What concievable use could body armor be to a civilian? Admitedly, and mercifully, there are few examples of mass shooters with body armor what possible justification could there be to sell them to the public. Charging deer? Or an angry badger? I guess you could wear it to bed every night in hopes that a burglar will break in.
Presumably to offer defence against being shot by someone?
Secondly, body armour isn’t available to civilians everywhere - in Australia, it’s highly restricted, requiring a special (and hard to get) licence.
Why shouldn’t it be? It’s simple enough to make your own body armor if it weren’t.
I’d rather see people wearing more armor than carrying more guns. I’ve never heard of anybody having a negligent armor discharge or committing suicide with a kevlar vest.
I can’t conceive why it should not be allowed. Just like private bomb shelters, awaiting civil unrest.
Dressing up like Ned Kelly if unarmed can’t be threatening — rain might be noisy though.
The trouble with Ned was that he was armed.
The same reason as anything else. It can protect against gunshot wounds to the body (generally the torso). They are just garments made from fancy cloth (usually Kevlar). I have a military-grade bulletproof vest that I have had for many years. There is no reason for it other than it was cheap and I always wanted one. That should be the only reason needed.
Why do you think a certain type of garments should be illegal? Despite popular belief in some circles, the default in the U.S. is for items to be legal until there is a compelling reason for them to be restricted and not the other way around. Bullet resistant clothing does not meet that standard because they are very rarely instrumental in crimes and have real safety uses for non-criminals.
And if I worked at a gun range or in a gun shop, I might want to wear one for protection if it wasn’t too restrictive. It only takes one idiot accidentally pointing his gun in the wrong direction when loaded. Wouldn’t you rather that be a “close call” than “manslaughter”?
Likewise, armored car services visibly wear them, and if I was in the business of transporting jewelry, precious metals, or large quantities of cash, I’d like to have one as well. Yes, I know that if someone is determined to kill me and take my stuff, they will just shoot me in the head, but assuming it is someone attempting to rob me who has an accidental discharge or is inexperienced I’d have a pretty good chance at surviving. And since everyone who practices shooting generally aims for the center mass (i.e. torso), hopefully even the aforementioned experienced killer/head shot guy will aim for my torso out of habit and because he doesn’t want to have my head explode and get brain matter all over his nice clothes, which would ruin his day too. 
A well-regulated militia would be pretty ineffective with no protective gear.
Doesn’t that also imply that the militia be well-regulated?
What can it possibly mean to defend the lack of regulation with the term well-regulated?
It doesn’t matter whether the matter should be regulated or not. The sentence construction itself makes no sense whatsoever.
I own a set of body armor, but that is in a safety travel bag, in case you know war breaks out or something. I have everything in it to survive, even potassium-iodide. It’s not so much about using it to aid in commission of a crime or anything else for most people, even weird ones like myself. It just about having it and hoping to never have to use it. I even have a custom carrier for it with pockets to stuff national geographic magazines (try stabbing one) on the parts where bones are not but vital organs are under (to stop stabbing/knives) because, kevlar does not protect against knives. It’s just an extra layer of protection for certain circumstances, If someone wants to kill you, they will find a way, just as if someone wants in your house bad enough, they will get it. It’s peace of mind at best. I don’t think they should be illegal, and as a poster said above, you can easily make one yourself with a trip to the hardware store. out of quarter inch welding plates and a modified apron (like the ones the employees at hardware stores use).
Just my 0.02
-J
Right. A passive defensive device is not a threat by itself. It takes Ned to make it so.
It’s so in many jurisdictions, just that some of them are quicker to regulate if they deem it necessary before whatever article becomes too widespread. But yes, agreed: main reason is the burden was on whoever would want to restrict it, not on whoever wanted to sell it, and as mentioned it’s *protective *gear not a weapon itself. We also allow civilians to armor their vehicles anyway.
It makes perfect sense if you understand what “well-regulated” meant in the 18th century. It has nothing to do with regulation as we normally speak of it nowadays.
The Minutemen seemed to do okay.
The people on the page you cite can’t even agree with one another on its meaning.
It is against the Geneva Convention* to take body armor away from a POW, but you think we should take it away from citizens?
Article 18, Convention III, August 1949.
The OP has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. He is literally asking why certain fabrics are not banned. Fabrics aren’t weapons and have nothing to do with the Constitution.
In case anyone in this thread is not familiar with “bullet proof” vests, let me give you a short primer. They do not cause bullets to bounce off of you like Superman. If you get shot while wearing one, you will most likely still be badly injured. They prevent excessive penetration that can save your life but that concentrated energy still has to go somewhere and that is usually though broken ribs and massive bruises that still incapacitate you. It is perfectly possible to be killed or permanently disabled while wearing one even if you only get shot in the body areas that are protected.
Kevlar bullet-proof vest can also be defeated easily by knife attacks. Their weave let’s them slice right through and doesn’t protect against those. They also don’t offer much defense against higher powered rifles.
There are many different levels of bullet-proof vests and body armor but the ones designed to protect against powerful threats are so bulky that no one would want to wear them unless a severe threat is imminent. The lower levels are no different than safety gear that is worn everywhere from scientific labs doing dangerous experiments to mining blast sites to protect employees.
You should perhaps be quoting jtur88, then.
I can think of any one of a number of professions, occupations, or just temporary life situations in which wearing Kevlar would be prudent and justified. Just off the top of my head, I’ll throw out as many as I can think of in the next ten minutes. “Alexa, set a timer for ten minutes—“
Some teachers.
CPS/DCFS employees.
Any occupation which involves transporting valuable commodities—money, jewelry, etc.
Jewelry store employees.
Convenience and liquor store employees.
Some truck drivers.
Paramedics.
Process servers.
Automobile repossessors.
People who have restraining orders against a psychologically unstable person.
Judges.
Drug dealers.
Given more time, I could very easily quadruple the length of that list.
Civilians generally can’t buy plates that are effective against rifle rounds, IIRC.
This is false. A quick Google search will prove that to you.
Some Democrats tried to pass a bill to make it so but it didn’t go anywhere.
The only prohibitions against body armor that I know of is for convicted felons to possess it.