Obtaining Self-Defense Armor Before It’s Made Illegal

We’ve covered recent efforts by Second Amendment opponents to restrict ammunition supplies. And their attempts to mandate “smart” biometric locking technology on guns. Now, it seems, Congressional gun grabbers are coming for your…body armor?

It sounds too strange to be true, even for Washington, D.C. But a band of far-left lawmakers is aiming to restrict your ability to shield your body from harm.

In January, Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), a self-styled “progressive” who is championing a petty bill to revoke the Washington Redskins’ trademark, introduced he Responsible Body Armor Possession Act. The legislation would “prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians.”

Drive In Store Employees too
Often Need This Protection

Only government agents, or civilians who get special permission from the government, would be permitted to have “body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor.”

“Enhanced” body armor of the sort the bill would make illegal is expensive. And, for most people, it’s impractical and unnecessary.

But some people do have a need for enhanced protection. Imagine you’re receiving death threats from an obsessive stalker. Or your job requires you
to venture into gang-infested neighborhoods. Or you’re a merchant in an urban area where there’s a high potential for riots and mob looting. Or you’re a hunter who is wary of people who may be reckless in handling their rifles. Or you’re simply a thorough prepper who wants to have enhanced body armor in case of a social meltdown or civil war.

What to Know Before You
Buy a Bulletproof Vest

Some of these scenarios may be unlikely. But if you want to give yourself protection from gunfire, consider getting some gear. You can obtain lightweight Kevlar bulletproof vests for around $200-$400. (You might also be able to find them used for less through police surplus or army surplus sellers.) Bulletproof helmets are available in a similar price range.

Type II-A bullet-resistant vests are thin (generally only 4 mm) and soft. They can easily be worn under clothing without inhibiting mobility.

Type II vests are slightly thicker (5 mm) and offer better protection. These are the type of vests considered suitable for patrol officers.

Type III-A vests are 8 to 10 mm thick. They are designed to withstand heavier gunfire, all the way up to a 9-mm submachine gun.

Type IV bulletproof vests are used by SWAT officers and are among the items that the Responsible Body Armor Possession Act would bar you from possessing. These vests contain armor plates that cover the chest and back. That makes them quite heavy. But the solid plates offer added protection, particularly from stabbings.

What is the Government’s Motivation in
Denying You Purely Defensive Protection?

All bullet-resistant vests are designed to prevent the most common types of bullets from penetrating through your skin. But they will not necessarily
prevent injuries that result from impact. Nor will they prevent bullets from reaching your neck or head. You’ll need a helmet and ballistic shield for fuller protection. Even then you could be overwhelmed physically if a mob comes after you.

Armor won’t make you invincible, but it can improve your odds of surviving a gunfire attack. If you’re in the market to armor up, make sure you don’t live in a jurisdiction that prohibits the types of body armor you want. Some day that jurisdiction could be the entire United States of America. But for now, most Americans still have plenty of legal options.

Government Web Sites
Could Be Hazardous to Your Privacy

Like everything the government does to you, it must be for our own good. Surely. Why else would the government be systematically
violating the privacy of visitors to its web sites?

The worst culprit? No surprise, it’s Healthcare. gov. The Obamacare web site has been quietly sharing the information it collects on individuals with
private companies.

Even if you enable the “Do Not Track” feature while browsing Healthcare.gov, you data will still be collected and shared. That’s what has privacy advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation particularly concerned.

According to CNNMoney, the Obamacare web site delivers user data to DoubleClick, Google, Twitter, Yahoo, YouTube, Chartbeat,
Optimizely, and other third parties. None of which are in the business of providing health insurance.

The government routinely ignores its own stated privacy policies. Web surfers beware.