Senator Chuck Schumer to introduce body armor bill

[Yung]

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/08/12/bill-to-require-those-wanting-body-armor-to-get-fbi-permission


Legislation promised in the U.S. Senate would make the legal sale of body armor a “may issue” process signed off on by federal law enforcement.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, announced his legislation on Sunday to require FBI permission before anyone except law enforcement could buy what he termed “sophisticated body armor,” setting a bar that would require a clear purpose, such as an occupational requirement, for the buyer to seek the safety equipment.

“The bottom line here is that the ease by which one can acquire wares of war demands the FBI sets reasonable regulations on who can get it,” said Schumer, who plans to introduce his bill after the current Senate recess.

Even if Schumer’s proposal does not make it into law, it is already against the law for criminals to add body armor to their toolkit. Since 2002, it has been illegal under federal law for convicted felons to possess body armor of any sort. This has been prosecuted in U.S. courts even in states that do not criminalize the possession of body armor.

According to Schumer’s office, one study found that 5 percent of a group of 110 active shooters between 2000 and 2012 used body armor.

“Shockingly, with the click of a mouse, the scroll of a thumb or the dialing of a phone, just about anyone can order-up the kind of advanced armor or tactical law enforcement gear we see used in wars or all-out law enforcement raids, and that is unacceptable and needs to change,” said Schumer.

[Bucky]

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/08/12/bill-to-require-those-wanting-body-armor-to-get-fbi-permission

I’ll bet Chucky would be exempt, if he felt threatened. :mad:

[Cypher]

I’ll bet Chucky would be exempt, if he felt threatened. :mad:

You can't tell me these people don't understand the intent of the Second Amendment. The fact that they're still trying to disarm us scares the hell out of me

[hufnagel]

If it passes, i'll have missed out on getting body armor.
Hopefully the bill drags out for a while, so suppliers can get tooled up and production running like crazy, so that if it fails, there will be a "fire" sale on excess inventory in a couple months, that I'll be able to afford some.

[LittleLebowski]

At last, America will be safe.

[Duke]

“I can’t believe how easy it is to buy body Armor in this country “

It’s supposed to be easy dipshit. It’s called freedom. Law abiding citizens have it whether you like it or not

[CCT125US]

Wants to ban life saving gear, makes perfect sense. When my father and I would go deer hunting, we would wear old Point Blank iiia. Figured it was better than nothing.

[Matt C.]

Let's make the law abiding less safe.
Ok, sure.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

When had body armor ever killed someone?! It is a defensive measure, not an offensive one.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Totem Polar]

You can buy a kid’s backpack with resistant inserts in them in office depots and department stores. Chuck’s got his work cut out for him if he wants to push that suck.

[CWM11B]

Since when has the FBI added "regulatory agency" duties to their charter as a limited scope (federal crimes) investigative agency?

[the Schwartz]

At last, America will be safe.

Ol' Chuck-Ducky Schumer is sure one helluva a "one trick pony" ain't he?

Seemingly, his answer to everything that he dislikes or disapproves is, "Ban it."

[Casual Friday]

I just bought new Level IV plates. Not because they want to ban it, but because armor has never been cheaper. Ok so maybe the fact the Chuck Schumer's of the world don't want me to have body armor may have played a tiny part.

[Zincwarrior]

When had body armor ever killed someone?! It is a defensive measure, not an offensive one.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not a problem when police have it. It becomes an issue when mass shooters start wearing it.
While its a libertarian issue, its not a Second Amendment issue.

[Duke]

Its not a problem when police have it. It becomes an issue when mass shooters start wearing it.
While its a libertarian issue, its not a Second Amendment issue.

“The shooter wore body armor”

The news calls everything body amor. Chest rig, photo vest, Christmas sweater. Doesn’t matter.


Agree isn’t gun related. It is very much freedom related. I’m sick to death of defending myself for things I didn’t do

[Borderland]

While I don't own any I would still like to have the option to buy it if I felt a need to.

Why would anyone presume that I'm about to shoot up a crowd of people if I purchased body armor?

The next thing you know 511 pants will be regulated.

[Zincwarrior]

I’m sick to death of defending myself for things I didn’t do

I have to do that all the time. The wife says I didn't put the dishes in the dish washer. I didn't take out the trash. I didn't use my brain when I dressed myself this morning...:cool:

[the Schwartz]

While I don't own any I would still like to have the option to buy it if I felt a need to.

Why would anyone presume that I'm about to shoot up a crowd of people if I purchased body armor?

The next thing you know 511 pants will be regulated.

I believe that you've struck at the crux of the issue, Borderland.

If it looks scary (has one or more of these qualities: black, nylon, "tacticool", modular, military-derived, etc.), then it is "bad".

In other words, it's not about "function". It's about "image".

