OPSGEAR refuses to sell body armor to civilians, interesting

[Bark'n]

My attitude about just about anything that is "dangerous", is to have stiff penalties for those who misuse those items. Machine guns, bazooka's, flame throwers, suppressors, whatever. If you can afford the going price for it, it's yours.

Now, if you take your RPG to the movie theater and waste a lot of people, you should be executed in an expedient and preferably, grotesque manner.

If you're a burglar and you're caught wearing body armor so the police or homeowner has a harder time stopping you, then you probably shouldn't see the light of day for a significant length of time. Likewise if you're wearing body armor while you hold up a convenience store.

It's not about the item you possess... It's about accountability for what you do with it. And if you misuse the public trust and commit mayhem, then they should come down hard on you. If someone wants to spend 35 - 40 years of their life in prison, or forfeit their life altogether, then go out and do something stupid. But it's gonna cost ya.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[mb1900]

this guy also claimed that in a video from local TV, the Aurora police showed his rifle and ammo, and that it was a Smith & Wesson MP 15-22, with .22 long rifle ammo.

Nope! NYT: "The M&P15 also comes in a variety of models that fire different sizes of ammunition, from .22-caliber to .30-caliber rounds. The rifle used in Aurora fired .223-caliber ammunition, law enforcement officials said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us...l-arsenal.html

[DefConGun]

I've seen websites that wouldn't sell to civilians, also. I just thought that civilians weren't allowed to have them. Is this one of those things where it depends on the state you live in?

[oakchas]

I've seen websites that wouldn't sell to civilians, also. I just thought that civilians weren't allowed to have them. Is this one of those things where it depends on the state you live in?

Every state has some laws about some things... For instance, you will see some firearms or magazines that can be purchased on line (gasp!) (and, in the case of firearms must go through a local FFL, whew!) with "Not For Sale in CA, ME, ID, and Washington D.C. or some other states... Due to magazine restrictions, or loaded chamber indicators or other nonsense.

This applies to gasoline engines, too... but mostly that's a "can't be sold in CA thing..."

[sigmanluke]

I initially thought the same thing sounded reasonable, however then I started to think about how that type of law leaves a lot to the discretion of the arresting officer or perceptions of the general public. I think a comparable example might be carrying a lock pick set. In some states (Utah included I think, however its been a while since I checked the law so my memory may be a bit off) it is legal to own lock pick sets, unless you have "intent" to commit a crime. What does intent look like? What happens when a citizen is carrying concealed and wearing body armor?

Just some food for thought, however I can see your point.

I was reading an article that said the supreme court decided not to hear a case from a convicted felon where the law says he cannot wear body armor. It seems a little extreme to me that we would essentially say "since you've committed a felony, the government and every person on the street needs to be able to kill you easily at a moments notice, body armor would hinder that ability".

However, I realize I may view things a bit different as I think saying that felons cannot own guns is simply an arbitrary line drawn in the sand. I think a more appropriate limitation would be violent felonies. Does Martha Stewart seem like the person we need to keeping guns away from? Not excusing her actions, but she doesn't really strike me as violent person.

Thanks,
Clay

I never said anything about intent. Any average Joe CCer who straps on body armor when he goes out is just a little nuts in my book, and is just going to get hot. Yes, it is a choice everyone has to make on their own whether or not to carry a gun, knife, get training, wear body armor, or ever leave the house again. I wear armor everyday I go to work, I have never chosen to wear it on "my time". I have decided that FOR ME, the advantages don't out weigh the disadvantages.

As to leaving things up to the discretion of the arresting officer, I'm ok with that. If a lock pick set is legal to own, the moment it becomes contraband is when you use it in the commission of a crime, not with intent to commit a crime. There a very few crimes that occur at the level of only intent.

As to the penalties, I suppose I could have made my statement a little more clear.....

Anyone wearing armor during the commission of a crime should face stiff penalties for the crime, and stiff penalties specific to their use of armor to protect themselves during the crime. I believe the consequences criminals face today are FAR too light. Crime can be reduced (at least a little) by showing criminals that there are real consequences to their actions.

I know, I know, the death penalty hasn't stopped anyone from murdering someone they were going to kill. Or has it? We'll never know.

[taseal]

this guy also claimed that in a video from local TV, the Aurora police showed his rifle and ammo, and that it was a Smith & Wesson MP 15-22, with .22 long rifle ammo.

what? they said it was a 15-22? because everything I Read says MP-15 not MP-15/22... You made that part up?

[Smitty901]

So what there are plenty others out there.

[SHTFGearLLC]

I never said anything about intent. Any average Joe CCer who straps on body armor when he goes out is just a little nuts in my book, and is just going to get hot. Yes, it is a choice everyone has to make on their own whether or not to carry a gun, knife, get training, wear body armor, or ever leave the house again. I wear armor everyday I go to work, I have never chosen to wear it on "my time". I have decided that FOR ME, the advantages don't out weigh the disadvantages.

As to leaving things up to the discretion of the arresting officer, I'm ok with that. If a lock pick set is legal to own, the moment it becomes contraband is when you use it in the commission of a crime, not with intent to commit a crime. There a very few crimes that occur at the level of only intent.

As to the penalties, I suppose I could have made my statement a little more clear.....

