PDA

View Full Version : Rep Honda's HR 5344: Prohibits Purchase, Ownership, or Possession of Body Armor by Civilians




HOLLYWOOD
08-09-2014, 07:07 PM
Here's Congressman Mike Honda's H.R. 3455 Bill submitted July 31, 2014. Banning civilians from body armor. Does anyone with half a brain and seeing the current disrepair of America, massive debt, constant wars, AP and fragmentation rounds design to kill civilians, militarization police/sheriffs/Alpha agencies, raids/killing of Americans daily, and immunity-lawless government... have a problem with this Marxist government clown and his legislation?

Well, as usual, it involves all Liberal Progressives at this point, especially Stasi boot New Jersey politician, Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-NJ).

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5344/text



Sponsor:
Rep. Honda, Michael M. [D-CA-17] (https://beta.congress.gov/member/michael-honda/1634) (Introduced 07/31/2014)


Committees:
House - Judiciary


Latest Action:
07/31/2014 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.


This bill has the status Introduced H.R.5344 - To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession

Here are the steps for Status of Legislation: Introduced

BTW, it is also co-sponsored by major congressional members that always push the police state:


Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2]* (https://beta.congress.gov/member/robin-kelly/2190)
07/31/2014


Rep. Hastings, Alcee L. [D-FL-20]* (https://beta.congress.gov/member/alcee-hastings/511)
07/31/2014


Rep. Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-9]* (https://beta.congress.gov/member/william-pascrell/1510) 07/31/2014



http://www.guns.com/2014/08/08/congressman-wants-to-ban-sale-of-enhanced-body-armor-to-civilians/ Congressman wants to ban sale of enhanced body armor to civilians

8/08/14 (http://www.guns.com/2014/08/08/congressman-wants-to-ban-sale-of-enhanced-body-armor-to-civilians/) | by Chris Eger
(http://www.guns.com/author/chris-eger/) http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Rep.-Mike-Honda-D-CA-300x200.jpg (http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Rep.-Mike-Honda-D-CA.jpg)
Rep. Mike Honda, (D-CA), wants to ban the sale of certain
kinds of body armor to civilians. (Photo: LA Times)

Rep. Mike Honda, (D-CA), has submitted a bill to the U.S. House that would prohibit the sale, use or possession of what he terms military-grade body armor.

Honda reasons that this measure would aid law enforcement in taking out an active shooter, since the active shooter wouldn’t be able to obtain body armor. “There is no reason this type of armor, which is designed for warfare, should be available in our communities except for those who need it, like law enforcement,” Honda said in a statement (http://honda.house.gov/news/press-releases/responsible-body-armor-possession-act-keeps-military-armor-out-of-the-wrong)last week. “There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue.”
Honda’s bill, H.R. 5344 (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5344/text), The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, would place a ban on what it terms ‘enhanced body armor.’ This type of armor as referenced in the bill’s language (http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/files/2014/07/HONDA_ResponsibleBodyArmorPossessionAct.pdf)would include any wearable armor including helmets or shields that offer a ballistic protection of Type III or above as determined using National Institute of Justice Standard–0101.06. The only exceptions to the prohibition would be for law enforcement, military and government agencies.

Type III and higher body armor is commonly available both new (http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/body-armor/pages/compliant-ballistic-armor.aspx%20)and used (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR3.TRC2.A0.H0.Xesapi+ plate&_nkw=esapi+plate&_sacat=0)throughout the country. Recently companies such as Bullet Blocker (http://bulletblocker.com/bulletproof-school-safety-protection.html) have even made efforts to produce school safety equipment such as bullet proof backpacks, whiteboards and children’s-sized nylon jackets up to NIJ Type III ratings aimed to protect youngsters from active shooters.

Honda advised in a press conference (http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Rep-Mike-Honda-Introduces-Bill-Banning-Civilians-from-Buying-Body-Armor-270223431.html%20) Wednesday that the reason for the bill was a shooting on July 22 in Riverside County, where a man wearing body armor and armed with an assault rifle shot and killed two sheriff’s deputies and wounded another.
However, this statement is not entirely correct as the shooting in question (http://blog.pe.com/breaking-news/2014/08/01/moreno-valley-deputy-who-fired-on-man-who-killed-two-identified/) resulted in the deaths of two civilians, not law enforcement officers, and the injury of a deputy by fragments. Reports of the now-dead suspected shooter wearing body armor are likewise anecdotal and not reflected in the released information (http://www.riversidesheriff.org/press/chu14-0722.asp) by the Riverside County Sheriff.

