# Why is body armor available to the public? Another NRA "thing"? ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 18, 2017, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-body-armor-available-to-the-public-another-nra-thing/777501 "2017-01-18T23:29:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-body-armor-available-to-the-public-another-nra-thing/777501/21 "2017-01-19T14:59:40Z")
Besides restrictions on possession by felons, body armor can also be a “sentencing enhancement” - at least here in California. I would guess that the rationale is that it shows increased readiness to commit violence during the crime (as having a firearm during the crime would). ---
**Author:** ![Whiskey\_Dickens](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/9fc348/32.png) [@Whiskey\_Dickens](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whiskey_Dickens)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-body-armor-available-to-the-public-another-nra-thing/777501/22 "2017-01-19T16:09:02Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > 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. Maybe because civilians aren’t combatants in a war zone? I don’t think a 150 year old document outlining the rules of war are a great guide for the rights of the general populace. What are your thoughts on the 1899 Hague convention? Careful with your answer because it may mean the end of expanding hunting rounds. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-body-armor-available-to-the-public-another-nra-thing/777501/23 "2017-01-19T16:18:50Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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 used the term that is used in the US Constitution to reference a body that is protected. But that body would not be protected, if it was denied reasonable accouterments. The “well-regulated militia” deserving of body armor is exactly the same “well-regulated militia” that has a right to exist in the first place and to bear arms. “Well-regulated” is not my choice of adjective for the protected body, it is that of the founders. I am just using it to show that Jefferson and I are talking about the same militia. My use of the Jefferson adjective does not imply anything at all about whether I think it is representative. Please to not jump to the conclusion that my sentence “makes no sense” just because I use a term that was in use long before I was born and that you choose to quibble with. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-body-armor-available-to-the-public-another-nra-thing/777501/24 "2017-01-19T16:21:05Z")
> [@Whiskey\_Dickens](#): > > Maybe because civilians aren’t combatants in a war zone? I don’t think a 150 year old document outlining the rules of war are a great guide for the rights of the general populace. > > What are your thoughts on the 1899 Hague convention? Careful with your answer because it may mean the end of expanding hunting rounds. You’re missing the point. Protective items of a strictly defensive nature are such a basic human right, that they can’t even be denied to POW. As is food, water, mail, etc. Yet, the OP thinks that they should be denied to free citizens. Your question about the Hague is a non sequitor. Because the Hague forbids something is a gotcha that proves a basic human right to protection mentioned in the Geneva convention is invalid? You need to work on your logic. ---
**Author:** ![JHBoom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/13edae/32.png) [@JHBoom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JHBoom)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2017, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-body-armor-available-to-the-public-another-nra-thing/777501/25 "2017-01-21T22:15:28Z")
> [@snoe](#): > > Besides restrictions on possession by felons, body armor can also be a “sentencing enhancement” - at least here in California. I would guess that the rationale is that it shows increased readiness to commit violence during the crime (as having a firearm during the crime would). You can probably thank [Larry Phillips and Emil Matasareanu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout) for that particular quirk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-body-armor-available-to-the-public-another-nra-thing/777501.md?page=1)