Anyone wearing armor during the commission of a crime should face stiff penalties for the crime, and stiff penalties specific to their use of armor to protect themselves during the crime. I believe the consequences criminals face today are FAR too light. Crime can be reduced (at least a little) by showing criminals that there are real consequences to their actions.

I know, I know, the death penalty hasn't stopped anyone from murdering someone they were going to kill. Or has it? We'll never know.

After giving it a bit more thought, I think I can agree that wearing body armor during the commission of a crime should warrant stiffer penalties. However I am concerned with the prospect of "intent" being the only requirement to be in violation of these laws on body armor. Although I'm not sure if any states currently have that type of language used in the laws.

Just as a side note concerning "intent", In Utah a lock pick set is considered a burglary tool, and you'll be guilty of a class B misdemeanor if intent is found.

76-6-205. Manufacture or possession of instrument for burglary or theft.
Any person who manufactures or possesses any instrument, tool, device, article, or other thing adapted, designed, or commonly used in advancing or facilitating the commission of any offense under circumstances manifesting an intent to use or knowledge that some person intends to use the same in the commission of a burglary or theft is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

(Emphasis added)


I definitely agree with you that the penalties for crimes are to lax.

What are your thoughts on limitations for people with non-violent felonies?

Thanks!
Clay

[oldrwizr]

The liberals on news forums are asking why somebody needs body armor. I haven't seen a good answer yet. Mostly it's "Because I want it". In fact I don't hear much from the right that the left can't shred with ease.

[Burns]

The liberals on news forums are asking why somebody needs body armor. I haven't seen a good answer yet. Mostly it's "Because I want it". In fact I don't hear much from the right that the left can't shred with ease.

What about all the people who work in a more high-risk environment? What about people who work 3rd shift in bad neighborhoods? What about people who want to add it to their SHTF gear?

[sigmanluke]

What are your thoughts on limitations for people with non-violent felonies?

Thanks!
Clay

I can see both sides of the issue. On one side, they did not commit a violent crime, or a crime involving a weapon, so why take away their ability to use a gun in defense? On the other hand, they have already shown their lack of judgement and willingness to commit a crime, so why take the chance by allowing them to (legally) have firearms that they may use if they graduate to violent crime or weapons crimes? I have yet to see an argument FOR allowing felons to legally possess a firearm that would make me side solely with the group that wants to reinstate all non-violent felon's firearm rights.
If your crime was such that they can get them reinstated through the courts, then I have no problem with that. I don't think it should be automatically granted for all non-violent felons.

Just my thoughts and opinions.

What do the rest of you think?

[SHTFGearLLC]

The liberals on news forums are asking why somebody needs body armor. I haven't seen a good answer yet. Mostly it's "Because I want it". In fact I don't hear much from the right that the left can't shred with ease.

That mentality is the exact problem! Citizens do not need to defend WHY they need something. We can apply that logic to anything and have government issued lives in a few years. Why do you need a vehicle capable of going faster than 75 MPH? Why do you need more than one pair of shoes? Why have a TV over 30"? "Because I want it" is a pretty damn good answer.

The fact is, you cannot hurt someone with body armor. How about we get rid of huge safety advancements in cars just in case we get in an accident with a vehicle from a government agency. That way we can ensure that the government vehicle and driver is the only one assured survival.

The problem with the mentality of people who ask this question (trying to stay non-political here for the threads sake) is that they are assuming you need to defend your harmless actions to them. That is simply not true. Just because you may not see a need for what products another wants to use does not mean that you have the right to simply outlaw that product. I don't like Pepsi and I think Coke is much better, so tell me... why do you need Pepsi?

By the way, these comments are not directed at you. I'm not trying to kill the messenger.

Thanks!
Clay

[SHTFGearLLC]

I can see both sides of the issue. On one side, they did not commit a violent crime, or a crime involving a weapon, so why take away their ability to use a gun in defense? On the other hand, they have already shown their lack of judgement and willingness to commit a crime, so why take the chance by allowing them to (legally) have firearms that they may use if they graduate to violent crime or weapons crimes? I have yet to see an argument FOR allowing felons to legally possess a firearm that would make me side solely with the group that wants to reinstate all non-violent felon's firearm rights.
If your crime was such that they can get them reinstated through the courts, then I have no problem with that. I don't think it should be automatically granted for all non-violent felons.

Just my thoughts and opinions.

What do the rest of you think?

I think that you've made some very good points concerning judgement and not applying a change in a "blanket" fashion.

I'm not going to be lobbying to get that law changed. I just see a bit of a discrepancy in the point made by some gun advocates. I, like many on here, believe the right to self defense with the best and most practical tools available to be basic human right. Yet we are happy to take away that basic right from non-violent offenders for an entire lifetime. What other basic human rights do we take away from a non-violent convicted felon?

Thanks a bunch for your input by the way. Good points indeed.
Clay

[Guest1]

They can bow to the hype if they want to,plenty of others willing to sell to civilians.

[DefConGun]

I looked it up last night after I read this thread and I found out that citizens can buy body armor in KY. There are harsher penalties if you use the armor while committing a crime; you can't get parole. There might be another penalty or two but I don't remember them for the moment.

Hmmm, I just always assumed...