repmikehondafbistats

A couple weeks back we reported on a bill introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by California Democrat Mike Honda to ban the sale of body armor to “civilians” in the United States. At the time the full text of the bill hadn’t been released, but a couple days ago it was finally posted to Congress’s official website. And yes, it really is as bad as you’d expect . . .

Right off the bat, the Orwellian newspeak used in this bill has risen to levels previously uncharted. The unofficial title of the bill is the “Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” and yet the language of the bill bans the possession, ownership, or purchase of “enhanced” body armor. Apparently, according to this Democrat representative, “responsible ownership” means an outright ban. I wonder if Gabby Giffords’ “Americans for Responsible Solutions” outfit operates under the same definition.

Anyway, on to the text:

SEC. 2. BAN ON PURCHASE, OWNERSHIP, OR POSSESSION OF ENHANCED BODY ARMOR BY CIVILIANS; EXCEPTIONS.

(a) In General.–Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“Sec. 932. Ban on purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians
“(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess enhanced body armor.
“(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to–
“(1) a purchase, ownership, or possession by or under the authority of–
“(A) the United States or any department or agency of the United States; or
“(B) a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; or
“(2) enhanced body armor that was lawfully possessed by any person at any time before the date this section takes effect.”.
(b) Enhanced Body Armor Defined.–Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(36) The term `enhanced body armor’ means 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.”.
(c) Penalties.–Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 932 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”.

In short, the bill would make it a felony to posses any object that exceeds type III bullet resistance according to the NIJ standards. I say object because while the bill seems to indicate that the target is “body armor” it also includes helmets and “shields.” In theory, the broad definition in use for “body armor” could include things like large pieces of AR500 steel plate, which are commonly used as targets for long range shooters. Not to mention the people who depend on bulletproof vests to defend their lives. Little Jimmy and Janie can still have their bullet blocking backpacks as long they don’t work too well.

Mike Honda seems intent on forcing his constituents to become victims by removing all options available for self defense. No concealed carry, no modern rifles — not even the ability to own an ballistic-blocking object specifically designed to save lives. Banning bulletproof vests is like banning fire extinguishers because a couple people have been beaten to death with them.

There’s a silver lining to this cloud, though. Mike Honda is fighting a tough battle to keep his seat against a young upstart who’s getting more funding and endorsements, and it is quite possible this bill is nothing but an empty election year ploy designed to show his constituents that he is “doing something” about these evil criminals (never mind the fact that the likelihood of the bill getting a vote in the Republican controlled House is virtually nil). Thankfully it seems like his days of “helping” in Washington may be numbered.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

128 COMMENTS

  2. Call me paranoid, however, I believe that this is so when/if the military is ordered to take away our constitutional rights, that we will not be able to stand up and fight them bullet for bullet. If not the military the police for sure. After all there no oath keepers in the police departments.
    This is of course IMHO.

    • “After all there no oath keepers in the police departments.”

      There are no oath keepers in the military either. Sure, there are guys who claim to be, but when the orders came down, they still did whatever the politicians told them to do – no matter how immoral or illegal. They’re usually just sleezy people who want you to provide them with money by claiming that they actually give a damn about the Constitution.

      • As a US navy sailor for the past 6 years and avid constitutionalist I take GREAT offense to this.

        • Then stop working to violate our rights and making Americans LESS through terrorizing nearly every nation on the planet. Nothing is less American than saying “Do as I say or die”. If you find your actions so offensive, maybe it’s time to rethink your life. After all, you swore to kill anyone a corrupt politician tells you to – and the fact people think you should be worshiped for that (and that my paycheck should be garnished to pay you for it) is incredibly offensive to me.

      • Publius, let me guess that you never served in the military, or you washed out of Basic Training. Obama may have gutted the Joint Chief’s, and replaced them with loyalist; but it will take him many more years to pollute the ranks. Military personnel follow lawful orders, and they know that they are liable for following unlawful orders, even if they come from the president.

        • +1 to Bob72 and Clayton Pascik.

          I may not agree with every decision the military makes, but 1, I’ve taken an oath before God to support and defend the Constitution of the US, against ALL enemies–that’s my top priority and what I’m going to do; and 2, I can make a heck of a lot more difference from the inside as a leader and with influence over hundreds of enlisted personnel than you can by complaining on a blog.

        • Perhaps Bob72; but one of the reasons the Founding Fathers were wary of a large “professional” military and police force was because they saw historically; those “public servants” came to see the people as not the masters but as the servants and that they were in fact the masters. This is why historically after any war that we fought, the standing military was reduced to a pale shadow and the first response to a national threat was supposed to be the militia.

          When Augustus Caesar became Dictator for life, (Historically a temporary position) he did it with the support of the Legions, until the Praetorian Guard that was responsible for protecting the Emperor; in time, ended up selling the Caesars position to the highest bidder.

          After Katrina, in New Orleans, when the Governor gave a very clear unconstitutional order to seize all weapons in NO, there was no hesitation, (that I heard) by the “professional” police force to body slam seventy year old ladies to seize their old revolvers they were using for protection during the chaos.

          So sorry if my doubt offends some military or police out there. But the jury is still out. The proof will be in the pudding. When the government passed the first Assault Weapons ban, I didn’t see any refusal on the part of the police to refuse to enforce the clearly unconstitutional law; if a national gun ban is passed in the future with no carve out for prior ownership, then we will see if the police and the military will refuse to enforce such a law.

          • @ThomasR, well what of the almost 60 Sheriff’s in Colorado that refuse to enforce the Democrat forced magazine capacity restrictions and back ground checks on gun sales between family members and other private individuals?

        • Actually El Mac, I was thinking about this as I read your post. Every Sherriff department except one here in New Mexico has publically stated they would not enforce an unconstitutional gun law. Many Sheriffs dept.’s around the country have made the same statement.

          If there is any universal refusal by the armed “professionals” to enforce unconstitutional gun laws, I would expect see it first in the sheriffs departments. I hope. If that did happen, I would then see the rest of the police and military possibly following their lead.

          So I have hope.

          • @ThomasR, exactly sir! Which is why I dismiss all the ranting and raving of some on TTAG about “police militarization”…. folks, the cops work for the MAYOR. The mayor is ELECTED. Do the math folks. The dude pushing a patrol car AIN’T the problem.

        • It should perhaps be noted that sheriffs, uniquely among LEOs, are elected. Thus, a Florida sheriff actively colluding with CNN in their infamous faked-up “assault weapons” report.

        • Bob – I certainly don’t wish to assume a certain course of action for all people in the military, but I’d suggest that you check out the Wikipedia story on the Bonus Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army.

          Briefly, WWI vets marched to Washington to demand the U.S.provide early payment on the bonus certificates issued to them for serving during the War. Technically, they were in the wrong as the payments were not due until 1945, but most of them had been out of work due to the Great Depression and were desperate.

          The marchers were orderly and camped out in Anacostia Flats. Eventually, the President decided to use the army to evict the marchers. With Gen. Douglas MacArthur leading the way, the 12th Infantry Regiment and 34th Calvary regiment charged the crowd (which included women and children) with tear gas and bayonets fixed. While I’m sure that some of the soldiers in the ranks did not feel comfortable confronting fellow warriors this way, there are no reports of mass defections.

          The simple fact is that soldiers are conditioned from boot camp to follow orders. Those soldiers or officers who show a propensity to question or disregard orders are often moved off of the career track or forced out altogether. There is not likely to be any massive rebellion of the armed forces against the leadership. To think otherwise is naive.

          That said, I suspect it would ultimately come down to how it was positioned. If, for example, there was a massive rebellion in several states against the Federal Government, it is likely that many troops, particularly those part of the National Guard would abandon Federal Control for state/local control. On the other hand, in a situation such as what transpired at the Bundy Ranch a couple of months ago, I have no doubt that soldiers ordered in to restore the peace would have no serious issues gunning down the militia members.

          In the end, I’m not aware of any historical precedent that would suggest mass defection by the armed forces in the event of civil unrest. I am, however aware of precedents that suggest otherwise. I certainly wouldn’t count on it.

        • If any of our military cared about their oath to uphold the Constitution, then how come our military hasn’t done what Egypt’s military did and demand that a politician who violated their laws step down or be forcefully removed from office? You lose all credibility when you obediently serve the person who violates the Constitution and orders you to do the same.

      • Well douchebag, nice to see the keyboard warriors are out in full swing. The idiocy is strong in this one….

      • Now hold the phone there guy. Just how many soldiers have you meet?
        Cause in my 15 years I’ve met all types some great guys and a few butt heads but the OVERWHELMING majority do believe in the constitution. On top of that but we have a strong sense of right and wrong (unlike politicians). No not only are we interested in defending the constitution but just defending right over wrong in general.
        Trust me, we are all watching the as*:!#&×+
        People in Washington. There is A LOT of BS we will put up with but when they cross the line and they think they’ve got the whole U.S. military to back it up, they have another thing coming.

      • @Publics – If you have a problem wIth how the military is used, talk to your representatives. We work at the direction of our civilian leadership. What is or is not moral is not for us to decide. As for the legal aspect, we are duty bound to disobey illegal orders but that gets into subjectivity. I have never been given an illegal order. Here is an example. My Commander orders me to put you on your knees and shoot you in the back of the head for disrespecting military personnel and general douchebaggery on your part. As much as I might want to follow that order, I’m duty bound to disobey it. On the other hand, if my Commander said that a terrorist named Publius was in a building and he’s wanted for sniping at Soldiers and general douchebaggery of that sort and I was to bring him in alive if possible and dead if necessary, I would move out smartly and execute that order because it was a legal order. I hope this little lesson helps you understand how we respond to legal vs illegal orders. And in case I was bring too subtle, I think you are a worthless douche bag.

      • Publius – You need to learn how our government works. The military can’t be used to take control in a coup evertime some of the people don’t like what’s going on. There are avenues to address that. If the ones responsible for keeping the President in check, work to replace them. If the military were to take charge a la Egypt, they might as well physically rip up the Constitution because that is what they have, in essence, done.

      • Notice how many in disagreement of Publius and ThomasR among others, attack the posters’ character instead of their ideas.

        • Here’s what I noticed about (the only one of the two I responded to.)
          I noticed he didn’t actually have a point.
          I noticed he DID have a profanity-laced tirade that is insulting to military personnel.
          I also noticed that he never took a civics class because he had no concept of how our form of government works.

    • No Frank, you’re not paranoid at all. They’re doing the exact same thing than in Europe where people can’t have anything to defend themselves anymore.

      For instance, in France, it’s illegal to own protection system against chemical attacks. We’re not talking about a ban against chemical weapons, but protection systems against chemical attacks. Which means, people can’t have anything to “protect” themselves in case of nuclear or gas attack (like Tchernobyl or even lately in Syria, etc…).

      Isn’t it weird? I know, a lot of people will say it’s a B.S. conspiracy… but the more it goes and the more we see what government are capable of, including against their own citizens, it makes me think twice about real intention behind this kind of laws.

      It always starts with a tiny little thing like that, and then the list of illegal things is growing and growing to the point the people don’t have anything left to defend themselves.

    • I said this when the first TTAG article about the Bill came around.

      This was not proposed after columbine, this was not proposed after Newtown, this was not proposed after North Hollywood, this was not proposed after Aurora.

      This WAS proposed just after Bundy Ranch finally died off from the news cycle.

      Paranoia? Maybe. But it fits pretty well.