National gun control groups are coming out to support Honda’s initiative.
In a statement (https://www.vpc.org/press/1408body.htm)by the Violence Policy Center posted Wednesday, the group applauded the lawmaker’s measure, saying, “The gun industry has increasingly featured body armor in firearm company marketing materials, which display men wearing body armor and helmets while carrying military-style assault rifles.”

In the VPC’s statement, the group likewise list Adam Lanza and John Holmes, the mass killers linked to the shootings in Newtown and Aurora respectively as being protected during their sprees by body armor. However, like Honda’s statement, this one is flawed as well.
While in both cases the alleged shooters were described by media as being armored, Lanza was later confirmed to be wearing a ‘fishing vest (http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20121227/newtown-shooter-adam-lanza-was-not-wearing-body-armor-during-massacre-5)‘ while Holmes was equipped with a tactical load bearing vest (http://www.stltoday.com/tacticalgear-sales-receipt-for-james-holmes/pdf_d886da6e-d2dd-11e1-a574-0019bb30f31a.html), neither of which offered ballistic protection.

Even if Honda’s bill does not make it into law, it is already against the law for criminals to add body armor to their toolkit. Since 2002, it has been illegal under federal law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/931) for convicted felons to possess body armor of any sort. This has been prosecuted (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1362634.html)in U.S. courts even in states that do not criminalize the possession of body armor.


Honda’s bill is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and has three co-sponsors.

Categories: Gun Laws (http://www.guns.com/category/legal/), Military (http://www.guns.com/category/military-a-defense/), Police (http://www.guns.com/category/police-2/), Politics & 2nd Amendment (http://www.guns.com/category/politics-a-2nd-amendment/), Safety (http://www.guns.com/category/safety/), Self Defense (http://www.guns.com/category/self-defense/)

tangent4ronpaul
08-09-2014, 07:19 PM
There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can do.

Oh - you mean like a SWAT cop! Yeah, those psyco's are DANGEROUS! RUN AWAY!


Recently companies such as Bullet Blocker have even made efforts to produce school safety equipment such as bullet proof backpacks, whiteboards and children’s-sized nylon jackets up to NIJ Type III ratings aimed to protect youngsters from active shooters.

Yes, yes! We need HIGH body counts of children in order to advance our progressive agenda!

2880

EXCELLENT!

-t

aGameOfThrones
08-09-2014, 07:31 PM
“There is no reason this type of armor, which is designed for warfare, should be available in our communities except for those who need it, like law enforcement,” Honda said in a statement last week. “There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue.”

http://media0.giphy.com/media/GCLlQnV7wzKLu/giphy.gif

Scrapmo
08-09-2014, 07:34 PM
Not only do they want to take away your means to fight back against an aggressor, but also any ability to deflect an aggressors bullets.

invisible
08-09-2014, 07:53 PM
There is no reason this type of armor, which is effective, shouldn't be available in our communities for those citizens who wish to defensively protect themselves. There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armed, aggressive, trigger-happy, psychopathic, immunity-protected cop or government agent can do.

Fixed.
Hey, what happened to the struck-through font option?

aGameOfThrones
08-09-2014, 09:38 PM
Fixed.
Hey, what happened to the struck-through font option?


Censorship Happened!

James Madison
08-09-2014, 09:40 PM
Anybody want to tell him that police are civilians?

aGameOfThrones
08-09-2014, 09:49 PM
Anybody want to tell him that police are civilians?

No because it's not true

oyarde
08-10-2014, 11:44 AM
What a dipshit .

alucard13mm
08-10-2014, 01:03 PM
I'd send my child off to school in a bullet proof vest since I live in California... wackos everywhere.

Anti Federalist
08-10-2014, 01:55 PM
No because it's not true

They like to think so...

aGameOfThrones
08-10-2014, 03:06 PM
They like to think so...


when they feel like their rights are being violated they claim they are like anyone else, but when they are the ones doing the violating they claim immunity from their actions.


“What’s the difference between an Cop and a catfish? One is a filthy scum-sucking bottom-feeder, the other is a fish.”