August 9th, 2014

California Seeks To Ban Body Armor With HR 5344


EDITOR’S NOTE:  Everyday I wake up and say, if not out loud then quietly in my mind – “Thank God I don’t live in California…”  For those of you who do, the avalanche of anti-Constitutional provisions continues, and unfortunately, laws pursued by the establishment in California are laws they will eventually seek for all of us.  It is vital that we watch such legislation closely and work to obstruct it, even if we are not in CA.  Why do civilians “need” body armor?  It doesn’t matter.  We WANT body armor, and it is our Constitutional right not to mention our inborn right to be able to defend ourselves from modern weaponry and modern tyranny.  We do not need to explain to politicians why it is not wrong for citizens to own inert steel plates wrapped in cordura.  It is NOT their concern, and it is not a privilege they have the authority to take away.  Until said politicians finally grasp this simple reality, the problems between the public and the state are only going to grow…

The following article from NBC gives Californians the bad news:

Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, has announced legislation that would block civilians from accessing military-grade body armor to prevent criminals from using them in gun battles with law enforcement.

Honda, speaking at a news conference in San Jose Wednesday morning with police chiefs and the district attorneys and sheriffs from Santa Clara and Alameda counties, said his proposal would discourage criminals from wearing enhanced body armor to commit mass shootings.

“This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands,” Honda said. “It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be able to access enhanced body armor.”

“We’re not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest,” he said. “We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”

Honda said shootings by armored assailants are becoming a trend in recent years and said that according to experts, “access to military-grade body armor emboldens criminals and mass shooters to act.”

“There’s nothing more dangerous than an unstoppable, well-armored shooter,” he said. “The law enforcement community sees an increase in use of body armor in violent, gun-related crimes.”

The congressman cited a shooting on July 22 in Riverside County, where a man wearing body armor and armed with an assault rifle shot and killed two sheriff’s deputies and wounded another.

“We should be asking ourselves, why is this armor available to just anyone, if it was designed to be used only by our soldiers to take to war?” Honda said.

He said he introduced the bill, H.R. 5344, the Responsible Body Armor Possession Act of 2014, in Congress last week.

READ MORE HERE:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Rep-Mike-Honda-Introduces-Bill-Banning-Civilians-from-Buying-Body-Armor-270223431.html




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

12 Responses to “California Seeks To Ban Body Armor With HR 5344”

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

  1. 1
    Cal Says:

    Just because they make the “law” (color of law, FAKE law enforced by those criminal or made into criminals) does not mean it should be followed. It is “Null and Void”, but will still be used to enslave and murder more people. That is what they do to cover-up democide – pretend they are subduing criminals when they are really making laws to be used to do democide right out in the public eye. The people feel uncomfortable about it, but are not sure they do not have that authority.

    But then, what do they have to compare it to?  No one with any “background in law, etc” is bringing up charges on those corrupt and criminal, even treasonous scum on a CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS for comparison and choice.

    I do live in California, and there is good reasons the state wants to split up into separate states.

    A lot has to do with the corrupt and traitorous “representatives including ‘Gov’ Brown. Yes, I have sent him (and others) a list of the crimes he has committed and the penalties if found guilty. It is what I do.

    Here in California the winners of the elections are preplanned, aka election fraud. It has been going on for years. But then the “winners” of pretty much every state and the federal elections are ‘put into place’ not elected – election fraud.

    To stop this we must dump all machine voting. Require open and watched counts done here within the USA; verifiable at every level. We must NEVER let a foreign nation or entity invade us and oversee our federal (or any) elections – which means putting in a person that was put into place and approved by the NWO.

    We were invaded by UN armed forces on the last election and no one said much – okay, I did. We currently have foreign troops stationed on OUR bases and off them all over the USA. I know that the “closed” baser tome is seeing more action then when it was open and in use during Vietnam. Has been for a few years now, getting busier and busier.

    Anyone else notice any very busy militarily ‘closed’ bases near them? 

  2. 2
    Chris Says:

    To the Editor,
    As much as I appreciate the dedication of our Editor, and as trivial that it may seem to someone else, I have to ask the Editor to please refrain from calling Natural Born Rights, “Constitutional Rights”, as the Constitution does not grant rights to us, but limits Government and enumerates the few rights that the Government has. Our rights come from God and Nature and there is a difference. If our rights came from the State, they could take them, but our rights are unalienable and cannot be taken or given away. Thank you for your commitment, it just drives me nuts when I hear the term “Constitutional Rights”. Thanks.

    In Liberty,
    Chris

    [Editor's Note: Chris, thank you for pointing that out to me and our readers here. You are absolutely one-hundred percent correct, and I should have been more keenly selective in how I worded the phrase. Our "unalienable rights" are not "Constitutional rights", but are just as you said, Divinely sourced from a power greater than any man-made government. In many of my writings I've made that distinction, calling them Constitutionally-protected rights, which they are supposed to be. They certainly do not originate from the General government, and the Constitution is quite specific in its charge to the government that it protect those unalienable rights. Your point is not only well taken, it is also extremely important, and I must apologize for my laxity in word choice. Thank you for your comment and the reminder. And thank you for reading at Oath Keepers' national website.

