Thursday, August 15, 2019

Senator Schumer Proposes Unconstitutional Infringements on Body Armor Sales

Chuck Schumer at Gay Pride Parade (wikipedia)

Senator Chuck Schumer (D) New York, has proposed radical new infringements on the Second Amendment.   He proposed that body armor be prohibited to citizens, and that body armor sales be metered out by the FBI. 

None of his proposals were in the form of a bill or written proposals. The proposal is blatantly unconstitutional on its face. Body armor is legal to purchase in all 50 states and is in common use. It is clearly a portable arm, even though its use is primarily defensive in nature. From the
Sen. Chuck Schumer on Sunday proposed new legislation to require the FBI to sign off on body armor sales to civilians.

The announcement comes one week after mass killer Connor Betts — clad in body armor — opened fire in a trendy Dayton, Ohio, neighborhood and killed nine people before he was gunned down by police.

The standard is clear from the Heller decision, clarified in a unanimous decision in Caetano.

Bearable arms are protected by the Second Amendment. They are not unusual if they are in common use. Arms may be regulated to keep them from being used to terrify the population if they are both dangerous and unusual.  Arms that are in common use are not unusual, as per the Supreme Court.  From Caetano:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).
The Left in the United States has not respected the Constitution in a hundred and ten years, since Progressivism became a serious force in American politics. It would be folly to expect them to respect the Constitution and the principle of limited government it is designed to implement. They claim to respect the Constitution by claiming it is infinitely malleable, that words can be twisted to mean their precise opposite, thus allowing Leftist to rule the country without limit.  Their deception, promoted by an ideologically Progressive media, is now widely understood.

Armor has been considered a part of bearable arms since before the historical record, as long as man has existed.

The idea of restricting body armor from the population is so obviously forbidden by the Second Amendment so as to wonder at the purpose of Senator Schumer's proposal.

I suspect it is a "bargaining chip" to be used as leverage to obtain a ban on the private sale of firearms, also known as "universal background checks". A gun sale is not private if it is required to be approved by a public entity.

Body armor is used by criminals occasionally. It has been used in two instances of mass murder that I know of, at the Aurora theater mass murder and at the Dayton, Ohio mass murder.

It is more commonly used by police and others for legal defensive purposes. No arms commonly carried by police should be denied to the citizenry.

If an arm is useful to the police, it is useful to citizens.

Use of a single event that arouses public passion, to pass legislation that would never pass otherwise, has been well understood for centuries. The founders understood it and guarded against it.  In the modern parlance, it has been called the "Overton Window", or as Rahm Emanuel was quoted:
You never let a serious crises go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
The concept is a direct attack on good and prudent government. It presupposes the people in power know best, and thus harness the emotion of a moment to pass legislation that could never pass if considered rationally and judiciously.

It is exactly what the limits on government power were designed to prevent.

One of those limits is the Second Amendment of the Constitution. If Senator Schumer succeeds in his unconstitutional desire to deprive American citizens of body armor, the Courts should quickly and clearly rule it as an unconstitutional infringement.

©2019 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.


Anonymous said...

Does Chuck Schumer not realize that even though the Dayton shooter was wearing body armor he was still killed by officers trying to stop him from killing more people? The armor did not help the Dayton shooter at all.

Anonymous said...

He's pandering to His base. Know's that proposal is DOA.

Anonymous said...

Vietnam era flack jackets were a waste of money, they stopped every thing except the ammo the enemy was using Took a flack vest off a guy that had been stitched up the side with an AK-47. The guys chest came off with the vest. Most, even the best body armor can be penetrated with an arrow fired from a 50 pound pull bow. Let the bullet pass through you will either live or you wont. If a bullet gets through the armor it will be moving slower be larger and do more damage. Extremities are very poorly protected especially at the joints , shoulder, Hip, groin, take a hit in any of those places you may bleed out before you can get the armor off to stop the bleeding. Armor looks great, waste your money, Move slower, not for me.

Anonymous said...

I heard Schumer was going to retire and when he dies he is going to donate his brain to science, if they can find it.