Rep. Mike Honda trying to ban body armor sales to public in USA - H.R. 5344 bill - Polidicks

[img]http://www.recoilweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CA-Rep-Mike-Honda-670x447.jpg[/img] [quote]Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, has announced legislation that would block civilians from accessing military-grade body armor to prevent criminals from using them in gun battles with law enforcement. Honda, speaking at a news conference in San Jose Wednesday morning with police chiefs and the district attorneys and sheriffs from Santa Clara and Alameda counties, said his proposal would discourage criminals from wearing enhanced body armor to commit mass shootings. "This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands," Honda said. "It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be able to access enhanced body armor." "We're not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest," he said. "We're talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions."[/quote] [url]http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Rep-Mike-Honda-Introduces-Bill-Banning-Civilians-from-Buying-Body-Armor-270223431.html[/url] <--- news source ----- my valued opinion below [quote]Stop H.R. 5344 from banning responsible law abiding citizens from owning body armor. Preserve our right to own, possess, and transport body armor as a law abiding citizen of the United States. Stop H.R. 5344 from stripping citizens of our freedom and ability to defend ourselves and our families. Protect our freedom to purchase and own body armor, regardless of the protection level. Created: Aug 08, 2014[/quote] petition to stop this liberal bullshit as we yet again forfeit more freedoms for false security ---->[url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-hr-5344-banning-responsible-law-abiding-citizens-owning-body-armor/GNrBKFrF[/url]

but getting shot at is a hobby that i should have the freedom to do

this bill sounds dumb as hell

Um do they understand that there is no such thing as bullet proof armor and that military grade and police grade and civilian grade are all the same fucking thing?

I thought body armour was already banned for civilian use?

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;45651698]Um do they understand that there is no such thing as bullet proof armor and that military grade and police grade and civilian grade are all the same fucking thing?[/QUOTE] Clearly not.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45651703]I thought body armour was already banned for civilian use?[/QUOTE] No, and it shouldn't be. If anything, make it an accessory to a crime, like committing a crime with a gun adds on gun charges. If you used body armor to your advantage it becomes an accessory charge.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45651703]I thought body armour was already banned for civilian use?[/QUOTE] Clearly not. I own a plate carrier. Why? I thought it was cool and the price was right.

Regardless, I'm against it because the reasoning is awful and misinformed. Seriously, "Police bullets"? There's no such thing. At least if you said "Military bullets" I can assume you're talking about the 5.56x45mm NATO and not the .223 Remington.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45651752]Regardless, I'm against it because the reasoning is awful and misinformed. Seriously, "Police bullets"? There's no such thing. At least if you said "Military bullets" I can assume you're talking about the 5.56x45mm NATO and not the .223 Remington.[/QUOTE] Um. Yeah. Only difference between 5.56 and .223 is powder charge. They're also forgetting police use armor penetrating hollow points so whats the use of banning something so easily defeatable?

How often do people get into gun battles with law enforcement while wearing body armor? I mean, it can't be that big of a thing, can it? I can imagine it happening with gang violence, maybe, but just in general? How big a deal is this for them to consider making a law about it?

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;45651769]Um. Yeah. Only difference between 5.56 and .223 is powder charge. They're also forgetting police use armor penetrating hollow points so whats the use of banning something so easily defeatable?[/QUOTE] There's enough of a difference with the case shape that an AR-15 chambered for .223 specifically won't feed 5.56, but any AR chambered for 5.56 will feed both. [QUOTE=woolio1;45651784]How often do people get into gun battles with law enforcement while wearing body armor? I mean, it can't be that big of a thing, can it? I can imagine it happening with gang violence, maybe, but just in general? How big a deal is this for them to consider making a law about it?[/QUOTE] Your average thug isn't going to be wearing body armor.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;45651787]There's enough of a difference with the case shape that an AR-15 chambered for .223 specifically won't feed 5.56, but any AR chambered for 5.56 will feed both.[/QUOTE] it will chamber its just that it will probably explode if you fire it

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45651752]Regardless, I'm against it because the reasoning is awful and misinformed. Seriously, "Police bullets"? There's no such thing. At least if you said "Military bullets" I can assume you're talking about the 5.56x45mm NATO and not the .223 Remington.[/QUOTE] Obviously that's the case but the general knowledge (misinformation/myth) is that there is a civilian tier, a police tier, and a military tier to literally everything related to weaponry and armor. What most people don't really realize is that the so-called 'civilian' and 'police' tiers are basically the same and the 'military' tier isn't amazingly better just because 'wow military' but rather because its just built to a different standard and is more expensive as a result.

The thing that baffles me in America is that its perfectly acceptable that I own multiple firearms, some of them for dedicated home defense, but the moment I invest in something that will save my life if an intruder shoots back I'm some paranoid militia lunatic. And banning it is dumb when all a criminal needs to do is buy a rectangular AR500 steel target and hit it with a cutting torch to replicate most budget plates you get in a carrier.

