 04:29 AM
reasonable but i wasnt exactly thinking of ebay as being a source to a legal question

searching quickly online i found a lot of contradictory information on the subject

many say its legal, except for felons, or if caught committing a crime while in possession of one

then i read there is new legislation either in effect or going into effect

as far as nys

this is the most ive found so far

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 07:46 AM
Well I guess by this logic ducking out of the way of a bullet is illegal.
after all, if the police want you to have a hole in you.... who is going to
stop them. and dead men can't tell their side of the story... so.... Ok all is in order here.... so, when you practice with your weapons, shoot the head of the target , why go for the heart if it is just going to be absorb.

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Anti-Evil]

posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
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.

It's only illegal for criminals to wear bulletproof vests. If you aren't wanted for a crime, you can legally own one. It's like guns. You can legally own one unless you're a felon. Sure that's not going to stop a felon, because they're clearly not concerned about the law or they wouldn't be a felon, but that just means that they will receive a more serious punishment if they're caught. The extra harshness of the sentence is meant to reflect the marginal additional danger to society posed by well prepared criminals.

Getting armor vests is not even difficult in the US. You can find them all over the internet and in pawn shops, thrift stores, and shops geared towards law enforcement. While I'm sure state laws vary, overall, civilians can be as well protected as they can afford.

Really, it's almost certainly not worth the money, weight, and bulk. No normal ballistic vest will protect against the kind of rifles people hunt deer with. It might be worth it to protect vs shot during bird season, though. Just watch out for Cheney, he goes for the face.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira

Just a nitpick, but .45 caliber rounds are actually terrible at penetrating armor. Level II vests stop it easily. even 9mm is a little bit better. In fact, just about any pistol round from this century is better, barring the weakest of the bunch like .38 special, 9x18 makarov, .25acp, etc. .45 is subsonic, where almost any other round is supersonic.

Almost any rifle round will fire smaller diameter bullets than .45, but pretty much any rifle will easily penetrate any vest a civilian can buy.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
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,

1. It's only illegal if you are a convicted felon

2. Police officers have a job in which they regularly deal with aggravated individuals, and get shot at far more often than ordinary citizens. Even if the private ownership of ballistic vests was illegal (and it isn't), I fail to see how public institutions issuing them in order to save lives would be hypocritical. Ballistic vests are heavy and uncomfortable, and so people tend to wear them only when they expect to be shot at. Normal citizens don't really have any reason to expect to be shot at.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in