[the Schwartz]

I didn't use my brain when I dressed myself this morning...:cool:

Turning the lights on BEFORE you get dressed helps with that. :)

[Grey]

I opened this hoping it was to give us federal tax credits for buying body armor...

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[blues]

Chuck has the luxury of others to protect him.



https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/11/01/gettyimages-673979736_wide-1169512336d0dd7784ac75975750839d486d454c-s800-c85.jpg

"Screw you. I got mine."

[Hambo]

Chuck has the luxury of others to protect him.



https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/11/01/gettyimages-673979736_wide-1169512336d0dd7784ac75975750839d486d454c-s800-c85.jpg

"Screw you. I got mine."

And you paid for it, suckers!

[RevolverRob]

So, if one does not need body armor, per se. And therefore hasn't spent much time looking at/shopping.

What's a reasonable budget to set aside for something that covers as much of the ballistic spectrum as possible (i.e., from handgun rounds to mid-range rifle, like 7.62 NATO)? Any recommended brands? Carriers for plates? It should be concealable under a jacket/coat, ideally.

Bear in mind this is more than likely going to sit in a closet - forever and maybe be worn on the very small off chance and therefore should in theory be formed of materials that don't degrade over time.

[wvincent]

Bear in mind this is more than likely going to sit in a closet - forever and maybe be worn on the very small off chance and therefore should in theory be formed of materials that don't degrade over time.

I dunno Rob, when I think back to some of the unsafe antics I've seen at public ranges, maybe they could get more use than we think?

Pistol range or class, soft armor, rifle range or class, add on the plate carrier?

[Casual Friday]

So, if one does not need body armor, per se. And therefore hasn't spent much time looking at/shopping.

What's a reasonable budget to set aside for something that covers as much of the ballistic spectrum as possible (i.e., from handgun rounds to mid-range rifle, like 7.62 NATO)? Any recommended brands? Carriers for plates? It should be concealable under a jacket/coat, ideally.

Bear in mind this is more than likely going to sit in a closet - forever and maybe be worn on the very small off chance and therefore should in theory be formed of materials that don't degrade over time.

I just bought a set of these. Mrgunsngear did a review and shot them up.
https://www.botach.com/battle-steel-level-iv-10x12-ballistic-plates-only-5-5-lbs-80-thick/


https://youtu.be/CgFsHJ53sLE

[Borderland]

I dunno Rob, when I think back to some of the unsafe antics I've seen at public ranges, maybe they could get more use than we think?

Pistol range or class, soft armor, rifle range or class, add on the plate carrier?

If a person were safety conscious they would wear some type of armor at the range. I'm not seeing a need for it in public where I live but my chances of injury go way up when I go to the range. I'm there almost every week and I don't know 99% of the people I shoot with. Makes sense to me.

[Darth_Uno]

I've never had a gun pointed at me in any public setting. I've had guns pointed at me too many times to count at the range.

We had a church outing to a trap range, and after several discrete warnings I finally and very vocally told a guy if he pointed his gun at me one more time I was going to shove it up his ass. Whether or not that was the Christian thing to do, he watched where he pointed it after that.

[Darth_Uno]

Bear in mind this is more than likely going to sit in a closet - forever and maybe be worn on the very small off chance and therefore should in theory be formed of materials that don't degrade over time.

This is a fairly timely topic, as I'd been considering an all-purpose chest rig, and if I do that I might as well get armor with it. But the chances of me waking up, jumping into the closet, and putting on full battle rattle are pretty slim. I gotta admit I will probably never use (as in preemptively wear) armor, but I don't like people telling me what not to do either. So there's certainly a put-that-in-your-pipe-and-smoke-it appeal.

[Cory]

I've never had a gun pointed at me in any public setting. I've had guns pointed at me too many times to count at the range.

We had a church outing to a trap range, and after several discrete warnings I finally and very vocally told a guy if he pointed his gun at me one more time I was going to shove it up his ass. Whether or not that was the Christian thing to do, he watched where he pointed it after that.

I've said pretty similar things to someone when I was acting as a range safety on an M9 range. After the 2nd warning I let them know in no uncertain terms what consequence would follow if I was flagged again. While the female 2LT may have been surprised, the message made it through. After the end of her training cycle she thanked me for being professional, teaching her a lot, and caring enough to be honest with her when most wouldn't be.

While in her case it took being pretty blunt, I knew I had made a valuable impact. It's probably one of the most rewarding things I've ever been paid to do and I miss it frequently.

-Cory

[RevolverRob]

I’ve defaulted to one polite ask before I move up in aggression -

“If you point that any where but down range again, you won’t be able to point that thing ever again. Get it?”

20 years I’ve had to say that twice on a public gun range. Both times it worked. First, by making the shooter be more careful. Second by prompting the individual in question to pack up and leave.

That second one complained to the manager who came out to talk to me. I told him I asked politely once and then told him after the second time, that a third time would render him unable to utilize a firearm. The manager laughed, realized I was serious and said, “Probably best he left then.”

