​Proposed Law Would Restrict Civilian Ballistic Armor Ownership Nationwide

A new federal law would significantly restrict the kind of protective equipment that a civilian can purchase. The bill’s supporters say that it can make mass shooters less lethal, but opponents question whether the bill is even constitutional. Here’s how it breaks down.

Proposed Law Would Restrict Civilian Ballistic Armor Ownership Nationwide

Last year, a group of Democrat members of the US House of Representatives introduced a bill that would limit the types of ballistic armor that American civilians can own.

The bill, H.R. 3247, would create a legal definition for “enhanced body armor.” Under this new definition, any armor higher than Level III would be illegal for civilians to own. This would ban civilians from owning the most powerful types of armor, capable of protecting them from armor-piercing 30-caliber rifle rounds.

The text of the bill doesn’t include any type of grandfathering clause. In other words, anyone who already owned armor higher than Level III would become a criminal overnight.

The bill also includes exceptions for law enforcement and other government employees.

NIJ Ballistic Armor Levels

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has a system for ranking ballistic armor. The system breaks ballistic armor down into 5 separate tiers depending on what type of bullets they can stop.

1. Level IIA: The lowest level of protection. Can defeat low-velocity handgun rounds, like some 9mm and .40 S&W bullets.
2. Level II: Can protect the wearer against more powerful handgun rounds like standard 9mm and .357 magnum rounds.
3. Level IIIA: Can defend against any handgun ammunition, including .44 magnum.
4. Level III: Protects against rifle rounds up to 7.62x51 cartridges.
5. Level IV: The most effective armor and highest NIJ level. Level IV armor can defend against armor-piercing rifle rounds.

The Bottom Line

I expect this bill to be nearly universally unpopular. Ballistic armor is a piece of safety equipment – not a weapon. That puts it in the same category as a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet.

Not to mention that this proposed law is also blatantly unconstitutional. According to the majority opinion in the landmark DC v Heller Supreme Court case:

“We interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Long story short, this bill is unlikely to ever pass. But if it does, it’s dead on arrival. So go ahead and stock up on ballistic armor – it’s your constitutional right!