I wore body armor during my police career. In those days of yore, it was heavier and more expensive than armor is now, but armor threat protection levels really haven’t changed. The armor police officers wear on duty protects against handgun and shotgun cartridges, but absent ceramic or metal insert plates, not against rifle fire. That kind of tactical armor is thicker, heavier and much more expensive.

Graphic: Female body armor demonstration. Wikimedia Commons.org. Public Domain.

However, in recent years, armor has become more affordable and ubiquitous. It’s available in several levels from level II, which will stop 9mm and .357 magnum rounds, to Level V, which will stop up to 30.06—true high-powered rifle—rounds. The higher the level, the thicker, greater coverage and more expensive the armor. Police officers buy wrap around armor—up to Level III--that covers the torso as in the photo that accompanies this article. Most private buyers tend to go for level II to level IIIA armor that tends to feature only front and back, not side, coverage.

Why would anyone want body armor? Why not? Life can be dangerous, and should one anticipate trouble, a good vest is a comforting companion to a good firearm. More and more Americans are anticipating trouble, buying more than a million guns per month for more than 60 consecutive months. Many of them are also buying body armor, but not if New York politicians get their way:

A federal judge has ruled against Attorney General Letitia James and other New York officials, rejecting their motion to dismiss a constitutional challenge to the state’s ban on bulletproof vests and protective body armor. 

U.S. District Court Judge John Sinatra Jr. affirmed plaintiffs standing to sue the state over the restrictions.

“Here, plaintiffs have demonstrated an injury in fact…They allege an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably protected by the Second Amendment but proscribed by New York law,” Sinatra wrote in a 19-page ruling

It’s an interesting argument. On one hand, there is no American history of tradition of banning body armor. On the other, does the Second Amendment acknowledge a right to keep and bear arms? Is it an “arm” under the Second Amendment? The wearing of body armor is ancient, and as part of a warrior’s “armament” would arguably be protected by the Second Amendment as Judge Sinatra apparently ruled. I certainly didn’t leave home without it.

While New York is no stranger to violating Second Amendment rights under the guise of “public safety,” the body armor ban looks particularly bad for the state as armor can only be used as a defensive measure for protecting life but not as a weapon. In fact, in the state’s own words, body armor is defined as “any product that is a personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire, regardless of whether such product is to be worn alone or is sold as a complement to another product or garment.” 

Why would any state want to ban body armor which could protect the innocent? Knights of old had to be wealthy to afford and maintain full plate armor, but contemporary armor is well within the reach of the middle class. Arguably, criminals might wear it, but the overwhelming majority don’t, and it’s easy to write constitutionally valid laws punishing the use of body armor in crimes or its possession with criminal intent. That, however, is not enough for anti-liberty/gun cracktivists.

Their goals are always complete citizen disarmament, not “common sense gun regulation,” but oppressive control of people. Heller and Bruen have inconvenienced them, but they know any foot in the door of gun regulation, or any accessory remotely related to guns or self-defense, might constitute a precedent a future Democrat/socialist/communist (D/s/c) dominated Supreme Court could use for disarmament. They believe in self-defense only for themselves or government at large, not for individuals who can’t be trusted with such power, and who would certainly use it against the self-imagined elite as they try to impose a utopian “our democracy” on the ungrateful masses.

They would certainly arm future storm troopers with weapons capable of defeating body armor, including armor piercing rounds, light caliber cannon and various explosives.

New York and several other states know they’re violating the Second Amendment and depriving their citizens of unalienable rights. They don’t care. They’ll keep doing it one issue at a time, knowing it will take years for lawsuits to wind their way to the Supreme Court, and who knows, maybe one day they’ll be able to pack the court and there goes the Second Amendment, and the First, and…

In the meantime, depriving New Yorkers of body armor reveals what politicians think about their lives and reveals their ultimate intentions.

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.