    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor]

    [2nd Editor's note: Chris, someone coincidentally sent me a link I should share with you, so am adding this little bit to my previous comment.

    http://godfatherpolitics.com/16612/second-amendment-give-us-right-keep-bear-arms/#footnote_0_16612

    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor]

  3. 3
    Mary Potter Says:

    I tried to read what is in the bill, but there is nothing there. What really worries me is: does this only represent body armor for bullets? Or could it be that we would be unable to buy gas masks, protective clothing and gear in case of any NBC’s? (God forbid!) Is this going to be one of those Pelosi bills that, “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”?

    It’s bad enough that the part of Sacramento I live in, the police have murdered 3 people this year alone that my son and I know of, but now, knowing that we may have our rights removed to protect our own bodies is disgusting!

    We already have to hide anything that we would need and buy in a consistent manner as not to bring any type of attention to ourselves, how would we be able to purchase anything that may keep us alive in other ways?

  4. 4
    BobSmiith Says:

    I bet there is going to a run of body armor just like there was a run on guns. Buy your armor while you can. If you ever have to drive through a riot area like the one that is going on in Ferguson, Missouri, then you are going to be glad you have it.

  5. 5
    jeff Says:

    Thank god i do not live in California!!!

    when will these idiots learn that CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW !!!!!

    im sure a criminal is thinking “nah im not going to use body armor when i commit my crime because its illegal”

    if making armor illegal will take it out of the hands of criminals, then we should make heroine and meth illegal too!!

    i wish these politions would stop taking away my rights and the rights of all americans to protect and defend themselves. we are a nation and thinking from the perspective of a police officer or a criminal is simply wrong. you must think of the constitution and the nation as a whole.

    who are you protecting? THE CRIMINALS !!!!!

  6. 6
    Todd Says:

    Actually, that is a bill that has been introduced to the US Congress.
    It would be a Federal Law, not just a California Law.

  7. 7
    Remember the Alamo Says:

    “Thank God I don’t live in California…”

    I don’t either. Washington State is bad enough. But unless California and a lot of other States come around we are toast. We need a lot of Americans to believe and fight for those liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. –We need numbers. You might have 3%, or 10%, but a lot of others will need to come around if we are to be a free people.

  8. 8
    Joe Berry Says:

    If a law is Constitutional then I abide by it but if not I challenge it. I think this falls back to the fact that we as Americans have the right to defend our family, ourself, and our home it is called self preservation a God given right of which I refuse to give up. Since I obey the laws that
    are constitutional I don’t expect Oathkeeping law enfocement will be shooting at me but the
    thieves that come my way might be and if I am being shot at I want all the protection I can
    nuster.It is my sincere hope that the Oathkeeping men and women of Law Enforcement will help
    weed out the ones doing it the wrong way. I stand on the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights and as long as the law is within the guidelines of that fabulous Document I abide to the letter. But that being said I have the right to have body armor to protect myself from harms way and I won’t ask permission

  9. 9
    Comment Contributer Says:

    About those bust military bases.

    Here it is:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jsoxKfmB5Y

    We have few options.
    Hider? Runner? Fighter? Or just get rounded up and Murdered by the Amerika State.
    Why do you think many jails are located next to Animal Control offices?
    Animal control offices have crematoriums to burn dead animals. Humans who are rounded up by Amerika, will need to be disposed of.
    Get ready for a sporty ride.

  10. 10
    Lisa Says:

    The bill is in the US House.Private citizens all over the entire nation would be permanently banned from owning body armor.

    H.R.5344 – Responsible Body Armor Possession Act
    Text: H.R.5344 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
    Introduced in House (07/31/2014)

    [Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
    [H.R. 5344 Introduced in House (IH)]

    113th CONGRESS
    2d Session
    H. R. 5344

    To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body
    armor by civilians, with exceptions.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    July 31, 2014

    Mr. Honda (for himself, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Hastings of Florida,
    and Mr. Pascrell) introduced the following bill; which was referred to
    the Committee on the Judiciary

    _______________________________________________________________________

    A BILL

    To prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body
    armor by civilians, with exceptions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the “Responsible Body Armor Possession
    Act”.

    SEC. 2. BAN ON PURCHASE, OWNERSHIP, OR POSSESSION OF ENHANCED BODY
    ARMOR BY CIVILIANS; EXCEPTIONS.

    (a) In General.–Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is
    amended by adding at the end the following:
    “Sec. 932. Ban on purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body
    armor by civilians
    “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful
    for a person to purchase, own, or possess enhanced body armor.
    “(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to–
    “(1) a purchase, ownership, or possession by or under the
    authority of–
    “(A) the United States or any department or agency
    of the United States; or
    “(B) a State, or a department, agency, or
    political subdivision of a State; or
    “(2) enhanced body armor that was lawfully possessed by
    any person at any time before the date this section takes
    effect.”.
    (b) Enhanced Body Armor Defined.–Section 921(a) of such title is
    amended by adding at the end the following:
    “(36) The term `enhanced body armor’ means body armor, including a
    helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds
    the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National
    Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.”.
    (c) Penalties.–Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding
    at the end the following:
    “(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 932 shall be fined under
    this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148