    • The bright side of this situation is there is not any body armor for the neck and head. Any sniper will tell you these are sure “kills”. One of the reasons they are a major secondary target

    • You ever hear of a thing called asymetrical warfare?
      History is full of examples of the weak defeating the strong.
      Like how a ragtag army defeated the largest and best military in the world in the late 18th century!

  4. Is it just me or does Honda resemble Jabba The Hut? What is it with these CA Dems? Is there something in the water or what? I think Oregon, Nevada and Arizona should seal their borders to keep any more of the nuts from rolling in.

  5. Oh, I thought you said “Body Odor”. Too bad, Mike, you might have had a better chance with that.

  6. This strikes me as a parody-worthy level of insanity. What are the chances of this actually passing? Seriously, someone educate me on this?

    • Chances are exactly zero. This is so he has something to put in his email blasts and newsletters.

      • I hope so. I want to get some soft armor after getting involved in boards and councils and stuff lately in my community and learning how insane people flock to boards and councils like moths to a house light.

        • If somehow this were to pass, no worries since soft body armor is generally under the III NIJ type that would be banned.

        • Yeah, but I can easily see the crazy escalating to the level where I’d want a rifle plate and a helmet. It’s nice to have options.

      • As Pascal says, the chance of this bill passing are essentially zero but this is a new seed. A seed that just might sprout into an idea that other dim witted moron politicians might want to water. I can EASILY see Feinstein and Bloomberg actually sticking this idea into their bag of tricks for future use.

    • The California umm, “representative” hopes to pass such an abomination because……wait for it.

      They already passed such a law in CA making it a felony for all subjects accept the special anointed few to own body armor.

      They did this after the Hollywood shoot out when the up armored bank robbers shot it out with police with standing multiple pistol and shot gun rounds without being mortally wounded, for a while.

      California. I was born and raised there in the Bay Area and in Santa Cruz. Now, after living for over twenty years in a state that honors the Second Amendment, where I am free to OC without a permit and I am not harassed or attacked by the Powers That Be for doing so. I look back at California and see it as a cancer, an all consuming soul destroying disease, that sucks the very life and the reason for living from ones spirit. That enslaves the very mind, let alone the soul and spirit of ones being.

      I completely understand why so many people are on anti-depressants, even if those same people don’t consciously understand themselves.

    • Maybe, but I’m not laughing. Any time a government official decides that citizens are too hard to kill, it’s time to pay very careful attention.

  7. I would say that just because Mr. Leghorn doesn’t believe this bill will get that far doesn’t mean you shouldn’t still write and call your reps. If we sit this one out it could be seen as an “opening” for other bills later.

  9. What about a normal backpack filled with a typical highschool load of books? does that qualify as level III? I do wish legislators would only try to solve things that have become problems.

  10. From a tactical perspective, I’d much rather roll around slick. SAPIs are heavy, and what’s worse….bulky.

    • The AR 500 inserts are rather slim. A bit heavier than ceramic plates, but what’s an extra 15 lbs on a rig?

  11. I think we should all take an old t-shirt, cut the arms off so it looks like a “vest”, write the words “Level III Body Armor” on the front with a black laundry marker, and send them in a nice big box to the Representative’s office in D.C. as a political protest.

    And no, I am not being sarcastic. We really should do this.

  13. So one incident of a bad guy using level III body armor is a “trend” that must be stopped? And how are the police munitions these vests stop any different from the munitions available to civilians? This guy has no idea what he is talking about. But since he is a Bay Area pol (Fremont, Sunnyvale), we are hardly surprised. Sunnyvale has passed or is attempting to pass an ordinance banning gun shops, and has copied San Francisco’s ordinance requiring that handguns not being carried by the owner must be unloaded and locked up.

