Illegal to possess body armor?

[Muse]

I just read an article headlined Parolee slain outside Oakland half-way house, which appeared in today's (Sunday) Oakland Tribune and yesterday's Contra Costa Times (the link). It mentions that the slain man had been arrested some months ago for "illegally possessing body armor." I have to wonder about making it illegal to wear protection from injurious attack. Granted, engaging in felonious activity is to be deterred but protecting yourself against attack if you feel vulnerable by donning protective clothing I think should be exempt from prosecution... for everybody, period.

The article reads as follows:

Parolee slain outside Oakland half-way house
By Harry Harris, Oakland Tribune
Posted: 05/30/2009 08:25:03 AM PDT
Updated: 05/30/2009 08:25:05 AM PDT

OAKLAND - A San Francisco man on federal parole was shot to death Friday night outside the Oakland half-way house where he had been living, authorities said.

He was identified as Damien Raymond, 26.

He was shot several times about 10:03 p.m. Friday outside the residence in the 200 block of MacArthur Blvd., apparently by two men who fled the scene on foot

Raymond was taken to Highland Hospital where he died a short time later.

Homicide Sgt. Tony Jones said Saturday police are not sure of the motive, but that Raymond, "was definitely targeted."

Authorities said Raymond has a prior drug conviction but was taken into federal custody late last year after a conviction for illegally possessing body armor..

He had been living at the half-way house for a few months and had no problems there, police said.

Authorities said Raymond had prior arrests in San Francisco for murder and sexual assault but was never convicted of the crimes.

The killing was Oakland's 44th homicide of the year. Last year at this time there were 56 homicides in the city.

Police and Crime Stoppers of Oakland are offering up to $10,000 in reward money for information leading to the arrest of the killers. Anyone with information can call police at 510 238-3821 or Crime Stoppers at 510 777-8572 or 510 777-3211.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Anything that gets in the way of the police performing their duties...

 

[Rainsford]

This is another one of those situations where a generalized principle must give way to practical limits. In the name of "protecting myself against attack", am I entitled to drive around in a tank?

Of course not everyone will agree on what a good place to draw the line is, but I think a good rule of thumb is when the lawful uses are outweighed by the unlawful uses. If an item is much more likely to be useful to a criminal than to a law abiding person, then laws prohibiting it except in special circumstances make sense to me. When it comes to "dual use" items like guns, which are useful to both good and bad people, I'm willing to side with the good folks. But if it's something that's almost exclusively useful to bad guys, then I'm willing to say it's illegal unless someone can show a good reason for needing it.

Body armor falls into that latter category, I think. It is NOT a reasonable precaution for the average person to take, since it really only becomes useful if you have a high probability of people shooting at you...an unreasonable fear for most of us. On the other hand, as was shown in a dramatic bank robbery we all remember, it gives a huge advantage to criminals who are facing off with the police...where being shot IS a high probability event.

 

[frostedflakes]

I think it's illegal to possess in most states if you have a criminal record, same with firearms, that's probably what he got in trouble for. For everybody else, though, I think it's usually legal (but again, laws will probably vary by state).

 

[IronWing]

That's bizarre. I see no justification for telling anyone they can't wear body armor if the spirit moves them.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is another one of those situations where a generalized principle must give way to practical limits. In the name of "protecting myself against attack", am I entitled to drive around in a tank?

Of course not everyone will agree on what a good place to draw the line is, but I think a good rule of thumb is when the lawful uses are outweighed by the unlawful uses. If an item is much more likely to be useful to a criminal than to a law abiding person, then laws prohibiting it except in special circumstances make sense to me. When it comes to "dual use" items like guns, which are useful to both good and bad people, I'm willing to side with the good folks. But if it's something that's almost exclusively useful to bad guys, then I'm willing to say it's illegal unless someone can show a good reason for needing it.

Body armor falls into that latter category, I think. It is NOT a reasonable precaution for the average person to take, since it really only becomes useful if you have a high probability of people shooting at you...an unreasonable fear for most of us. On the other hand, as was shown in a dramatic bank robbery we all remember, it gives a huge advantage to criminals who are facing off with the police...where being shot IS a high probability event.

