LAPD Chief Protests Felons Buying Body Armor
 

LAPD Chief Protests Felons Buying Body Armor
Chief Beck sends open letter to attorney general.
Los Angeles - Los Angeles police Chief Charlie Beck has sent an open letter to California's attorney general urging him to appeal a recent court ruling that overturned a ban on felons wearing or owning body armor.

In his letter, released Thursday, Beck told Attorney General Jerry Brown he thought the decision gave violent criminals the upper hand.

California passed the ban in 1998 following a deadly shootout between police and heavily armored bank robbers in the streets of North Hollywood.

The ensuing gunbattle left the two robbers dead and 10 police officers and five other people injured.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals overturned the ban last week, saying it was unconstitutional because the definition of body armor was too vague.
http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/loca...armor-20091224

I'm behind that. It's a shame that this is even an issue.

I have mixed feelings on this one. Felons can't own firearms generally speaking, and some of them are marked people by rivals of one sort or another, so how are they supposed to protect themselves after serving their sentences? Especially so if they cooperated with prosecutors during their trials.

This isnt just about felons...
 

This isnt just about felons... the police dont want anyone but law enforcement to have access to body armor...

http://local.nixle.com/alert/635979/


Some of my personal choices could necessitate the procurement and wearing of a bullet proof vest. Who the EFF is this guy to tell me that I cannot protect myself? Granted, this is probably the same guy that would say that I shouldnt have a gun for self-protection- but body armor is wholly defensive...

If he doesnt like it, he needs to get bigger guns.

One event in over ten years, and it's a crisis worthy of a total ban. Nobody was killed on the good guy side either.

This also happened before the ban was put into place.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/16/us...l?pagewanted=1

Where do you draw the line? Frankly I would appreciate it if someone who came to rob me was prohibited from wearing body armor.

They can be Kathy, but do it the same way as we do other weapons. If you use it or plan to use it illegally, then it's prohibited. Guns are already prohibited if used to commit crimes. But assuming that all of them will be used that way and banning them on that basis is more than presumptive.

Aren't there different kinds of body armor with varying levels of protection? In the huge LA shootout, it seems to me that the shooters were wearing something that allowed them to completely absorb high velocity amunition and still remain on foot. But not all armor is like that. Some of it is strictly survival oriented. If you are hit with a large caliber round with the lighter armor, you will suffer and maybe even suffer internal injury, but the round will not penetrate the armor and your survival is promoted if not guaranteed.

Reasonably, the best kind of armor, the kind that will make high velocity rounds a distraction and nothing more should be restricted to military and police applications. Not many people are going to be able to afford this kind of armor or would want to wear it in the kind of situations they hope to be able to apply it.

Some criminal who is in a witness protection program should be able to have access to personal light armor. When the police are moving such a witness, then the witness is pretty much in police custody and heavier armor could be applied without some felon having personal access to personal armor of that level of protection.

Sounds like a reasonable approach.

Felons are prohibited from having weapons too. They still get them, but, if found in possession of such a weapon, it is an additional charge. I have no problem with felons being prohibited from possession weapons and an additional charge against them if they do. Same with body armor. If they have it, ten years tacked onto the sentence.