A buddy of mine is now retired from a very large TX County SO where he worked as a shooting instructor and range manager for about 10-years. His line was, “You point yours at me, I’ll point mine at you. And I guarantee mine is loaded.” Said it worked well, except for the LT who got a shotgun out of his cruiser once and promptly blew out his back tire with a load of buckshot. That individual was “unsalvageable”. They were happy when he was taken off the street.

[JAD]

. Whether or not that was the Christian thing to do, he watched where he pointed it after that.

Spiritual work of mercy #1: instruct the ignorant.

It was a deeply Christian action. You selflessly prevented him from having a gun shoved up his ass.

[JAD]

.
While its a libertarian issue, its not a Second Amendment issue.

Penumbras.

[Bergeron]

As much as I dislike the senior senator from New York, I like the opportunity to make arguments for arms-based civil liberties that encompass more than just guns. Body armor is a great example. I also think that freedom to access chemical sprays, blunt objects, knives, flashlights, lasers, HPM, malware, and night vision should regularly be discussed as being inside of our Second Amedment liberties.

I’ve been watching a lot of InRange TV, lately, and have become armor-curious. The pint about soft armor in a pistol class is very well made.

[the Schwartz]

As much as I dislike the senior senator from New York, I like the opportunity to make arguments for arms-based civil liberties that encompass more than just guns. Body armor is a great example. I also think that freedom to access chemical sprays, blunt objects, knives, flashlights, lasers, HPM, malware, and night vision should regularly be discussed as being inside of our Second Amedment liberties.


While I agree with you, beyond blunt object and knives none of these items existed at the time of the creation of the Second Amendment. As such, arguing for their inclusion for coverage under the Second Amendment is going to be problematic at best.

[JAD]

While I agree with you, beyond blunt object and knives none of these items existed at the time of the creation of the Second Amendment. As such, arguing for their inclusion for coverage under the Second Amendment is going to be problematic at best.

It isn’t much of a challenge for an originalist, any more than the fact that AR15s didn’t exist at the time did.

[the Schwartz]

It isn’t much of a challenge for an originalist, any more than the fact that AR15s didn’t exist at the time did.

The basic technological precursor (firearms) for the AR-15 existed at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment whereas the technological precursors for lasers, computer malware/programs, flashlights, and night vision did not exist at that time. It would be very much an uphill fight trying to argue that the framers of the Constitution knew of or anticipated the creation of such technology and that they knowingly drafted the Second Amendment intending to cover that technology.

I am very much an originalist/textualist myself, but I am not tremendously optimistic about the likelihood of successful incorporation of electronic technology under Second Amendment protection.

[Duelist]

Turning the lights on BEFORE you get dressed helps with that. :)

It also wakes up the sleeping dragon, which a wise experienced husband won’t do.

[berettamaster01%]

When I do wear armor, I use two layers from two vests into one with the trauma plate.

Schumer is an idiot, an anti-American, anti-freedom zealot. You would think a jew would know better.

BR

[the Schwartz]

It also wakes up the sleeping dragon, which a wise experienced husband won’t do.

Well, I suppose that going to work with mismatched socks is probably less perilous than that.

[Duke]

You know. It has to be considered....if someone doesn’t want you to wear body armor, it may be because they plan to try and shoot at you someday.

:rolleyes:

[blues]

When I do wear armor, I use two layers from two vests into one with the trauma plate.

Schumer is an idiot, an anti-American, anti-freedom zealot. You would think a jew would know better.

BR

The lessons of history are available to all, Jew and gentile alike. No one has cornered the market on wisdom nor ignorance in this arena.

[Borderland]

While I agree with you, beyond blunt object and knives none of these items existed at the time of the creation of the Second Amendment. As such, arguing for their inclusion for coverage under the Second Amendment is going to be problematic at best.

The 2A argument is weak anyway by today's standards of communication. The way people wrote and expressed themselves in the 1700's was very different than it is today. The BOR if written today would look like the IRS tax code. People just can't get their head around a simple concept like 2A anymore. The SC stretches 14A to into something it was never intended to support because you can make it say anything you wish if you try really hard. The same can be done with 2A. It's what people want it to say. The constitution is more of an abstract painting for most people, including SC judges.

[RoyGBiv]

The lessons of history are available to all, Jew and gentile alike. No one has cornered the market on wisdom nor ignorance in this arena.

As a (non practicing) Jew myself, I find it especially unfathomable that Jewish people buy into any notion of allowing their right to self defense being neutered by any government. IMO, it's borne out of fear. Fear of taking responsibility for ones' own safety, on a daily basis and geopolitically. Anyone that buys into the notion that giving up guns to the government makes one safer (in the short or the long run) is simply willfully ignorant. For a people that profess the motto "Never Again", the cognitive dissonance is egregious.