Dude, just because a guy is a criminal (mind, in this case the guy wasn't convicted of the crimes he was arrested for, so he was not a criminal!) doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to protect himself if he feels vulnerable. I totally disagree with you. And yes, he has the right (as far as I'm concerned) to drive around in a tank as long as he's doing it lawfully.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is another one of those situations where a generalized principle must give way to practical limits. In the name of "protecting myself against attack", am I entitled to drive around in a tank?

Of course not everyone will agree on what a good place to draw the line is, but I think a good rule of thumb is when the lawful uses are outweighed by the unlawful uses. If an item is much more likely to be useful to a criminal than to a law abiding person, then laws prohibiting it except in special circumstances make sense to me. When it comes to "dual use" items like guns, which are useful to both good and bad people, I'm willing to side with the good folks. But if it's something that's almost exclusively useful to bad guys, then I'm willing to say it's illegal unless someone can show a good reason for needing it.

Body armor falls into that latter category, I think. It is NOT a reasonable precaution for the average person to take, since it really only becomes useful if you have a high probability of people shooting at you...an unreasonable fear for most of us. On the other hand, as was shown in a dramatic bank robbery we all remember, it gives a huge advantage to criminals who are facing off with the police...where being shot IS a high probability event.

Dude, just because a guy is a criminal (mind, in this case the guy wasn't convicted of the crimes he was arrested for, so he was not a criminal!) doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to protect himself if he feels vulnerable. I totally disagree with you. And yes, he has the right to drive around in a tank as long as he's doing it lawfully.

I didn't say he was a criminal, that had nothing at all to do with my argument...

I agree that people have a right to protect themselves if they feel vulnerable, but are you really suggesting that ANYTHING should be allowed in pursuit of someone protecting themselves?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I didn't say he was a criminal, that had nothing at all to do with my argument...

I agree that people have a right to protect themselves if they feel vulnerable, but are you really suggesting that ANYTHING should be allowed in pursuit of someone protecting themselves?

Body armor is passive, it just sits there getting smelly. A tank is over the line, not because it is armored but because it will crush the public roads.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is another one of those situations where a generalized principle must give way to practical limits. In the name of "protecting myself against attack", am I entitled to drive around in a tank?

Of course not everyone will agree on what a good place to draw the line is, but I think a good rule of thumb is when the lawful uses are outweighed by the unlawful uses. If an item is much more likely to be useful to a criminal than to a law abiding person, then laws prohibiting it except in special circumstances make sense to me. When it comes to "dual use" items like guns, which are useful to both good and bad people, I'm willing to side with the good folks. But if it's something that's almost exclusively useful to bad guys, then I'm willing to say it's illegal unless someone can show a good reason for needing it.

Body armor falls into that latter category, I think. It is NOT a reasonable precaution for the average person to take, since it really only becomes useful if you have a high probability of people shooting at you...an unreasonable fear for most of us. On the other hand, as was shown in a dramatic bank robbery we all remember, it gives a huge advantage to criminals who are facing off with the police...where being shot IS a high probability event.

Dude, just because a guy is a criminal (mind, in this case the guy wasn't convicted of the crimes he was arrested for, so he was not a criminal!) doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to protect himself if he feels vulnerable. I totally disagree with you. And yes, he has the right to drive around in a tank as long as he's doing it lawfully.

I didn't say he was a criminal, that had nothing at all to do with my argument...

I agree that people have a right to protect themselves if they feel vulnerable, but are you really suggesting that ANYTHING should be allowed in pursuit of someone protecting themselves?

No, you were saying that criminals shouldn't have the same rights of self protection. See the bolding.

Anything? I never used that word. But something that's passive and can't harm anybody such as body armor should be fair for anyone to use except perhaps if it's used in order to perpetrate a crime, such as wearing body armor while committing armed robbery. This guy was busted for possessing body armor, so the article says. That's different.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is another one of those situations where a generalized principle must give way to practical limits. In the name of "protecting myself against attack", am I entitled to drive around in a tank?

