LAPD Chief Protests Felons Buying Body Armor

[Kathy63]

This also happened before the ban was put into place.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/16/us...l?pagewanted=1

Where do you draw the line? Frankly I would appreciate it if someone who came to rob me was prohibited from wearing body armor.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Kathy63

This also happened before the ban was put into place.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/16/us...l?pagewanted=1

Where do you draw the line? Frankly I would appreciate it if someone who came to rob me was prohibited from wearing body armor.

They can be Kathy, but do it the same way as we do other weapons. If you use it or plan to use it illegally, then it's prohibited. Guns are already prohibited if used to commit crimes. But assuming that all of them will be used that way and banning them on that basis is more than presumptive.

[Twoller]

Aren't there different kinds of body armor with varying levels of protection? In the huge LA shootout, it seems to me that the shooters were wearing something that allowed them to completely absorb high velocity amunition and still remain on foot. But not all armor is like that. Some of it is strictly survival oriented. If you are hit with a large caliber round with the lighter armor, you will suffer and maybe even suffer internal injury, but the round will not penetrate the armor and your survival is promoted if not guaranteed.

Reasonably, the best kind of armor, the kind that will make high velocity rounds a distraction and nothing more should be restricted to military and police applications. Not many people are going to be able to afford this kind of armor or would want to wear it in the kind of situations they hope to be able to apply it.

Some criminal who is in a witness protection program should be able to have access to personal light armor. When the police are moving such a witness, then the witness is pretty much in police custody and heavier armor could be applied without some felon having personal access to personal armor of that level of protection.

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by Twoller

Aren't there different kinds of body armor with varying levels of protection? In the huge LA shootout, it seems to me that the shooters were wearing something that allowed them to completely absorb high velocity amunition and still remain on foot. But not all armor is like that. Some of it is strictly survival oriented. If you are hit with a large caliber round with the lighter armor, you will suffer and maybe even suffer internal injury, but the round will not penetrate the armor and your survival is promoted if not guaranteed.

Reasonably, the best kind of armor, the kind that will make high velocity rounds a distraction and nothing more should be restricted to military and police applications. Not many people are going to be able to afford this kind of armor or would want to wear it in the kind of situations they hope to be able to apply it.

Some criminal who is in a witness protection program should be able to have access to personal light armor. When the police are moving such a witness, then the witness is pretty much in police custody and heavier armor could be applied without some felon having personal access to personal armor of that level of protection.

Sounds like a reasonable approach.

[Kathy63]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

They can be Kathy, but do it the same way as we do other weapons. If you use it or plan to use it illegally, then it's prohibited. Guns are already prohibited if used to commit crimes. But assuming that all of them will be used that way and banning them on that basis is more than presumptive.

Felons are prohibited from having weapons too. They still get them, but, if found in possession of such a weapon, it is an additional charge. I have no problem with felons being prohibited from possession weapons and an additional charge against them if they do. Same with body armor. If they have it, ten years tacked onto the sentence.