NY State banning body armor

[Glaron]

I thought living in New York was a real damn good reason.

 

[Lmo]

Seizing without just compensation violates the Takings Clause of the Constitution ...

 

[teratos]

In serious answer, probably no. NY didn’t outlaw possession by the common folk. They just banned sales/purchases/transfers to the common folk absent a really damned good reason.

You can still possess it.

Is it like our magazine law? You have to go out of state to get your body armor?

 

[TheBert]

Doesn’t armor fall under “arms?” How can the government ban a citizens use or armor?

 

[teratos]

Doesn’t armor fall under “arms?” How can the government ban a citizens use or armor?

Oh…good angle.

 

[outrider58]

Doesn’t armor fall under “arms?” How can the government ban a citizens use or armor?

There are companies that refuse to sell BA to 'legs'.

I refuse to deal with them. They are like;armor for me, none for thee...

 

[teratos]

There are companies that refuse to sell BA to 'legs'.

I refuse to deal with them. They are like;armor for me, none for thee...

What are “legs”?

 

[Glaron]

What are “legs”?

You begged for this... Sorry. Almost.

 

[Sgt. Psycho]

What are “legs”?

"Leg", short for "Straight Leg" back in the day, is an Army slang term for non-Airborne qualified (jump qualified) soldiers. Jump qualified soldiers perform their PLF (parachute landing fall) with their knees bent. Calling non jump qualified soldiers "straight legs" or just "legs" for short is a way of contrasting Airborne soldiers with soldiers who have never had to perform a jump, therefore never having to have the bent knees for a proper PLF. "Legs today are also known as "NAPS" - Non Airborne Personnel.

I believe Outrider was using the term in his context to describe people whom the body armor companies think are not qualified to purchase armor, such as non-police, non-first responder, or non-military civilians.

 

[teratos]

"Leg", short for "Straight Leg" back in the day, is an Army slang term for non-Airborne qualified (jump qualified) soldiers. Jump qualified soldiers perform their PLF (parachute landing fall) with their knees bent. Calling non jump qualified soldiers "straight legs" or just "legs" for short is a way of contrasting Airborne soldiers with soldiers who have never had to perform a jump, therefore never having to have the bent knees for a proper PLF. "Legs today are also known as "NAPS" - Non Airborne Personnel.

I believe Outrider was using the term in his context to describe people whom the body armor companies think are not qualified to purchase armor, such as non-police, non-first responder, or non-military civilians.

Thanks!

 

[DC-W]

 

[DC-W]

Doesn’t armor fall under “arms?” How can the government ban a citizens use or armor?

They are indeed arms. Legal challenges would be novel though, as I’m not sure bans or restrictions have been litigated against. Most restrictions on armor relate to convicted or dangerous persons, not blanket bans on citizens from possessing it.

 

[Ponder_MD]

Wow. Legislatures literally wipe their asses with the US Constitution, daily.
"We'll just pass laws because it'll take years and millions of dollars to litigate them all the way to SCOTUS."

I have been a scrupulous rule-follower my entire life. Not anymore. I know that Maryland is eye-balling something like this and there's zero chance that I'll surrender anything while the police are being defunded, we're facing down another "summer of love" and Communists are on the brink of permanent government power.

It's hard to believe. 20 years of military service, honorably discharged, 20 years of security clearances and flawless polygraphs. Never anything worse than a speeding ticket. Now I'm a criminal. We're all criminals, just for living our quiet, peaceful lives.

 

[lazarus]

They are indeed arms. Legal challenges would be novel though, as I’m not sure bans or restrictions have been litigated against. Most restrictions on armor relate to convicted or dangerous persons, not blanket bans on citizens from possessing it.

I'd be kind of surprised if one isn't forth coming. And unless SCOTUS decides for some crazy reason they wouldn't qualify as arms, it'll get overturned toot sweet. Look at the taser court case.

Up next, let's ban airbags and seat belts in cars.

 

[outrider58]

"Leg", short for "Straight Leg" back in the day, is an Army slang term for non-Airborne qualified (jump qualified) soldiers. Jump qualified soldiers perform their PLF (parachute landing fall) with their knees bent. Calling non jump qualified soldiers "straight legs" or just "legs" for short is a way of contrasting Airborne soldiers with soldiers who have never had to perform a jump, therefore never having to have the bent knees for a proper PLF. "Legs today are also known as "NAPS" - Non Airborne Personnel.