[QUOTE=XxPsychoxX;45651816]The thing that baffles me in America is that its perfectly acceptable that I own multiple firearms, some of them for dedicated home defense, but the moment I invest in something that will save my life if an intruder shoots back I'm some paranoid militia lunatic.[/QUOTE] No, no, you're a paranoid militia lunatic for owning firearms too. They've just stopped screaming about it lately.

Can someone tell me why you would ever need body armor as a civilian? Like honestly. Not that I care if they ban it or not, but if I see someone wearing it my suspicion goes through the roof.

[QUOTE=woolio1;45651839]No, no, you're a paranoid militia lunatic for owning firearms too. They've just stopped screaming about it lately.[/QUOTE] Well even amongst the firearms community, I've met plenty of people who aren't Fudds, owned modern sporting rifles, but a platecarrier was some taboo stuff to them.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45651840]Can someone tell me why you would ever need body armor as a civilian? Like honestly. Not that I care if they ban it or not, but if I see someone wearing it my suspicion goes through the roof.[/QUOTE] Because it's really cool? It's not something you just walk around wearing every day, just like you don't carry around an AR-15 every day. It's a neat thing to have, and it's fun to play (safely) with.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45651840]Can someone tell me why you would ever need body armor as a civilian? Like honestly. Not that I care if they ban it or not, but if I see someone wearing it my suspicion goes through the roof.[/QUOTE] Controversial figures might need it. For example, if you're a big business owner touring a factory when you just laid off a few hundred workers or if you're a politician.

I think the point is, with a firearm you can do a whole range of things--hunting, sport shooting, self-defence, etc...--while body armor generally has one role. Thus, there's the heavier stigma that in having body armor you perhaps are expecting to get shot at, whereas by having a firearm you could intend to do a wide range of things with it.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;45651933]I think the point is, with a firearm you can do a whole range of things--hunting, sport shooting, self-defence, etc...--while body armor generally has one role. Thus, there's the heavier stigma that in having body armor you perhaps are expecting to get shot at, whereas by having a firearm you could intend to do a wide range of things with it.[/QUOTE] Body armor would be handy to use whenever you're doing anything where there's a danger of shards of material being sent your way, like safety goggles for your torso....

Yeah, I am not going to trust any gun control bills from Democrats senators or representatives out of California. Yee has taught us that the Democrat Party of California will lie through their fucking teeth if money is waved towards them from Silicone Valley or Mexico. Also, people like this shouldn't be allowed it politics. Anyone who purchases a handgun/knife protection vest probably has a pretty good reason for wearing one. Namely they are either a shop owner, someone with money, or the person is in a rough neighborhood and wears a vest when going out at certain times.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45651840]Can someone tell me why you would ever need body armor as a civilian? Like honestly. Not that I care if they ban it or not, but if I see someone wearing it my suspicion goes through the roof.[/QUOTE] If you're a CCW holder I could see it being a consideration. And or just for general SHTF preparedness. Or yeah as Joe said if you are a store clerk working the graveyard shift in a shitty area or something

You know, this reminds me of an article I read in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago. There was a banker who worked in Detroit. Anyway, this being Detroit, he was mugged, shot, and left for dead. However, someone took him to the hospital, he got patched up, and started wearing body armor when he was in the city. He was mugged and shot a few more times, but survived because of his body armor. So, in situations like that, where the environment isn't going to get any better, should we take away the civilian's last line of defense, to basically sentence them to death or injury?

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45651840]Can someone tell me why you would ever need body armor as a civilian? Like honestly. Not that I care if they ban it or not, but if I see someone wearing it my suspicion goes through the roof.[/QUOTE] No reason to outlaw them really. These vest at best will protect you from light handgun calibers(.22LR, 9mm, .25 acp), and that's about it. If you are shot with a rifle round, hell even a .17HMR/HM2 round, it'll go through and through like a hot knife through butter. Most rifle rounds are dealt with via ceramic plates, and most people don't want to lug those around. Besides, [URL="http://www.ar500armor.com/plate-carriers/plate-carrier-packages-w-armor.html"]for $200 to $300, you can get a really nice body armor kit with velcro pockets and everything needed for your fun days playing airsoft and paintball![/URL]

[QUOTE=Code3Response;45651840]Can someone tell me why you would ever need body armor as a civilian? Like honestly. Not that I care if they ban it or not, but if I see someone wearing it my suspicion goes through the roof.[/QUOTE] Because the right to bear arms was reserved so that civilians could kill the militia. Banning it is silly given that trauma/ballistic plates, which I can only assume are what he is talking about, are basically never used in the commission of a crime. But yeah, people wearing it in public outside of some major disaster are probably crazy and I'd avoid them. EDIT: People wearing plate carriers. Soft armor I can think of a few valid reasons for civilians to wear.

you own body armor for the same reasons for owning a gun training, your job (le, military, contractor), for fun, to exercise your right to bear arms, whatever bullshit you do with your free time [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] with that said the people trying to ban this are literally the evilest motherfuckers ever and a quick google search will tell you everything you need to know about them

What if I'm a school principal and my school is attacked by a deer With this bill passed I'm as good as dead

Why not subsidize and distribute bullet resistant vests to reduce deaths from gun violence? Less people die, and you get to keep your guns and armors; it's a win-win!