Not only do congressional Democrats want to take away your constitutional right to own a firearm, they also want to extinguish all methods of protecting yourself from being shot, even if it’s the police doing the shooting.
In case you missed it, a little more than a year ago Rep. Michael “Mike” Honda, D-Calif., introduced the inappropriately titled “Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” which, of course, bans personal possession of body armor because, you know, that’s “responsible” (in the eyes of an authoritarian, maybe).
A Congressional Research Service summary of the bill says:
Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor, except: (1) by or under the authority of the United States or any state or political subdivision, or (2) enhanced body armor that was lawfully possessed before the effective date of this Act.
Defines “enhanced body armor” to mean body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.
As reported by Blacklisted News, the legislation caused some uproar when it was introduced in January 2015, but has since died down, and is now no longer top-of-mind for most people. But you can bet that the bill’s sponsors and co-sponsors (there are six as of April 20) haven’t forgotten about it.
Only police will have them
As Blacklisted News notes, obviously the Act reverberates among gun-rights groups and Second Amendment supporters in the electorate, but it also goes to the heart of the issue of self-defense, as in, prevention of harm or death: When only police have guns and body armor, well, perhaps they won’t need as much of the latter. But the point is, they don’t, so why shouldn’t citizens be allowed to have the added protection?
You could also label this piece of legislation as the latest provision of a wider, “We Don’t Want A Fair Fight In Case There Is A Rebellion Act,” because that’s what Honda and his fellow Stalin wannabes are really getting at. Lawmakers with this same kind of authoritarian mentality also want to ban guns outright, heap big taxes on guns and – in a coup de grace – appoint a new Supreme Court justice. And who would vote to reverse the high court’s most important recent firearms decision – that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right right to own guns, not a government-granted collective right (think “militia”).
Now, as to the language of this legislation, it refers specifically to Level III body armor, which is designed to stop rifle rounds, primarily. Some Americans – maybe even most – would find this type of body armor cumbersome and even overkill (pardon the pun). But that really isn’t the point, or shouldn’t be: Some law-abiding citizens would find it useful, we are supposed to be living in “the land of the free,” and there’s that question about why Honda wants to strip Americans of this valuable protective gear, anyway.
All this fuss for 16 cases a year
From a press release he put out at the time:
This bill allows law enforcement to respond to active shooting situations more effectively. The bill prohibits the purchase, sale, or possession of military-grade body armor by anyone except certain authorized users, such as first-responders and law enforcement.
But wait – aren’t Democrats, primarily, the ones who are critical of “law enforcement” having too much military-grade equipment as it is? Wasn’t that one of the arguments after police responded to rioting and raucous protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, among other cities?
Then there is this: Just how may “active shooter situations” do police respond to in the U.S. that would necessitate this law? Well, according to the FBI in 2014, that number is 16 a year – in a nation of about 310 million people.
No, this legislation, which we wanted to remind you of, is not aimed at anything other than depriving Americans of yet another way to protect themselves from bodily harm and abuse from the powers that be.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053793_Responsible_body_armor_Act_police_state_self_defense.html#ixzz47Fjy3L7P
7 thoughts on “Proposed law would make it illegal to protect your body from being shot by police… even if they raid the wrong home”
All these liberals, dumbocraps and Jews have all gone full retard.
I don’t give a crap about any law , come in my home uninvited and we’ll see who comes out of it alive my doors are locked for your protection , not mine
No law is going to do a dam bit of good to the dead MFer that screwed up as they bleed out in my living room now is it ?
I ain’t doing anything that would ever warrant any cop to come thru my doors , so I will treat them like any other threat to me or my family
With extreme predudice and a 12 G shot gun
You’ve got the right attitude, my friend. Just be advised that all buckshot and most slugs are ineffective against body armor or ballistic shields. A shot to a helmet with one of the heavier Brenneke slugs would probably be lethal even without penetration. Still, I’d rather have homemade AP slugs if I were relying on a shotgun.
It’s also worth keeping in mind that even if someone repels an initial raid on his home, the goons will almost surely gas it and/or “accidentally” set it on fire to force the homeowner to surrender or shoot himself.
In truth, a typical home is indefensible against a raid unless you have outside help ready to come to your rescue. However, most homes can be “hardened” thoroughly enough (with sandbags, etc.) to allow a resident to take a few dirtbags down with him.
Hope the first home they invade is this dip sh;ts home and any other demoncrap that thinks this is a good idea
The person is now near dead and immobilized..and their saying…
More shots into the almost dead corpse….
Stop resisting our bullets!!!!!
He’s still breathing…..
Then the cops say…..
I was in fear for my life…..me and all the other 30 cops against this one person.
Then one of the cops says…
Hey let’s go get some krispy kreme donuts.
The other one says 10/4 its been a rough day.
It’s a good idea to have rifle plates and a carrier. There are quite a few places online where private citizens can buy Level III and IV armor plates. AR500.com and BulletProofMe.com are both reputable.
For those not familiar with armor plates, here’s an overview:
AR500 steel plates are relatively inexpensive and very strong. They’re Level III and are good for many hits of most rifle rounds. They’re reasonably thin, too. Drawbacks are heavy weight and an inability to stop AP rounds or very fast rifle rounds (like 55-grain M193 from a 20″ barrel at short range).
There are Level III hard polyethylene plates (and some helmets) out there, and they can stop most non-AP rifle rounds at a surprisingly light weight. However, they don’t stop common M855 “green-tip” rounds. Neither do they stop AP rifle rounds such as .30-06 M2 “black tip.” (They DO stop mild steel core AK rounds.) These plates are very light but fairly bulky (about an inch thick) and they’re pretty danged expensive. They also tend to deform more than other plates when struck by heavy bullets, possibly leading to behind-armor injury.
Level IV plates (usually ceramic) are generally needed to stop AP rifle rounds. Ceramic plates are lighter than steel, but a little thicker and a lot more expensive. They can stop at least one round of .30-06 AP, and often at least another one or two shots if the rounds don’t hit too close together. They are NOT likely to hold up to multiple hits of non-AP rounds as well as steel or polyethylene plates. Dropping ceramic plates or otherwise treating them roughly can lead to cracks that might lessen their effectiveness, though I suspect this concern is overblown.
Personally, I think the AR500 plates are the best investment for someone who wants to get only one set of front/back rifle plates. Just be prepared to handle that extra weight. Also be sure the plates you get have some kind of “spall guard” coating to catch high-speed bullet fragments in the event of a hit on the plate.
“But the point is, they don’t, so why shouldn’t citizens be allowed to have the added protection?”
BECAUSE they’re ‘citizens’, they have to be ‘allowed’.
Nationals don’t NEED ‘permission’ from the so-called ‘government’ for ANYTHING!