  14. Damn! That would make it a bit difficult for me to do my job. I work security on hire as need bases and to do the work I need level three body armor with a trauma plate. Hopefully my card would make it legal, to keep. If not, then It would mean that between jobs I would not be capable of keeping my armor. (No I am not a merc. Leave that stupid crap to Blackwater and Chenega.) And no I am not wearing someone else’s body armor, that is like wearing someone else’s underwear. It just ain’t going to happen. Body armor only last so long before it starts breaking down, and I don’t want someones out of date hand me downs.

  16. The Constitution restricts government, not citizens.

    Perhaps lawmakers need to learn and review civics.

    • Seems like we should amend the Constitution to require all candidates for elective office to take a test on the Constitution.

      • Perhaps a promise of some kind?
        “I do solemnly pinky-swear…”

        Oh.

        Wait, can I start again?

    • The Constitution not only limits government; it created and defines the government. Without the Constitution, our proper government doesn’t even exist. However, the People are the only ones that can really effect change and they don’t seem willing to do the work. America will get the government that it deserves.

  18. What a maroon….

    Sometimes you just have to wonder what goes on in these guys brain housing group.

  19. Got a friend with a farm? used plow points work quite well as ar500 target replacements stops a .308 with a nice ring.

  20. This bill is going nowhere. It is a political ploy to get attention, which we’re giving it. Move on!

  22. Keep in mind that California has no such law itself. This is just one idiotic congressman….every state has them (like that one from Georgia that was afraid of capsizing Guam).

    My point is that this is nothing but outrage porn for the gun community. No chance in California, let alone Congress, so why report on it?

  23. As a ‘representative’ of the Great Sanctuary State of New Mexifornia — some might be inclined to think this to be a “Yes” answer to the question of “Is he really THAT stupid?”. Others, however, might have cause to suspect if this isn’t some part of a well-planned strategy toward securing a position as an appointed official in the Union of the Americas / North American Union. ( All that’s really left to do is document the official erasure of what little there is of the current border, grant the UofA / NAU legislative and taxing authority and either erect a new building or just hang a sign out somewhere. )
    Be that as it may — and knowingly or not — he’s now in the running for Body Armor Salesman of the Year…
    ( stocks anyone? )

  25. That degenerate old bastard wants to make a piece of clothing worthy of a 10 year prison sentance and a felony rap.

    Wow. Hands off a womans body and stay out of our bedrooms but if you wear this piece of clothes we’ll drop you in prison amongst real bad guys. Over a piece of clothing.

  26. Like I said – election year bs designed to show he was doing something. Bastard won’t get re-elected

    • “Bastard won’t get re-elected.”
      It looks that way but the guy running against him, Ro Kanna is just as bad. He’s all for “common sense gun control” too. He’s younger and seems smarter too. Therefore Honda’s ‘replacement’ is possibly more dangerous.

      • yes, but. . . . new guy gets crappy committee assignments and moved towards the bottom in terms of seniority and moving legislation. Unless someone is a “rock star” (ie, noted celeb or serious cred for some reason), they toil in the House in relative obscurity for a number of terms and then they start to become, shall we say, effective and dangerous. I will take a new legislator over an old head any day for this reason alone.

  27. I would really like to know what Moms Demand Action, the Brady Campaign, & their ilk have to say about this.

    I would also note that if an individual has the right to self-defense, and if that self-defense right encompasses ownership and lawful use of firearms, how the heck can anyone make a case for outlawing an object whose sole purpose is to defend the wearer? I really doubt that anyone has ever been killed by body armor (except, perhaps, for wearers suffering heat-related emergencies, a condition I know from personal experience).

    What’s next…banning locks on our doors?

    • That would sure make it easier to do no-knock raids.

      I’m surprised California hasn’t already followed the lead of Massachusetts which requires a Firearms Identification Card to purchase, possess or carry pepper spray.

    • Didn’t California outlaw doors that were reinforced against break ins? Or was it just one of the liberal Utopian cities there?

