XD45 7,124 Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) H.R. 5344; the Responsible Body Armor Possession Act of 2014 Would prohibit the sale, transfer or possession of “military grade”, “enhanced body armor” by civilians. Edit: Bill in US House. Commiefornians trying to ass fuck us all again. http://www.recoilweb.com/h-r-5344-no-enhanced-body-armor-for-civilians-48349.html Edited August 20, 2014 by Darth Saigus 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matthew Hopkins 1,065 Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) wow, California? really? Edited August 19, 2014 by Matthew Hopkins 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VR762Shooter 838 Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Is there a pool going on the number of weeks before this guy is under arrest for illegally importing FA AKs from China? Cuz I'm going with 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted August 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) This is an infringement that needs to be put down hard. Edited August 20, 2014 by Darth Saigus 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yakdung 2,926 Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 If you live long enough, this shit goes full circle. Not the first time idiot liberals have pushed this crap. Chuckie and Dianna have tried this on a national level. Not sporting... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted August 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 I've lived long enough to see kommiefornia go from the land of the free to the home of the slave. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Capt Nemo 882 Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Police departments are civilian, so they should not be able to buy it either! Military grade body armor should be for the military only! 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pjj342 632 Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Police departments are civilian, so they should not be able to buy it either! Military grade body armor should be for the military only! Remember, they are a special class of civilian. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 It always devolves into cop bashing. bunch of jackasses You little girls have a bad case of penis envy when it comes to police Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nailbomb 10,221 Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 does this mean I'll soon loose my body armor in a freak boating accident too? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pjj342 632 Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 It always devolves into cop bashing. bunch of jackasses You little girls have a bad case of penis envy when it comes to police I didnt say police are to blame, Im just stating a fact. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 It always devolves into cop bashing. bunch of jackasses You little girls have a bad case of the penis envy when it comes to police Is kind of like beings customer service rep. You might not be the one who screwed up,but your the face of the company in the customers eyes. If you don't like the fucked up rep your company has choose a different company. Or don't enforce the fucked up policy.Most my encounters with police have ended without incident. Manors and respect on both sides play a major role in conflict resolution. Mostly I do agree that if Joe public can't own it,police shouldn't either. Your just a man like me. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eric Pate 478 Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 wow, California? really? Perhaps I missed it somewhere in the body of text but I'm not reading this as being applicable only in California. https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5344/text does this mean I'll soon loose my body armor in a freak boating accident too? ``Sec. 932. Ban on purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (, it shall be unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess enhanced body armor. ``( Subsection (a) shall not apply to-- ``(1) a purchase, ownership, or possession by or under the authority of-- ``(A) the United States or any department or agency of the United States; or ``( a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State; or ``(2) enhanced body armor that was lawfully possessed by any person at any time before the date this section takes effect.''. Also the linked page on Recoil web states: He did not define what “enhanced” body armor or “military grade” body armor is, and a summary of H.R. 5344 is not yet available. Yet HR5344 clearly states: Enhanced Body Armor Defined.--Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(36) The term `enhanced body armor' means body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.''. Am I the only person who actually reads this stuff? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 California steps on peoples rights every day. This is just one more in a very long list. Af far as I know, one time bad guys had armour and it was an issue for under gunned police. Anyone who wants to own it should be allowed to own it. It in its self, poses no threat to anybody 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Yeah, If the Liberals get their way, a person won't have a right to own a gun or to protect himself from getting shot by a gun. Kind of sounds like they want to make us all into defenseless targets. Edited August 20, 2014 by SHOTGUN MESSIAH 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted August 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) My bad. Its a bill in the US House. I thought it was a Cali state bill. Perhaps a mod can change the title. Edited August 20, 2014 by Darth Saigus Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Body armor is a waste of time and money for me. I do not EVER plan on getting myself into a situation where I find myself preparing to go into a gun fight with no cover. I would rather just buy more guns and ammo with the money. However, if YOU want to buy some, then you should be able to do so. There is NO way to keep anyone who is intending to use it for nefarious purposes from obtaining it, criminals do not obtain their kit thru legal channels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pjj342 632 Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Check out the comments on pop vox. Many support the bill because they feel its their right to own body armor, many oppose the bill because they feel its their right to own body armor????https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr5344/report#nation The bill itself seems to only limit body armor above level III, which is plate, helmet and shield armor, I think. Is there soft level IIII body armor? Regardless its bullshit, but heres the text of the bill, see for yourselves. Click "bill text" https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr5344 Edited August 22, 2014 by Boomsick42 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxwelhse 1,285 Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 It seems like unless they outlaw plate steel and kevlar you're going to be able to "get" as much armor as you want... Another totally stupid piece of legislation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Check out the comments on pop vox. Many support the bill because they feel its their right to own body armor, many oppose the bill because they feel its their right to own body armor????https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr5344/report#nation The bill itself seems to only limit body armor above level III, which is plate, helmet and shield armor, I think. Is there soft level IIII body armor? Regardless its bullshit, but heres the text of the bill, see for yourselves. Click "bill text" https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr5344 It would seem most the commenters clicked oppose, but wrote Support. I'm thinking they don't understand how this works. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Another "Anti Self-Defense" Bill. What's next? Plate steel? Edited August 22, 2014 by Sim_Player Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 I suppose connecting dots between this, the DHS buying billions of hollow points, bureaucratic agencies stock piling PDWs, drafting & expansion of the NDAA, combined a federal judge ruling that common rifles are not 2a protected... is just tin foil hat stuff. Sure it might all be coincidence, but doesn't make it any less dangerous to our freedoms. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 It always devolves into cop bashing. bunch of jackasses You little girls have a bad case of penis envy when it comes to police lololol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted August 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) The bill itself seems to only limit body armor above level III, It says MEETS or exceeds level III. So it would ban level III. They won't be satisfied until everybody is either defenseless or a criminal. Obviously anybody who has any capability of defending themselves falls in the second category. Defenseless people are easy to control. It's for our own good. I don't have body armor. Never felt it was a priority. But now I think I'll get some. Because Fuck You. Edited August 22, 2014 by Darth Saigus 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
read_the_wall 614 Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Sounds like another law to ignore If the Kenyan can ignore the law......so can I...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
macbeau 902 Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 It's a sad state of affairs when BOTH active AND passive defensive tools are viewed as contraband. Is there seriously an anti=Kevlar movement out there? You can have my vest when you pry it from my cold, bloated ribs! Macbeau... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted August 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 23, 2014 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted August 23, 2014 Report Share Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) unless you encase your entire body from head to toe in the stuff, what good does it really do anyways. All it does is slow you down and limit your moveability. If I was engaged in a gunfight the last place I would shoot for is center mass. I'll take a head shot or a groin shot or go for the arms and legs. Most of those areas are usually unprotected anyways. And the stuff is not much good against Rifle and Magnum loads either. Blunt force trauma from impact will kill you just as well. So the stuff is no guarantee. Edited August 23, 2014 by SHOTGUN MESSIAH Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted August 23, 2014 Report Share Posted August 23, 2014 You should do a little more research on modern rifle plates - you are very wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Capt Nemo 882 Posted August 23, 2014 Report Share Posted August 23, 2014 Should take out a sample of the 3/4" black conductive UHMW PE for ballistic testing. I know it will dud a taser due to being conductive. (8 ohms per foot) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.