I believe Outrider was using the term in his context to describe people whom the body armor companies think are not qualified to purchase armor, such as non-police, non-first responder, or non-military civilians.

Exactly this.

 

[lazarus]

Is it like our magazine law? You have to go out of state to get your body armor?

Oh, nope I was wrong. It does ban possession. All of the news I've been reading says it bans the sale, but the short bill says possession is also a misdemeanor offense unless you are actively in law enforcement or the secretary of state as deemed your profession to have an exemption and only while you are actively employed in said profession.

The language is short and shitty. Near as I can tell, the INSTANT you are no longer employed in said profession you are a criminal if you are in possession. The INSTANT. There is a 15 day grace period, but only AFTER the law goes in to effect. There is no language about needing to turn in your body armor after you cease employment in your profession. So you better hope you've turned it in before you retire, resign or get terminated.

What a crock of shit. The justification is even ridiculously patronizing.

Bill justification

"Unless you are actively working in law enforcement, there is no legiti-
mate reason to purchase or own a bullet-proof vest (known in New York
State law as a body vest). Bullet-proof vests are necessary to protect
those in law enforcement or those whose professions put them at risk of
injury such as armored car drivers or security guards. Otherwise, bullet
proof vests are used by those intending to protect themselves while
committing crimes."

I guess if someone is breaking into your house, as the homeowner you are now committing a crime? Is this like the anti-landlord/tenant protection laws gone too far? Pro-burglar? Or what if you've had a threat against your life? Because it for sure sounds like if you are some VIP, you'd be committing a crime wearing body armor, let alone a crime victim. Don't be on witpro in live in/pass through New York!!!

 

[Ponder_MD]

It's a misdemeanor. I'd violate that law all day long if it meant the difference between death and a misdemeanor.

 

[jrumann59]

Oh, nope I was wrong. It does ban possession. All of the news I've been reading says it bans the sale, but the short bill says possession is also a misdemeanor offense unless you are actively in law enforcement or the secretary of state as deemed your profession to have an exemption and only while you are actively employed in said profession.

The language is short and shitty. Near as I can tell, the INSTANT you are no longer employed in said profession you are a criminal if you are in possession. The INSTANT. There is a 15 day grace period, but only AFTER the law goes in to effect. There is no language about needing to turn in your body armor after you cease employment in your profession. So you better hope you've turned it in before you retire, resign or get terminated.

What a crock of shit. The justification is even ridiculously patronizing.

Bill justification

"Unless you are actively working in law enforcement, there is no legiti-
mate reason to purchase or own a bullet-proof vest (known in New York
State law as a body vest). Bullet-proof vests are necessary to protect
those in law enforcement or those whose professions put them at risk of
injury such as armored car drivers or security guards. Otherwise, bullet
proof vests are used by those intending to protect themselves while
committing crimes."

I guess if someone is breaking into your house, as the homeowner you are now committing a crime? Is this like the anti-landlord/tenant protection laws gone too far? Pro-burglar? Or what if you've had a threat against your life? Because it for sure sounds like if you are some VIP, you'd be committing a crime wearing body armor, let alone a crime victim. Don't be on witpro in live in/pass through New York!!!

so if you do a Marty McFly or Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) and slide a device like a cast iron stove door, or serving tray under your shirt during a break in will that be considered body armor....

 

[lazarus]

so if you do a Marty McFly or Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton) and slide a device like a cast iron stove door, or serving tray under your shirt during a break in will that be considered body armor....

I haven’t looked at specific statute for NY, but I think it reads effectively 8 layers of Kevlar or more, or the equivalent to level II NIJ standard protection in a wearable vest.

Better hope your baseball catchers vest or dirt bike armor is fairly thin plastic.

Also no jousting competition in NY or medieval or renaissance re-enactors.

Also I don’t see exemptions for museums. So I hope the Met is going to get rid of their medieval arms and armor collection FAST.

 

[jrumann59]

I haven’t looked at specific statute for NY, but I think it reads effectively 8 layers of Kevlar or more, or the equivalent to level II NIJ standard protection in a wearable vest.

Better hope your baseball catchers vest or dirt bike armor is fairly thin plastic.

Also no jousting competition in NY or medieval or renaissance re-enactors.

Also I don’t see exemptions for museums. So I hope the Met is going to get rid of their medieval arms and armor collection FAST.

Places like the Met fall under the discretionary exclusion in the law.