Never Again?

How?

[blues]

As a (non practicing) Jew myself, I find it especially unfathomable that Jewish people buy into any notion of allowing their right to self defense being neutered by any government. IMO, it's borne out of fear. Fear of taking responsibility for ones' own safety, on a daily basis and geopolitically. Anyone that buys into the notion that giving up guns to the government makes one safer (in the short or the long run) is simply willfully ignorant. For a people that profess the motto "Never Again", the cognitive dissonance is egregious.

Never Again?

How?

I don't disagree with you, brother, but as you know, without the proper mindset one can have all the hardware in the world and still go like sheep to the slaughter.

I don't know how or why this meekness remains, I'm sure most of it is in the cultural values and upbringing...but I fear that the lessons instilled don't dovetail with the world at large and this myopia causes a fear and inability to see ones way through to taking appropriate action. It's a disconnect that must be overcome if survival is going to be viable, let alone assured.

[RoyGBiv]

I don't disagree with you, brother, but as you know, without the proper mindset one can have all the hardware in the world and still go like sheep to the slaughter.

I don't know how or why this meekness remains, I'm sure most of it is in the cultural values and upbringing...but I fear that the lessons instilled don't dovetail with the world at large and this myopia causes a fear and inability to see ones way through to taking appropriate action. It's a disconnect that must be overcome if survival is going to be viable.

I started this conversation with a couple of Mom's friends. SE FL retirement community folks. 80's, Jewish. People who grew up during WWII. It went from "I support Obama" to my being concerned about them having a stroke in about 30 seconds. I apologized and retreated. I guess when your news source is MSNBC you're made to feel okay about expecting other people to protect you (and hating on those people while they do so). Mom doesn't talk politics with her neighbors out of fear of being ostracized.

[OlongJohnson]

Fear of taking responsibility for ones' own safety, on a daily basis and geopolitically.

This is the whole thing.

[Jac]

You know. It has to be considered....if someone doesn’t want you to wear body armor, it may be because they plan to try and shoot at you someday.

:rolleyes:I especially love the irony of this coming from the party ostensibly concerned about police brutality and power abuse...

[blues]

I especially love the irony of this coming from the party ostensibly concerned about police brutality and power abuse...


https://i2.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/chuck-schumer.jpg?fit=789%2C460&ssl=1

"Are you saying we can't have it both ways...?"

[OlongJohnson]

I just bought a set of these. Mrgunsngear did a review and shot them up.
https://www.botach.com/battle-steel-level-iv-10x12-ballistic-plates-only-5-5-lbs-80-thick/


https://youtu.be/CgFsHJ53sLE

Maybe it's a question for DocGKR, but is this a meaningful test protocol? Does it make a difference what's backing the plate (i.e., something to simulate it being against a person's chest versus just being by itself with open space behind it)?

Also, I'd think Mrgunsngear would find one of the other thousand companies making Gilligan hats to give his money to by the middle of this year.

[Casual Friday]

Maybe it's a question for DocGKR, but is this a meaningful test protocol? Does it make a difference what's backing the plate (i.e., something to simulate it being against a person's chest versus just being by itself with open space behind it)?

Also, I'd think Mrgunsngear would find one of the other thousand companies making Gilligan hats to give his money to by the middle of this year.

It took a round of .30-06 Blacktip from 15 ft. I mean, I realize that's probably not how they test armor for the NIJ rating but it still took the round and didn't let it pass through.

Even though I've forgotten what I'm supposed to be mad at Nike about, I'll be sure to let him know if I ever meet him in person that OlongJohnson from Pistol Forum doesn't approve of the hat that he probably pulled randomly out of his closet to shade his bald head and keep the sun out of his eyes for this video.

41567

[Glenn E. Meyer]

About Jewish attitudes:

1. In Europe non-resistance was a survival strategy that had some validity, given the overwhelming disparity of force between Jews and Christians. The theory can be summarized as:

If a Cossack rapes Emma and we kill the Cossack, the Cossacks will kill the entire village.

Thus, not faced with the ultimate genocide of the Nazi, nonresistance was an overall strategy for some of the group to survive.

2. In America, the view carried over, esp. for those in urban, non gun culture environments.

3. Gun culture was correlated with conservatives. To be blunt, Conservatives were anti-Semitic for the most part. Protection from prejudice and discrimination was found not in guns but in the courts and legislation that forbid such. Thus, gun culture was a totem of a group that was not friendly at all to Jews. It was mainly the Liberal end of the politics that cared about equality. Even today, 'conservatives' do not have a good record on discrimination.

Note - current support for Israel is primarily, among Evangelicals, based on Biblical prophecy for the Second Coming. They may say the New Testament says some positive things about Jews but in historical reality, the attitude is fundamentally anti-Semitic. There is no real affection for Jews if you get to core beliefs.

