Maryland body Armor alert

V

Valdez

Moderator
The Governor of Maryland, Glendening has decided to push for a law banning body armor except for the police and other "important people" such as news reporters. He says it is dangerous if body armor falls into the wrong hands as it protects criminals when being shot.

In related news the Governor has proposed a ban on seat belts in the state of Maryland because he found they were falling into the wrong hands. He discovered that seat belts protect criminals when they are in auto accidents.

OK, I made that second part up. Do you ever get the feeling that the inmates are running the asylum?
 
I did my part, did you?

I emailed ALL of the MD State Senators and the Reps from my county. My approach was: I told them i was a card-carrying NRA member that loves to hunt, but I do not trust some of the hunters out there (especially the ones that choose to drink beer all the way up until dawn on opening day), so I wear a vest to protect myself. Then I suggested something like making wearing a bulletproof vest while committing a felony another felony, similar to the statutes for using firearms in the process of committing a felony. (Of course, i didnt mention that i just joined the NRA this week, nor that i do not have a hunting permit, or even that i do not own a vest, a little lie wont hurt them)

Kharn
 
At the State House news conference attended by a Baltimore police officer who was shot point-blank in the chest last year, Glendening said he
also will seek to ban anyone but law enforcement officials and other authorized people from owning bulletproof vests.

Detective David Azur, who was wearing a vest when he was shot by a car thief last year, said police strongly support limiting who can obtain body
armor. "The vests in the hands of the wrong people would be disastrous for us," he said.

Body armor is sold at gun shops and by mail order. Glendening said he wanted to limit its availability to police, security guards and others who
need it for their work, including journalists in dangerous areas. He also said those fearing domestic violence could seek permission to have
vests.

The governor cited the case of a 17-year-old boy who ran down a Baltimore police officer last year after allegedly committing a gang murder. The
teenager was wearing body armor, and Glendening said yesterday that it showed how easily available the vests are for those who shouldn't have
them.

Sanford Abrams, vice president of the state Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, said gun shop owners would oppose Glendening's move
because many retail merchants buy the vests, which sell for $500 to $700, to protect themselves. He said a more appropriate move would be to
make it illegal to wear the vests while committing a crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39779-2001Jan9.html
 
Last time I checked, about half an hour ago, I was a pretty important person to a beautiful woman and three kids, not to mention assorted friends, relatives and co-workers. I guess I'm not important enough to some folks, though. Importance is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Anti body armour law ay?
Never mind you can make a bullet proof vest out of 36 layers of silk arranged at different angles, add a trauma plate and there you go.
Something the Thialand police have been issued to offset the cost of kevlar vests (ie locally produced silk and all).

So as long as there is no law against wearing silk...
 
NY solved that by making it a crime to wear body armor while in the commission of a crime. It left it legal for everyone else, which is the way it should be.
 
tscd1236,

I'd agree with you as long as while "committing a crime" is not broadly defined. Should you be charged if you are speeding? I believe a community in Maryland wants to make it illegal to smoke outdoors. As long as it is restricted to serious felonies I'd have no problem with that measure.
 
Valdez - so they want to make smoking illegal if you're doing it while committing a felony? I guess they don't want to spend all that money treating inmates' lung cancer...
 
The next step...

is to make eye glasses illegal because many BGs wear glasses and that allows them to see their victims better.

Of course, with all the GGs then restricted, they (GGs) can't visualize exactly what is happening to them so there won't be trauma until the whack, bang, or slice actually happens.

This world is getting very wierd. Maybe it's time for (very) PCS orders - or a trip to Mars. )'Course some liberal pu#e would follow me with a book of rules, huh?!

-Andy
 
Valdez:
Not to worry, I wasn't citing the actual text in my post. The actual section reads as follows:
NYS Penal Law, Section 270.20
(1) A person is guilty of the unlawful wearing of a body vest when acting either alone or with one or more other persons he commits any violent felony offense defined in section 70.02 while possessing a firearm and in the course of and furtherance of such crime he wears a body vest.
The unlawful wearing of a body vest is a Class E Felony.

Section 70.02 is quite wordy or I would also quote that, but it is essentially any of the vilent crimes you might think of..murder, sexual crimes, assault, robbery, etc.
 
I don't know where it was, but a few years ago I heard there was somewhere that didn't allow the purchase of such things. I don't know if it was a particular city or state, I just can't remember for sure.

It looks like they're telling us what kind of clothes we can wear now. What's next, banning heavy coats, after all, they do inhibit the performance of bullets, especially hollow points. What about helmets? Are they going to make me stop lifting weights? If I'm big and tough, I might be able to beat somebody up. Maybe they should ban shoes for the general public so criminals can't run away as easily.
 
We really need to defend knifes, guns, body armor, and all civil rights matters in general vigorously. I noticed that over at Bladeforums, the second ammendment is not clearly related to knives in the minds of many of those people. They are wrong. Arms includes knives and most definitely includes swords.

How far do we get pushed to give up everything that gives us even a slightly reduced risk of being victimized? How far do we go to take back out country from the criminals that run it right now? Certainly not revolution. We can't even get 75%+ conservatives to vote based on civil rights matters like the right to bear arms, and if we can't even get that, we might as well give up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top