      • IMHO it’s everywhere. The ubiquitous “code” forces commercial establishments to have doors which open out, residences to have doors which open in. I would MUCH rather have the doors in my home open out, kicking your way in just got way tougher, and it became more certain that once in, you would meet one of my toys from 2 feet away, instantly. We can’t have that, because the cops or fire dept may have to force their way in to “save” us. Seems like that would be MY choice.

  28. Hey, I know! What about a waiting period and background checks? And having to show “good cause.” And limits on “evil” features that are purely cosmetic (like black carriers). And California can institute a roster of Body Armor Determined to Not Be … um…Irresponsible?

    (Sarcasm)

  30. ban Honda!

    In fact, license all govt employees, period, from HS custodian to the POTUS.

    In legal terms, a govt license is permit for an activity which would otherwise be considered illegal. So, the default disposition of ANY state actor is guilty, until proven innocent, prohibited until allowed, or STFU.

    Not that Const. ever worked (Note: Whiskey Rebellion, and who invoked the Militia powers to put them down), but govt was only meant to do the explicitly 16-18 enumerated (depending on how you count) powers delegated (as in power inherent to the grantor, temporarily allowed to the grantee, but not permanently) listed in Article 1 Section 8.

    Of course, goes without saying, it’s utterly rhetorical at this point to act surprised by any govt terrorists’ delusional interpretation of the plain English in the Constitution, let alone their fealty to their oaths, but truly, again rhetorical: in what motherfucking universe does an EMPLOYEE, gets to dictate to their EMPLOYERS, We the Citizen bosses of these primate govt terrorist maggots??

    When?

    The 1st punishment for any Constitutionally clueless govt maggot, should be to have him/her write out longhand, 1st have their moronic mis-understanding of the Constitution, in which they deluded granted them powers to do/propose/legislate x, y, z, to be written out. Then 2ndly, correct them, on absolute strict constructionist Constitutionalism, have them repeat it. And no, even afterwards, they don’t get ‘their’ jobs back: ban the fuckers, ie, ‘yank’ their license, for life!

    lol.

    by the way, even as written, if these jokers actually knew anything, ANY ‘law’ that does not apply equally: ie. “civilian” vs govt military & police, it falls under “No Bills of Attainder allow”-clause. Thus, technically unConstituional… well, kinda pointless pointing that out, as about 90% of what American govts do everyday, from the Fed to local govts are ALL UNconstitutional, as is!

    Sure, police too are point of fact still legally defined as “civilian,” as definitionally anyone NON-military is a “civilian.” That said, of course they now like to conveniently distinguish anyone non-govt to be a “civilian” as a shorthand to be.

    But frankly considering their shared command structure/hierarchy/rank, gear, uniform, equipment, and considering how it’s the Feds now who are giving them grants and training them in their war-protocols and ROE, they are both de facto and de jure military, so suppose the previous distinction is moot; but this also makes them a standing army, thus unConstitutional, unless their roles are constitutionally activated every two years, as enumerated in the Const.

    The current govt is so corrupt, only a currency reset will utterly make them irrelevant enough to a point of necessary ‘Reboot.’ There is no ‘restoring’ anything. Just watching a wreck in slo-mo…

  31. …because Honda finds it important to make sure people die when other people shoot them.

    Either he likes dead citizens, or he likes inflated gun death statistics and doesn’t mind a few dead people to get them.

  32. This Bill has three cosponsors. I assume the other two are safe districts where the Low Information and Low Intelligence Voters roam. There is less than zero chance that this would pass anytime at all soon. It is, however instructive as to how the anti freedom crowd thinks and where they might try to go sometime several years down the road in say a Clinton Mark 2 administration.

  33. I feel for our normal brothers and sisters stuck in that place.
    Can we please start a petition to kick California out of the union??
    Or at least get the folks there an infusion of sanity fast.
    There must be some thing radically wrong with both the air and water out there……..Where do they find these nut job politicians??
    Im willing to takes me chances with this one not being heard from or seen again after November.

