This month, a California appeals court overturned a state law banning violent felons' possession of body armor.
The state Legislature passed the ban in 1998 as a measure to protect police.
Thursday's ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles overturned the state law, saying it was unconstitutional because the definition of body armor was too vague.
As might be expected, California police are not pleased by the ruling. The president of the union representing L.A. police officers is among those voicing that displeasure.
"It just makes this job that much more dangerous," said Paul Weber, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League union for LAPD officers.
"It's going to make criminals more bold and more likely to shoot it out with the police."
Let me see if I can follow the "logic" here: criminals will be "more bold and more likely to shoot it out with the police," if their body armor is legal (well, not really legal--the federal law prohibiting possession of body armor by felons is still in place--apparently, that's not enough for some) than they would be if a charge of "illegal possession of body armor" could be added to their legal difficulties.
Yeah--that makes sense.
"But," one might argue, "the idea behind the law was not so much deterrence by virtue of increased penalties, but to make body armor more difficult for felons to obtain in the first place."
Sorry--not buying that argument. Body armor, unlike guns, is not stamped with serial numbers, sales records are not required to be kept for on-demand access by the government, there are no laws against "straw purchases" of body armor for "prohibited persons" (besides, "straw purchases" aren't necessary, since there is no law requiring criminal background checks for armor purchases), etc.
All those laws, plus many others, exist at the federal level (with additional restrictions imposed by many state and local governments)--but we are constantly told, often in hysterical terms, that felons can acquire guns far too easily regardless. How, then, are we expected to believe that body armor laws--without all the kinds of additional laws (which criminalize behavior that is not in and of itself harmful to anyone) that would supposedly make gun bans for felons work (but don't)--would be any more effective?
I am not, by the way, personally all that enamored of the ruling, myself. Based simply on the vague, confusing wording of the ban, which might lead to "prohibited persons" not knowing whether or not a given piece of protective gear falls under the terms of the law or not, it completely ignores the utter evil of restricting purely defensive equipment--under, evidently, the belief that people have a legal obligation to be penetrated by any bullet sent their way.
For those who might be tempted to brand me "soft on felons," by virtue of my defense of their right to possess such equipment, that's a topic probably worthy of a separate discussion. For now, though, let's look at what LAPD Chieff Charlie Beck stated in his letter to California Attorney General Jerry Brown, urging appeal of the ruling (excerpt):
Last week’s Second District Court of Appeals to overturn the 1998 law gives violent criminals the upper hand. There is an absolute need for a ban on these types of body armor for anyone other than law enforcement personnel or law enforcement related personnel. I urge you to immediately appeal the Second District Court of Appeals decision. The men and women defending public safety across the state and the people of California deserve no less.
Get that? It's not "just felons" who he would like to see subjected to government mandated bullet penetrability, but all non-"Only Ones." National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea often cites a statement by Policemen's Benevolent (Hah!) Association Patrick Lynch, in which Lynch threatens death to anyone who "lifts a finger" against a law enforcement officer. As evil as that is, it might pale in comparison to an edict requiring that even people who don't "lift a finger" against the "Only Ones" conveniently die when shot.
San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón sent his own letter to Attorney General Brown, urging him to "take all necessary" steps to appeal the ruling.
Finally, we are constantly bombarded with calls for bans of various guns and ammunition, because of their supposed ability to penetrate body armor. "Cop killer" bullets, "assault weapons," large bore magnum revolvers, and the FN Herstal Five-seveN handgun have all been demonized for their ostensible possession of that capability. The thing is, few, if any, of those calling for such bans would apply them to law enforcement officers. It would seem that we are to believe that body armor renders evildoers immune to gunfire, while simultaneously believing that certain guns and ammunition render police body armor useless.
The forcible citizen disarmament lobby must think we're stupid.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Like all bullies and thugs the cops want every advantage in every way. Really very cowardly, but it does expose their beliefs that at some point they are going to want to kill innocent as well as guilty and they do not wish to face any survivors in court. I don't think they could have made that any more clear if they had intended to do so.
Of course, there is also the likelihood that someone wearing body armor may also be carrying a firearm. The probability that a law abiding non criminal will shoot back if shot at while going about his innocent business seems to be a frightening concept to our police agencies. Wonder why? Do they plan on shooting innocent people? Sounds like it, doesn't it?
Having been a peace officer for many years, I thoroughly understand an officer’s desire to take advantage of any piece of equipment that would assist in insuring a safe day at work. I can also appreciate the desire of a non-“only one” to do likewise. My Scientific Wild A** Guess (SWAG) is that there are considerably more defenseless convenience store and pizza shop workers than police killed by gunfire.
Question: What idiot would want to deprive citizens of their right to survive an armed assault?
Answer: The same idiot who argues that a non-“only one” doesn’t have the right to use force as a means of self defense.
[W-III]
WIII, I hate to say this, but LE has changed since you were in the field. It is no longer populated in the majority by honorable men and women. Not that there aren't any, just damn few compared to decades ago.
I'm thinking it might be safer if we disarm all law enforcement and arm all citizens. At least the innocent would stand a chance of living if attacked by criminals. As it is we don't stand a chance with criminals or law enforcers!
Big deal. I'm sure that felons, criminals, and thugs all follow the law anyway. Yeah right. Dont these morons know that criminals dont care about the law. Uh, thats why they are criminals.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!