Note that this view is not universal. When Jews settled in the Palestine Mandate and then Israel, they were perfectly able to understand the need for self-defense. However, in the USA, that need hasn't penetrated to all. The correlation of the gun culture with prejudice as seen by fine folk, still is a powerful deterrent for some.

All this has been well researched, so folks surprised because they personally don't buy it, shouldn't be surprised. I've been scolded by some and assumed to be a right wing nut because I believe in self-defense and the RKBA.

Today, the parties draw funds from their extremes, so they devise litmus tests that cause the extremes to donate.

Both extremes are liberty denying DBs.

[blues]

About Jewish attitudes:

1. In Europe non-resistance was a survival strategy that had some validity, given the overwhelming disparity of force between Jews and Christians. The theory can be summarized as:

If a Cossack rapes Emma and we kill the Cossack, the Cossacks will kill the entire village.

Thus, not faced with the ultimate genocide of the Nazi, nonresistance was an overall strategy for some of the group to survive.

2. In America, the view carried over, esp. for those in urban, non gun culture environments.

3. Gun culture was correlated with conservatives. To be blunt, Conservatives were anti-Semitic for the most part. Protection from prejudice and discrimination was found not in guns but in the courts and legislation that forbid such. Thus, gun culture was a totem of a group that was not friendly at all to Jews. It was mainly the Liberal end of the politics that cared about equality. Even today, 'conservatives' do not have a good record on discrimination.

Note - current support for Israel is primarily, among Evangelicals, based on Biblical prophecy for the Second Coming. They may say the New Testament says some positive things about Jews but in historical reality, the attitude is fundamentally anti-Semitic. There is no real affection for Jews if you get to core beliefs.

Note that this view is not universal. When Jews settled in the Palestine Mandate and then Israel, they were perfectly able to understand the need for self-defense. However, in the USA, that need hasn't penetrated to all. The correlation of the gun culture with prejudice as seen by fine folk, still is a powerful deterrent for some.

All this has been well researched, so folks surprised because they personally don't buy it, shouldn't be surprised. I've been scolded by some and assumed to be a right wing nut because I believe in self-defense and the RKBA.

Today, the parties draw funds from their extremes, so they devise litmus tests that cause the extremes to donate.

Both extremes are liberty denying DBs.

Glenn, I think you provided a very accurate thumbnail sketch of the situation. Well done.

[blues]

^^^^ In regard to the above, I hadn't even realized this (https://www.saf.org/saf-announces-merger-of-jews-for-preservation-of-firearms-ownership/), but I admit I don't keep up with all the news that's fit to print.


SAF ANNOUNCES MERGER OF JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today announced that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has become part of the SAF family, bringing together two stalwart gun rights organizations under one banner.

“We’re both delighted and proud to announce this merger,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “JPFO was founded 25 years ago by the late Aaron Zelman, and it has become a strong voice in defense of the Second Amendment. I’m personally confident that bringing JPFO into the SAF extended family will benefit firearms owners at many levels.”

Zelman passed away in 2010, and for the past four years, the JPFO has worked hard to maintain its position in the gun rights community.

“We see this as a tremendous opportunity,” said Gottlieb. “With SAF’s resources, we expect JPFO to continue its important work and grow to meet new challenges, educating people about the pitfalls of gun control, and the benefits of gun ownership and personal protection.”

Gottlieb said JPFO operations will be transferred from Wisconsin, where it was founded by Zelman in 1989, to the SAF offices at Liberty Park in Bellevue, Wash. JPFO editorial support staff will stay on and help maintain organizational continuity, he added.

“A few years ago,” Gottlieb noted, “Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership also merged into the SAF family and it has proven to be a great benefit to the gun rights community.”

By joining with the foundation, JPFO will also become a member organization of the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) and expand its reach internationally.

JPFO will be operated independently as a project of SAF and current members and contributors to the organization will continue to receive all benefits promised, Gottlieb added. JPFO’s website will continue to run independently as a stand-alone entity but will now include links to it from TheGunMag.com, KeepandBearArms.com, as well as SAF.org.

[Borderland]

Glenn, I think you provided a very accurate thumbnail sketch of the situation. Well done.

Well anyway, Trump is heading in the wrong direction at breakneck speed.

And a second well done, Glenn.

[Clusterfrack]

Glenn, Blues, thanks for posting all that excellent stuff. Here in Portland there are a bunch of pacifist, apologist Jews, but also a significant group of Jewish Israel-supporters and 2nd Amendment advocates. Interestingly, all of the Jews I’ve met here are left of center politically.

[hufnagel]

As much as I dislike the senior senator from New York, I like the opportunity to make arguments for arms-based civil liberties that encompass more than just guns. Body armor is a great example. I also think that freedom to access chemical sprays, blunt objects, knives, flashlights, lasers, HPM, malware, and night vision should regularly be discussed as being inside of our Second Amedment liberties.