Of course not everyone will agree on what a good place to draw the line is, but I think a good rule of thumb is when the lawful uses are outweighed by the unlawful uses. If an item is much more likely to be useful to a criminal than to a law abiding person, then laws prohibiting it except in special circumstances make sense to me. When it comes to "dual use" items like guns, which are useful to both good and bad people, I'm willing to side with the good folks. But if it's something that's almost exclusively useful to bad guys, then I'm willing to say it's illegal unless someone can show a good reason for needing it.

Body armor falls into that latter category, I think. It is NOT a reasonable precaution for the average person to take, since it really only becomes useful if you have a high probability of people shooting at you...an unreasonable fear for most of us. On the other hand, as was shown in a dramatic bank robbery we all remember, it gives a huge advantage to criminals who are facing off with the police...where being shot IS a high probability event.

A good assessment of why it is not legal in most places.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is another one of those situations where a generalized principle must give way to practical limits. In the name of "protecting myself against attack", am I entitled to drive around in a tank?

Of course not everyone will agree on what a good place to draw the line is, but I think a good rule of thumb is when the lawful uses are outweighed by the unlawful uses. If an item is much more likely to be useful to a criminal than to a law abiding person, then laws prohibiting it except in special circumstances make sense to me. When it comes to "dual use" items like guns, which are useful to both good and bad people, I'm willing to side with the good folks. But if it's something that's almost exclusively useful to bad guys, then I'm willing to say it's illegal unless someone can show a good reason for needing it.

Body armor falls into that latter category, I think. It is NOT a reasonable precaution for the average person to take, since it really only becomes useful if you have a high probability of people shooting at you...an unreasonable fear for most of us. On the other hand, as was shown in a dramatic bank robbery we all remember, it gives a huge advantage to criminals who are facing off with the police...where being shot IS a high probability event.

A good assessment of why it is not legal in most places.

Except that it IS legal in most places, just not for felons. Numerous states have no laws beyond the federal statute below, and those that do mostly reiterate that felons are prohibited from owning/buying, but not other citizens. There are only a handful of states that restrict ownership.

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

Sec. 931. Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be
unlawful for a person to purchase, own, or possess body armor, if that
person has been convicted of a felony that is--
(1) a crime of violence (as defined in section 16); or
(2) an offense under State law that would constitute a crime of violence under paragraph (1) if it occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[bsobel]

mind, in this case the guy wasn't convicted of the crimes he was arrested for, so he was not a criminal!)

Do you not understand what the word Parolee means?

 

[StageLeft]

They should be allowed. Outlawing them is extremely incompatible with the ease with which people can buy guns. What if I personally don't want a gun but want an armored vest? I can't buy one but it's ok for me to buy a gun? Brainless.

 

[Veramocor]

Well the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms not armor, so there isn't any literal protection in the Constitution.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: bsobel

mind, in this case the guy wasn't convicted of the crimes he was arrested for, so he was not a criminal!)

Do you not understand what the word Parolee means?

I wasn't accurate. They said he was not convicted of murder and rape after arrests on those charges, but that he was convicted on drug offenses, presumably earlier.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Veramocor
Well the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms not armor, so there isn't any literal protection in the Constitution.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. And just because something is illegal, doesn't make it wrong.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Veramocor
Well the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms not armor, so there isn't any literal protection in the Constitution.

It doesn't give you the right to wear green shirts either.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is another one of those situations where a generalized principle must give way to practical limits. In the name of "protecting myself against attack", am I entitled to drive around in a tank?

Of course not everyone will agree on what a good place to draw the line is, but I think a good rule of thumb is when the lawful uses are outweighed by the unlawful uses. If an item is much more likely to be useful to a criminal than to a law abiding person, then laws prohibiting it except in special circumstances make sense to me. When it comes to "dual use" items like guns, which are useful to both good and bad people, I'm willing to side with the good folks. But if it's something that's almost exclusively useful to bad guys, then I'm willing to say it's illegal unless someone can show a good reason for needing it.