  34. First ban DIMS, then no harm will be done to the
    Bill of Rights!
    If that does not work then;
    Burn at the stake several RINOS!
    Roasted! Yum!

  35. Clear evidence the government doesn’t represent us. The safety of officers of the “state” is apparently more important than ours.

  36. So the ability to protect yourself anyway is banned. no guns no armor, at least we got our legs.

    • With “shelter in place” and emergency powers that include the ability to forcibly relocate any “resources” (read you and me!); we don’t even control our legs under the present regime.

  37. Well of course….Leftist and useful idiots continue to try and take this country down the path of destruction.

  38. Why do Democrats think showing how incredibly stupid they are is the way to win elections?
    Oh right, Democratic voters.

  39. Why stop at body armor? Heck, applying Honda’s logic, let’s make a law requiring criminals to wear orange jumpsuits while committing crimes, to make it easier for the police to shoot them. Oh, and they have to wear leg shackles too, to make it harder to run away.

    In Mike Honda’s way of thinking, THAT would discourage criminals from committing crimes.

    “But wait,” you say. “It’s already illegal to commit a crime, and what criminal would actually obey the jumpsuit-and-shackles law?”

    Right you are, of course. Honda’s solution? Make everyone, law-abiding or not, with the exception of government officials, wear orange jumpsuits and shackles. After all, nobody NEEDS regular clothes.

    Ridiculous? Maybe. But not much more ridiculous than this asinine piece of legislation.

    BTW: I wonder if the media will join the bandwagon on this. Because of all the civilians I see wearing body armor, most of them are members of the media at various incidents.

  40. Well it’s not banning all body armor, just that scary military armor that I keep hearing about. You know, the one that people in the media (and on this site) say shouldn’t be worn by the police because it’s “militarizing” them. Surely we can’t have something like that outside the military!

    • @Hannibal, SIR! Don’t you know that if you take a blue carrier off of body armor and replace it with something in an earth tone, you have in fact just quadrupled it’s efficiency and strength and made it super scary! Can’t have that now.

  43. There are no such things as “civilians” and “non-civilians”. Who does he think HE is? Royal navy?? Unless he just came to America, I’m certain he does not have his own personal but wiper, and must fold or wad toilet paper just like the rest of us. Just like every so-called “militarist cop” and “robber baron” throughout the land. It is time to replace these elitist frogs with CITIZENS. WE, the people of each and every state, are CITIZENS, not civilians. Get use to it. What a s c h m o e.

  48. Mike honda, H.R.5344 – Responsible Body Armor Possession Act
    113th Congress (2013-2014)
    Cal. Rep. Mike Honda: Are you blind to all that is happening around you in this country & the world? Do you think for one minute we are immune from other countries arm reach? Have the Boston Bombings or twin towers of New York (9/11) taught us nothing? Yet you all in congress continue to take our (civilian) rights away from protecting ourselves when the crap hits the fan. You all are to busy & eager to make more laws than to deal with what’s at hand to pacify the general public. While you yourself are protected by arms, bulletproof vest & armored vehicles of the like. Karma! Have a good day sir.

  49. And another pompous liberal windbag from the land of fruits and nuts attempting to assist in turning this country into a socialist police state. This is what happens when dead heads vote!

  50. Ok… an educational question here from one who doesn’t know…

    Even with body armor, what kind of fighting shape are you going to be in after taking a couple of .308’s to the strike face? The descriptions I’ve heard equated it to getting hit with a sledge hammer and even though there were no permanent injuries, he was down and out of the fight.

    Anyone with firsthand experience? I’d really like to know.

  51. I find most astonishing the need to name it “Responsible XXX” instead of “XXX Ban”. Are we really that stupid? Even now, after the “Affordable Care Act”? That one should have been “The Unjustified And Idiotic Power Grab Act”.

  52. Here is a great idea. Let’s ban Cancer, then only the bad guys will have it. Do you understand the concept now?

Comments are closed.