A while back I was reading about the legal troubles of a California rapper and one of the charges against him was for wearing a bullet proof vest. Why would this be a crime and furthermore how could the prohibition against a purely defensive garment be constitutional?
I think that in California (and other states), that it’s illegal for convicted felons to possess or use body armor. Everyone else is cool though.
Is said rapper be a convicted felon?
Is there any particular reason that it should be unconstitutional??
defensive gear, if taken to the logical extreme, would allow a person to do whatever he (or she) likes without the legal authorities, or anyone else, being able to stop them. While this actually sounds kind of in line with american individualism… 
I can see why certain districts or states might want to pass laws restricting the purchase of highly effective defensive gear.
Can you think of a particular constitutionally protected right (or inalienable right) which would conflict with such a law??
Being Canadian I’m not well versed in the constitution however I would think that a document that enshrines freedoms such as the right to bear arms would also enshrine the right to stop a bullet with your jacket. (Isn’t the constitution invoked any time the government tries to stop it’s citizens from doing something?)
.It just seems so odd to me, like saying you can’t wear a helment. I could see a prohibition against wearing one AND being armed
It was Ol Dirty Bastard and yes he was a convicted felon, but shouldn’t you still have the right to protect yourself in a purely defensive way?
I am not a laywer, but I believe that it is illegal to wear body armor in the commission of a felonious act. It indicates premeditiation; a person believes that gunplay is likely. Wearing, or possesing body armor is not felonius IIRC.
Body armor was made illegal in CA shortly after those two fellows with AK-47 (or look-alikes that had been illegally modified to be fully automatic, anyway) got in a shoot-out with police after robbing a bank in North Hollywood. 1997, IIRC.
Which is kind of silly, because another response to that event was to make sure the police have rifles available, thus rendering flexible body armor of the type used in the bank robbery ineffective.
But that’s California for you.
No facts to back me up, but I believe xiao_wenti is wrong and 1010011010 is correct.
Mainly because xaio’s opinion makes perfect sense and 10somethings sounds like government at work.
Please note, I am offering opinion only and am making a joke in a thread I wish to see answered by someone w/ legal expertise (clanestine bump)
\probably get flamed/warned anyway.
We’re looking at two different questions here, neither of which may be appropriate for GQ. The first is “why make such a law?” The answer may be as simple as a lawmaker’s weathy constituent screaming “won’t someone think of the children?” In any event there may not be a factual answer. The constituionality issue is also difficult to answer since AFAIK that has not been addressed in the courts and no one answering is a judge or lawyer versed in constitutional law. Such laws may very well be constitutional but I don’t think anyone has presented a challenge to them yet.
“CA Code 12370. (a) Any person who has been convicted of a violent felony, as defined in subdivision © Section 667.5 under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, who purchases, owns, or possesses body armor, as defined by Section 942 of Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations, except as authorized under subdivision (b), is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for 16 months, or two or three years.”
If that’s all there is, it would seem to apply only to convicted felons… which ODB happens to be.
You mean convicted violent felons. Is ODB one?
I’m pretty sure body armor is not illegal here in CA for the masses, unless said masses are convicted felons.
Regarding the other post, I don’t think the framers of the consitution envisioned Kevlar when they wrote that little paper. Its also slightly less fundamental a human right than religious expression. Not really worth putting in the “Big 10”, IMHO.
Funny, just last night I was in a conversation where a street activist (Seattle, Miami…) was speculating on what would be the best body armor that could stop tasers and possibly rubber bullets, but would not bring down the heat just by wearing it (if they see Kevlar on you, they might take it amiss). Someone offered the idea of wicker armor, like in ancient Japan. It would protect from tasers; maybe it would help ward off rubber bullets? If you appeared on the street in wicker armor, they might think you were ancient Japanese warrior re-enactors, or they would just think you looked curious, but not threatening.