Will California be the next state to pass a full-fledged body armor ban?

Widely-published reports claiming that shooters wore body armor in high-profile mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, New York, have ignited a major push for body armor bans across the nation.

In reality, the use of defensive tools like armor in perpetrating mass shootings has been dramatically overblown.

In Uvalde, for example, the gunman actually used a tactical vest without any kind of armor. In Buffalo, the deranged gunman did use body armor, making the first instance in many years of an armored shooter.

California itself witnessed a high profile mass shooting in 2015 when a couple wearing tactical gear killed 14 people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino. Another high profile mass shooting in Monterey Park on January 22, 2023 where a gunman killed 10 people before taking his own life has only intensified the push for gun control in the Golden State.

While neither of these incidents involved body armor, Assembly Bill 92 was introduced in the California State Assembly in mid-January. The bill would prohibit the sale of most body armor to everyday civilians, and mandates that sellers confirm the purchaser is from an eligible profession — law enforcement officers, firefighters, members of the military, firearms dealers, security guards, code enforcement officers, and medical first responders.

Armored Republic, an Arizona-based tactical gear manufacturer had choice words about the California armor ban proposal:

As noted in the past, pushing a body armor ban to ‘reduce crime’ is delusional. It has been demonstrated ad nauseam that these laws only affect the law-abiding. Criminals will continue to be criminals. It’s already illegal in California, and everywhere else in the U.S., to shoot people. It’s laughable to claim that a law banning armor will keep violent criminals from acquiring or wearing it if they so choose.

 

But, more importantly: Body armor is chiefly a Tool of Liberty. While it does help some criminals, it is even more essential to helping Free Men protect themselves and others. And not just from individual criminals- it helps resist evil government as well. And an overpowering government is much more dangerous than one shooter. Free Men must be prepared.

Body armor vendor Spartan Armor Systems was also highly critical of said legislation noting the following:

The bill would greatly restrict the ability of average citizens to purchase body armor, and would disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens who use body armor for lawful purposes such as hunting, outdoor activities, and personal protection. It would also make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. These restrictions on the rights of average citizens would not pass the test of constitutionality as they would be in violation of the Second Amendment.

California follows New York state, which passed a body armor ban on June 6, 2022. The irony here is that this law prohibiting the sale of bullet-resistant vests to the majority of civilians didn’t cover the kind of armor the Buffalo gunman used when he killed 10 people. Later in that month, three of New York’s members of Congress introduced legislation to nationally prevent civilians from buying high-performance body armor. Similarly, Democrats in the Pennsylvania General Assembly have also promised to ban civilians from using body armor.

In New York’s case, Armored Republic has moved to sue the Empire State, arguing that the state has overstepped its constitutional bounds by banning protective equipment.

Several experts have expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of body armor bans. Aaron Westrick, a professor of criminal justice at Lake Superior State University with extensive experience working with body armor companies and law enforcement, said the following about the flaws regarding body armor bans:

Body armor is so widely available, and in such large quantities, that local bans will simply push buyers into neighboring states.

In addition, only a small portion of the over 100,000 shootings that occur in the US annually are carried out by an assailant wearing body armor. Like most gun control laws, body armor bans don’t deter criminals hell-bent on harming innocent individuals from committing their heinous acts. Instead, they put law-abiding citizens at a major disadvantage against predatory individuals willing to dish out massive damage against the defenseless.

The Sentinel reached out to Second Amendment writer David Codrea to get his opinion on the latest proposals to ban body armor:

It’s already a crime under California law for felons to possess body armor and for anyone committing a violent offense while wearing it [body armor]. Seeing as how vests are owned by a variety of citizens including merchants, jewelers, delivery drivers and the like, that makes fair the questions “Why do proponents of the bill want to make productive and law-abiding citizens more vulnerable?”. They came with the intent to match and best an equipped military threat. To suggest the Framers of the Constitution meant anything else is to accuse them of being insane, and of codifying into the supreme Law of the Land that sending an ill-equipped citizenry to their slaughter was “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Christopher Stone, the Director of Communications at the National Association for Gun Rights, echoed similar sentiments about California's body armor ban project:

California is the posterchild for unconstitutional gun control laws, but it’s clear that their laundry list of gun bans hasn’t kept California safe. Now they want to ban body armor in an effort to curb crime — but do lawmakers really believe gang members and criminals are going to lay down their illegally owned weapons and turn in their body armor? This law will only hurt law-abiding citizens –just like all gun control laws do. Criminals will continue to murder and maim while innocent people suffer under the weight of yet another unconstitutional restriction.

In the last two decades, body armor sales have grown gradually, along with firearms and ammunition. And for good reason. Americans recognize that law enforcement can only do so much to stop crime. In the crucial seconds that could be the difference between a potential victim surviving or dying, law enforcement is only minutes away. While body armor is defensive in nature, an individual wearing such gear will have a better chance of surviving a potential active shooter situation should they be struck by gunfire.

In sum, a lawful individual able to defend himself stands a better chance of surviving a criminal attack than a disarmed individual. All efforts to restrict the right to bear arms (or body armor) effectively give criminals greenlight to prey on defenseless individuals.