I’ve been watching a lot of InRange TV, lately, and have become armor-curious. The pint about soft armor in a pistol class is very well made.

That right there... if I were drinking something, it'd be coming out my nose now. :D

[hufnagel]

While I agree with you, beyond blunt object and knives none of these items existed at the time of the creation of the Second Amendment. As such, arguing for their inclusion for coverage under the Second Amendment is going to be problematic at best.

Anything past the printing press didn't exist at the time of the creation of the First Amendment. The internet should be banned, and we should all be in prison for the things we've said on here.

[the Schwartz]

Anything past the printing press didn't exist at the time of the creation of the First Amendment. The internet should be banned, and we should all be in prison for the things we've said on here.

Nope. False analogy.

Basic firearms technology (obviously it was less refined than it is today) existed at the time and is part and parcel of the framer's intentions (for the Second Amendment). Lasers, flashlights, computers and their programming (malware, etc.), and night-vision technology, are not part of the same technology (that is, they are not firearms; devices that actually launch projectiles) and were not conceived of by the framers. As such, these things could never be part of their original intent in writing the Second Amendment.

Same goes for the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The technology that we use to communicate with is not the focus of the First Amendment, but rather the rights enumerated within 1A. If someone runs afoul of that (by prohibiting free speech where it is generally protected based upon only the device that is being used), the right to free speech still applies as it exists independently of the medium of communication.

[RoyGBiv]

Note - current support for Israel is primarily, among Evangelicals, based on Biblical prophecy for the Second Coming. They may say the New Testament says some positive things about Jews but in historical reality, the attitude is fundamentally anti-Semitic. There is no real affection for Jews if you get to core beliefs.
Good post Glenn.. Thanks.

IME, the above bit is regional. My experience in Texas has been quite the opposite, unless a lot of diverse people who don't know each other have all been behaving the same way towards me coincidentally. I'd be more inclined to agree with the above based on my time living in NC and traveling throughout the Southeast extensively.

Also.... The people who fail to take advantage of historys lessons.... F-them with a cattle prod. :p

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is hope. At the old NTI, I was in a squad one year that consisted of 4 Jewish behavioral science PhDs. Folks like Killer Mike on the Bill Maher show made the clear case for guns in populations outside of that usually associated with firearms. You seem some rabbis speaking to the need after recent tragedies. Chuck would serve us well to realize that passivity is a failed mantra.

[blues]

There is hope. At the old NTI, I was in a squad one year that consisted of 4 Jewish behavioral science PhDs. Folks like Killer Mike on the Bill Maher show made the clear case for guns in populations outside of that usually associated with firearms. You seem some rabbis speaking to the need after recent tragedies. Chuck would serve us well to realize that passivity is a failed mantra.

My cousin's father was on one of the trains like this one used by the French rail system to transport the doomed...that's all the reminder I ever need. He was rounded up by French police after being reported, having come out of hiding to visit his wife and two young sons. (One of whom later made a career in the U.S. Army like his future American step-father.)

https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2013/10/Selection_Birkenau_ramp-e1398598639275-640x400.jpg

[Guerrero]

You know. It has to be considered....if someone doesn’t want you to wear body armor, it may be because they plan to try and shoot at you someday.

:rolleyes:

Unliked, just so I could like it again.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My mother told me that we had cousins in Austria. My family wrote them to get out. They said they were safe as they acculturated into society. Then they wrote that things were getting bad but they will stick it out. Then, they wrote for help to get out. That was last communication ever.

My mother had a job and her boss liked to listen to the American Nazi sympathizer, Father Coughlin (here's a quote - "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing."). When her boss told the office that he supported such, my mother had a righteous incident of outrage and quit.

During the Depression, she had to lie on a job application to say she was a Christian to get a job at a bank. Those were the good old days. Of course, now the King of Jews will protect us. Or maybe Chuck Schumer.

[JRB]

Nope. False analogy.

Basic firearms technology (obviously it was less refined than it is today) existed at the time and is part and parcel of the framer's intentions (for the Second Amendment). Lasers, flashlights, computers and their programming (malware, etc.), and night-vision technology, are not part of the same technology (that is, they are not firearms; devices that actually launch projectiles) and were not conceived of by the framers. As such, these things could never be part of their original intent in writing the Second Amendment.

Same goes for the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The technology that we use to communicate with is not the focus of the First Amendment, but rather the rights enumerated within 1A. If someone runs afoul of that (by prohibiting free speech where it is generally protected based upon only the device that is being used), the right to free speech still applies as it exists independently of the medium of communication.

If it's covered by ITAR, it is an implement of war and thereby falls into the general usage of 'Arms' in the 17th-18th Century which covered all mateirel and the equipment necessary to effectively wage war. 'Bearing arms' was preparing for conflict, which isn't just a rifle with some ammo - it's all of the common contemporary equipment found in making war.