Body armor falls into that latter category, I think. It is NOT a reasonable precaution for the average person to take, since it really only becomes useful if you have a high probability of people shooting at you...an unreasonable fear for most of us. On the other hand, as was shown in a dramatic bank robbery we all remember, it gives a huge advantage to criminals who are facing off with the police...where being shot IS a high probability event.

Outlawing it for law abiding citizens has the same effect as outlawing guns. Only the criminals have it. I dont see why you care if a law abiding citizen wears body armor. It is really inconsequential to you unless you are expecting to shoot them or have the police shoot them.

The two guys who wore full armor in the mid 1990s were criminals. A law denying the sale to these guys would have dont nothing to stop them. They would have bought it on the black market regardless of any law we pass.

And lets remember. That was two guys over a decade ago. Is this common place?!?!?!?!?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is another one of those situations where a generalized principle must give way to practical limits. In the name of "protecting myself against attack", am I entitled to drive around in a tank?

Of course not everyone will agree on what a good place to draw the line is, but I think a good rule of thumb is when the lawful uses are outweighed by the unlawful uses. If an item is much more likely to be useful to a criminal than to a law abiding person, then laws prohibiting it except in special circumstances make sense to me. When it comes to "dual use" items like guns, which are useful to both good and bad people, I'm willing to side with the good folks. But if it's something that's almost exclusively useful to bad guys, then I'm willing to say it's illegal unless someone can show a good reason for needing it.

Body armor falls into that latter category, I think. It is NOT a reasonable precaution for the average person to take, since it really only becomes useful if you have a high probability of people shooting at you...an unreasonable fear for most of us. On the other hand, as was shown in a dramatic bank robbery we all remember, it gives a huge advantage to criminals who are facing off with the police...where being shot IS a high probability event.

Outlawing it for law abiding citizens has the same effect as outlawing guns. Only the criminals have it. I dont see why you care if a law abiding citizen wears body armor. It is really inconsequential to you unless you are expecting to shoot them or have the police shoot them.

The two guys who wore full armor in the mid 1990s were criminals. A law denying the sale to these guys would have dont nothing to stop them. They would have bought it on the black market regardless of any law we pass.

And lets remember. That was two guys over a decade ago. Is this common place?!?!?!?!?

I seem to recall that those two bank robbers made their own body armor?

 

[Genx87]

Did they? I really dont know. If they made the armor, then a law is even more pointless.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Veramocor
Well the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms not armor, so there isn't any literal protection in the Constitution.

The term "arms" refers to the tools of war, both offensive and defensive, but of course we've been trampling all over that for a long time now.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Did they? I really dont know. If they made the armor, then a law is even more pointless.

They did make their own, this is off the top of my head, but as I recall they had some form of access to the armor plating, and made their own trauma plates, and basically made themselves body armor that was very very protective, but very limiting to their movements.

But, as far as Rainsford's argument goes, it has merits, but I think it is a dangerous way of thinking. What about certain types of DVD copiers, should they be illegal to posses because a majority of their uses are illegal? His argument seems to be "if the item in question has a much larger usefulness to criminals then to law abiding citizens, then it should be banned." The problem with that argument is that you rely on the people making the argument to enumerate the uses, and as we have seen over and over, when you have people who disdain an object it would be very easy for them to say that an item "has no legitimate use." I think we need to look at how often such items are actually used in crimes, before we even start to think about banning something rather than just how useful it is.

 

[Triumph]

If body armor was made illegal for the private citizen, then what would we do without Batman?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Triumph
If body armor was made illegal for the private citizen, then what would we do without Batman?

Batman works in the grey area's of the law and sometimes outside it. He would simply keep purchasing\making his own regardless of what laws are applied to common folk.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bsobel

mind, in this case the guy wasn't convicted of the crimes he was arrested for, so he was not a criminal!)

Do you not understand what the word Parolee means?

I wasn't accurate. They said he was not convicted of murder and rape after arrests on those charges, but that he was convicted on drug offenses, presumably earlier.

The drug offense must have had a violent ascect based on the federal law posted.

Also, this is the apparent story behind this guy http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...8/11/23/MNVT13N28J.DTL (the rape/murder charges)