2023 AB 92, Connolly, Body Armor Ban

[seaweedsoyboy]

Haven’t seen this posted yet:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...=202320240AB92

An act to repeal Section 17320 of, and to repeal and add Section 31360 of, the Penal Code, relating to crimes.

AB 92, as introduced, Connolly. Body armor: prohibition.
Existing law makes it a felony for a person who has been convicted of a violent felony to purchase, own, or possess body armor. Existing law authorizes a person subject to that prohibition, whose employment, livelihood, or safety is dependent on the ability to legally possess and use body armor, to file a petition for an exception to the prohibition with the chief of police or county sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the person seeks to possess and use the body armor, as provided.

This bill would repeal those provisions and instead make it a felony for a person to commit any violent felony while possessing a firearm and in the course of and in furtherance of that crime they wear body armor. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to purchase or take possession of body armor, unless they are employed in specified professions. The bill would additionally make it a misdemeanor for a person, firm, or corporation to sell or deliver body armor to any person not engaged in one of those professions. The bill would require a seller to verify that a transferee is from an eligible profession, as specified. The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to expand the list of eligible professions if the duties of the profession may expose an individual engaged in the profession to serious physical injury that may be prevented or mitigated by the wearing of body armor, or if the duties of the profession are necessary to facilitate the lawful purchase, sale, or use of body armor.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes

[Maltese Falcon]

Dang , need another set now. We gotz the flexible, metals and ceraydine.

Maybe one more flexible? Level III ? …or do they IV 4s?
.

[foreppin916]

Jesus. They are always after objects that can cause harm, now they are after object that stop you from being harmed.....

[Maltese Falcon]

Originally Posted by foreppin916

Jesus. They are always after objects that can cause harm, now they are after object that stop you from being harmed.....

Because they know a subgroup of patriotic citizens will not be willing or participate in whatever they have in mind, and don’t want y’all to be equally prepared.

Okay we got it already.

.

[Scratch705]

So are they gonna employ body armor sniffing dogs at the border?

Will they ban thick books too? Since they can be turned into body armor.

[marcusrn]

A law book with all CCW gun laws would be rated Level IIIA!

[bigcasino]

so those bulletproof backpacks they sell for school kids to protect against school shootings would be illegal. That should play well with parents and the media. Let's make kids less safe in school.

[AKSOG]

They don't want any defense whatsoever against criminals. The goal is for the citizens to be fish in a barrel.

[michaelh1951]

Like everything else they come up with in Sacramento, this is would be a clear violation of the second. The word "arms" incorporates both offensive and defensive items.

[DolphinFan]

Article 1 Section 1 of the California Constitution says I have the Inalienable right to defend myself, and obtain safety.

I think it's unconstitutional under the CA Constitution.

Also, WHY would anyone want to restrict anyone from defending themselves in the least offensive way possible.

Enhancements for use of body armor when committing a crime with a firearm? I'm Ok with that. But to deny anyone else the ability is backward thinking.

Oh and the Author says, "It's in response to the shooting in NY. The security guard and the bullets bounced off him and he shot more people".
Their logic is then that restricting body armor will stop mass shootings.
Hogwash

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Article 1 Section 1 of the California Constitution says I have the Inalienable right to defend myself, and obtain safety.

I think it's unconstitutional under the CA Constitution.

Also, WHY would anyone want to restrict anyone from defending themselves in the least offensive way possible.

Enhancements for use of body armor when committing a crime with a firearm? I'm Ok with that. But to deny anyone else the ability is backward thinking.

Oh and the Author says, "It's in response to the shooting in NY. The security guard and the bullets bounced off him and he shot more people".
Their logic is then that restricting body armor will stop mass shootings.
Hogwash

I agree with you 100%

Bunch of bull.

[TruOil]

Are they going to add attorneys and judges to that list? I seem to recall more than one attorney in this state, typically though not exclusively divorce attorneys, being shot by either their clients or the other party. And there is a reason that, afaik, judges' benches these days have bullet proofing under them.

[9Cal_OC]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Are they going to add attorneys and judges to that list? I seem to recall more than one attorney in this state, typically though not exclusively divorce attorneys, being shot by either their clients or the other party. And there is a reason that, afaik, judges' benches these days have bullet proofing under them.

Exempt for “part of the profession”

[champu]

The government wants you to die if they shoot you. If you die because someone else shoots you, well, that’s a price they’re willing to pay.

[MJB]

Chip chip away our right to protect ourselves

[cdtx2001]

I can't wait to see the prices of body armor at the gun shows now.

[Maltese Falcon]

So what is the bestseller level to get in fabric?

Level IIIA seems the max, otherwise you go way heavier.

Is there a IV light fabric?

.

[pratchett]

My first 60 seconds in office:

Every law, policy, and regulation in this State hereby applies equally to every elected and appointed official, every governmental body, and every employee of the government.

Hypocrites.

[L.A. Saiga]

So, all levels of armor banned?
I didn't see any mention of level IIIA or III or IIII specifics in the link posted.

Thanks Calguns!

[LEAD LAUNCHER]

Just when I wanted to cool off the credit card.
I will be making some calls and sending out some emails to fight this, but why do I feel like it’s a shoo-in in this commie state.

Talk about a tyrant move.

I’ll be looking at IIIA vests ,rifle plates, maybe even a backpack insert for my backpack at work.

[Capybara]

Let's examine the motivation for this law. It's as simple as, the more dead gun owners, the better for the State of California. Everything else is simply window dressing. They've doxxed 200-250k of us who carry, now stuff like this, the intent of the State against us is crystal clear.

[abinsinia]

16288.

As used in Section 31360, “body armor” means any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the person wearing the body armor.

Looks like penal code 16288 defines what "body armor" is and it's pretty broad. I think it covers basically anything worn on your body that protects against attack. Even they include the words "trauma protection" so maybe a thick jack is also covered.

[abinsinia]

16288.

As used in Section 31360, “body armor” means any bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma protection for the person wearing the body armor.

Looks like penal code 16288 defines what "body armor" is and it's pretty broad. I think it covers basically anything worn on your body that protects against attack. Even they include the words "trauma protection" so maybe a thick jack is also covered.

[freefire]

Originally Posted by DolphinFan

Article 1 Section 1 of the California Constitution says I have the Inalienable right to defend myself, and obtain safety.

I think it's unconstitutional under the CA Constitution.

Also, WHY would anyone want to restrict anyone from defending themselves in the least offensive way possible.

Enhancements for use of body armor when committing a crime with a firearm? I'm Ok with that. But to deny anyone else the ability is backward thinking.

Oh and the Author says, "It's in response to the shooting in NY. The security guard and the bullets bounced off him and he shot more people".
Their logic is then that restricting body armor will stop mass shootings.
Hogwash

Well said, man.

[winxp_man]

Well..... mother ***KER!!! I just dont get it any longer. Then again these C**TS want civilians with no ability to protect themselves whatsoever! Also adds up just nice knowing that cops are not obligated to protect anyone. I really cant wait till this damn stated falls into the F**KING ocean!!!

[OlderThanDirt]

My new Jeep is finished in Kevlar. I guess I’ll have to turn it in.

[kstocali]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

A law book with all CCW gun laws would be rated Level IIIA!

This is solid gold!

Connelly is my Assembly person, I submitted my opposition but it probably won't change his mind. I doubt he's really thought through all the reason this is a bad idea for the general populace. Living in the bubble that is Marin seems to dull people into forgetting the world is different in other places and people have different needs.

[gobler]

Oh, goodie! Another unconstitutional law I get to ignore..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk