Dem weasels ban body armor !

Dem weasels ban body armor !​

Where'd you get your journalism degree? NY Post? She "only" wants to ban armor that can defeat rifle rounds. C'mon man!

Read more: Democrats Want to Ban Civilian Ownership of Level III Body Armor
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

New York Democratic Congresswoman Grace Meng apparently wants to make it easier for criminals to shoot you. Meng has reintroduced legislation – for the third time – that would ban civilian body armor if it can defeat rifle ammunition.

Meng’s bill, H.R. 3247, which is titled the “Aaron Salter, Jr., Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” would ban the “purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians.”

The bill defines enhanced body armor as having the ballistic resistance that meets or exceeds Level III standards as defined by the National Institute of Justice. Level III and Level IV are designed to stop rifle rounds. The legislation would also ban helmets and ballistic shields if they are Level III or greater.
 
So now, in a time that according to them we have more "mass shootings" than any other time in the history of the united states...they want to ban body armor?

Seems a bit counter intuitive. Even thinking about it from their perspective, is it common or even a rising trend for violent crimes to be committed while wearing level 3 body armor?

Also, I did not read the article [rofl]
 
Stupid twat, she’s a case study that a liberal never learns:

In November 2013, Meng was robbed and assaulted by a purse-snatcher in the Eastern Market area of Washington, D.C.[49] She suffered injuries to her head, left knee, hand, and face, and was treated at George Washington University hospital.

Apparently one assault isn’t enough to turn a liberal into a conservative, I hope three times is a charm.
 
reason.com

Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

The Monuments Men, ankle monitor prejudice, and a qualified immunity ballot initiative.
reason.com reason.com

Hmmm…unarmed assault against police while wearing body armor to protect against armed police deserved enhanced sentencing. “Stop Resisting” getting shot by police is especially criminal.

”Perhaps not the most high-profile criminal case pertaining to former President Donald Trump this week, but the D.C. Circuit affirmed a 10-year sentence for a former police officer who assaulted Capitol police on Jan. 6 (the unusually lengthy sentence reflecting both the trial penalty and his wearing of body armor during the assault).”
 
fencer said:
Well.... at least they didn't say anything about Level IV ceramic.
View attachment 885298
Click to expand...

Introduced in House (05/11/2023)​

Aaron Salter, Jr., Responsible Body Armor Possession Act

This bill establishes a federal statutory framework to restrict the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians. The term enhanced body armor means body armor, including a helmet or shield, with a ballistic resistance that meets or exceeds the ballistic performance standard of Type III armor, as determined using the National Institute of Justice standard in effect at the time the person purchases, owns, or possesses the armor.
 
fencer said:
About 8lbs each
Click to expand...
Just looked it up. 7.2 lbs each
I went with the curved plates, swimmer cut. And yes, it is definitely different shooting when you wear them. I took it to the range and threw a big loose hoodie over it. a few times.
Been meaning to order some lighter plates as well, but Level IV will stop 30-06 and 308. And don't forget the trauma pads, because if you get hit with a couple of rounds of 7.62 it is going to hurt enough to take you out of the fight, maybe even break a rib or stop your heart just from the impact
 
fencer said:
but Level IV will stop 30-06 and 308
Click to expand...
it is like a never ending thing - what helps more and hurts more - loss of the mobility due to bulkiness and weight of the armor, or the benefit to protect your torso from ricochets, as it will not protect you from trained personnel who will shoot your upper legs/groin first to bring you down, and then will finish you up.

still, kinda silly to argue that armor indeed saves lives.

a level 3+ steel plate is 7lbs anyway, so it is not that different from level 4.

all i know - i am 50+ now, not 20 anymore, and to wear 40lbs armor on top of the gun and 4-6 magazines will be a serious toll. and to run around like that - forgetaboutit.
 
Last edited:
paul73 said:
all i know - i am 50+ now, not 20 anymore, and to wear 40lbs armor on top of the gun and 4-6 magazines will be a serious toll. and to run around like that - forgetaboutit.
Click to expand...
I'm 55 so I know what you mean, but it is less than 30lbs even with all of the ammo pouches full.
My back pack leaf blower is 28lbs and I wear that for hours on end.
The biggest issue with hard metal plates is "spall".

Body armor does not make one indestructible, and I have no such delusions. But it might keep you in the fight long enough.
 
fencer said:
but it is less than 30lbs even
Click to expand...
not with with the side plates in. 4x7=28lbs for plates, give or take, then a carrier, then the rest of gear on top of it. i would say, 40lbs is a conservative number.
unless you skip the side plates, or use something way lighter there.
 
“that would ban civilian body armor if it can defeat rifle ammunition.”

….meets or exceeds lvl lll.

Great another law that doesn’t do what it says it’s supposed to. Level three won’t stop a rifle. so they just want to take away the armor that stops the rifle, but the law says otherwise.

Most mass shooting involved pistols. The ones they like to talk about involve rifles so if you’re in one of these terrifying “mass shooter situations“ they don’t want to have the armor that would actually help?

It’s unconstitutional anyway
 
Back
Top Bottom