Armor was (obviously) a clearly understood and developed concept by the 18th century, but the technology involved clearly didn't catch up with firearms until the 20th century. So blades, armor, cannon, horses, wagons, etc would all be covered by the 2A. Thus, their contemporary equivalents would be covered too.

The revolutionary war saw night fighting, nighttime recon, and stealthy attacks on vulnerable enemy personnel and equipment. Pretty easy to justify that the founders would have sought to defend contemporary equipment for such actions in their definition of 'arms' which would include supressors, NVG's, and EW options/methods same as the 1A applies to the internet. To suggest that the Founders would have included firearms in the 2A, but would have excluded military equipment that would have been outstandingly effective in their own war against the British occupation is fairly ridiculous, in my opinion.

[Totem Polar]

Getting back to bullet-resistant armor for a sec, fact-check me on this line of thinking, if you would:

For joe and jane q civvy, in typical America, It seems to me that having a shield around might make more sense than a vest. Unless my lifestyle changes in profound ways, I’m probably not going to work with a IIIA vest under my $12 gap T-shirt any time soon. So I’m really looking at emergent situations around the house, and it seems like a TRR-8 with WML, and a big shield like these

https://bulletsafe.com/collections/bulletproof-shields/products/bulletproof-shield

might make more sense for myself and Mrs Sidheshooter. Am I missing anything in my reasoning?

[blues]

Damn you fuckers make the future look bleak...


ETA: I should talk...:rolleyes:

[Totem Polar]

Damn you fuckers make the future look bleak...


ETA: I should talk...:rolleyes:

The hordes will come to eat the free-range Americans first, brother. Leaner meat.

[blues]

The hordes will come to eat the free-range Americans first, brother. Leaner meat.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KOjqQ-jUyao/hqdefault.jpg

[DMF13]

Since 2002, it has been illegal under federal law for convicted felons to possess body armor of any sort.That is not true, and the folks at guns.com should check the facts before spouting off about the law.

Only felons convicted of violent crimes, as defined in 18USC16, are prohibited from possessing body armor. Even then there is a specific exception of the armor is needed for lawful employment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/931

[the Schwartz]

If it's covered by ITAR, it is an implement of war and thereby falls into the general usage of 'Arms' in the 17th-18th Century which covered all mateirel and the equipment necessary to effectively wage war. 'Bearing arms' was preparing for conflict, which isn't just a rifle with some ammo - it's all of the common contemporary equipment found in making war.

Armor was (obviously) a clearly understood and developed concept by the 18th century, but the technology involved clearly didn't catch up with firearms until the 20th century. So blades, armor, cannon, horses, wagons, etc would all be covered by the 2A. Thus, their contemporary equivalents would be covered too.

The revolutionary war saw night fighting, nighttime recon, and stealthy attacks on vulnerable enemy personnel and equipment. Pretty easy to justify that the founders would have sought to defend contemporary equipment for such actions in their definition of 'arms' which would include supressors, NVG's, and EW options/methods same as the 1A applies to the internet. To suggest that the Founders would have included firearms in the 2A, but would have excluded military equipment that would have been outstandingly effective in their own war against the British occupation is fairly ridiculous, in my opinion.

Easy to justify? Perhaps. However that does not mean that it'll be a "slam dunk". In any event, the present interpretation of the 2A is pretty damned narrow. Good luck getting anything other than what can be shown demonstrably to be a "firearm" covered/incorporated under the 2A.

While the technology that you mentioned first (blades, armor, cannon, horses, wagons, etc.) did indeed exist the state of its advancement (a point that I made) is not the issue. That it existed is the point. As for the other technology you mentioned (supressors, NVG's, and EW options/methods), the technology was non-existent and there is no way that the framers knew of, or more importantly, anticipated its emergence. Assumptions that the framers might have extended the meaning of "arms" to the 2A for accessories (like NVGs, etc.) not presently in existence at that time is also equally faulty.

[DocGKR]

There have been times in my career I have worn body armor under my scrubs working at certain high risk emergency rooms....

[whomever]

"While the technology that you mentioned first (blades, armor, cannon, horses, wagons, etc.) did indeed exist the state of its advancement (a point that I made) is not the issue. That it existed is the point. As for the other technology you mentioned (supressors, NVG's, and EW options/methods), the technology was non-existent and there is no way that the framers knew of, or more importantly, anticipated its emergence. Assumptions that the framers might have extended the meaning of "arms" to the 2A for accessories (like NVGs, etc.) not presently in existence at that time is also equally faulty."

I don't think Heller limits the protected arms to those that existed in colonial times. The S.C. made this pretty explicit in Caetano (which was a unanimous decision, BTW):

"The court [the MA court that the S.C. is overruling ...ed] offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582. "

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

[Guerrero]

There have been times in my career I have worn body armor under my scrubs working at certain high risk emergency rooms....

When I went through ECQC, one of the other students was a Chicago ER doc who always wears a vest under his scrubs.

[the Schwartz]

I don't think Heller limits the protected arms to those that existed in colonial times. The S.C. made this pretty explicit in Caetano (which was a unanimous decision, BTW):

"The court [the MA court that the S.C. is overruling ...ed] offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582. "

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

You're right. Heller does not do that (limit 2A protections to "arms" that existed at the time of its drafting), but that is not the point that I have been attempting.

Getting a night-vision device, malware, or flashlights/lasers incorporated as "arms" under protection of the Second Amendment is going to be an uphill battle at best. Conjecture that the framers would've defined/protected these same items as "arms" under the Second Amendment doesn't hold water either. At least with the TASER, anyone wishing to do so can argue the TASER to be an "arm" since it propels a projectile meant to disable an attacker/adversary, so I do agree at least in part with what you are saying.

[StraitR]

I stuffed a level IIIa soft plate in my kid's backpack. It's her "shield", and she grabs it during every drill. Think of the kids, Chuck.

[JRB]

You're right. Heller does not do that (limit 2A protections to "arms" that existed at the time of its drafting), but that is not the point that I have been attempting.

Getting a night-vision device, malware, or flashlights/lasers incorporated as "arms" under protection of the Second Amendment is going to be an uphill battle at best. Conjecture that the framers would've defined/protected these same items as "arms" under the Second Amendment doesn't hold water either. At least with the TASER, anyone wishing to do so can argue the TASER to be an "arm" since it propels a projectile meant to disable an attacker/adversary, so I do agree at least in part with what you are saying.

For years, defeatist attitudes such as yours start the discussion by coming halfway to our opposition when our opponents have no interest in genuine compromise.
That said, I'm going to make the assumption that you believe 1A rights include modern technology beyond the spoken/shouted word and correspondence prepared with a quill pen on handmade paper and carried by horse/wagon/person to be hand delivered to the recipient.


Arms; Noun - weapons; armaments.
"arms and ammunition"
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"

ITAR stands for International Trade in Arms Regulations. All of the technology being discussed including suppressors, NVG's, lasers, etc can be and is effectively used in modern combat, are all regulated by ITAR.
So if we accept that the 2A protects the rights of the people to maintain modern arms to protect themselves and the Constitution of the United States, then it protects our rights to own such devices.
Yes, current law wildly infringes on this right considerably, and in my voting opinion, regulating the sale, possession, construction, or use of any of those devices is an infringement on the 2A.

That's the position I would be arguing from, because too many folks like yourself accept defeat because it'd be 'too hard' to convince any given Mr 'Turn them all in' or Ms 'Guns are scary ban them' to acknolwedge the 2A as intended and written.

If we want any hope at a genuine compromise, as in, new laws are drafted to de-stupify existing laws and give us a genuine benefit in trade for some supposed 'gonna happen anyway' new laws such as mandatory background checks - we're going to need to start that discussion from the absolute opposite side.

So when they chant 'ban them all', I ask 'Why can't I buy an AT-4 if I have the money and I want one?'
I would suggest more folks in our position consider taking a similar stance.

[the Schwartz]

For years, defeatist attitudes such as yours start the discussion by coming halfway to our opposition when our opponents have no interest in genuine compromise.
That said, I'm going to make the assumption that you believe 1A rights include modern technology beyond the spoken/shouted word and correspondence prepared with a quill pen on handmade paper and carried by horse/wagon/person to be hand delivered to the recipient.



ITAR stands for International Trade in Arms Regulations. All of the technology being discussed including suppressors, NVG's, lasers, etc can be and is effectively used in modern combat, are all regulated by ITAR.
So if we accept that the 2A protects the rights of the people to maintain modern arms to protect themselves and the Constitution of the United States, then it protects our rights to own such devices.
Yes, current law wildly infringes on this right considerably, and in my voting opinion, regulating the sale, possession, construction, or use of any of those devices is an infringement on the 2A.

That's the position I would be arguing from, because too many folks like yourself accept defeat because it'd be 'too hard' to convince any given Mr 'Turn them all in' or Ms 'Guns are scary ban them' to acknolwedge the 2A as intended and written.

If we want any hope at a genuine compromise, as in, new laws are drafted to de-stupify existing laws and give us a genuine benefit in trade for some supposed 'gonna happen anyway' new laws such as mandatory background checks - we're going to need to start that discussion from the absolute opposite side.

So when they chant 'ban them all', I ask 'Why can't I buy an AT-4 if I have the money and I want one?'
I would suggest more folks in our position consider taking a similar stance.


In your haste to call me a "defeatist" (by no measure am I), you blew past what I stated and failed to comprehend what I was saying.

Repeating it here won't help you out, so I won't bother.

ITAR is not the Second Amendment.