Schumer Proposes Unconstitutional Infringements on Body Armor Sales

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- Senator Chuck Schumer (D) New York, has proposed radical new infringements on the Second Amendment.   Schumer 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 nypost.com:

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.

Buy Your Body Armor Now!

Daily Deals: AR500 Freeman Plate Carrier w/ Armor Package $99.99
Daily Deals: AR500 Freeman Plate Carrier w/ Armor Package $99.99

About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 27
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    22 Comment threads
    5 Thread replies
    1 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    22 Comment authors
    RockCircle8jmb1911ras52Will Flatt Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Rock
    Member
    Rock

    That picture reminds me of The Rocky Horror Picture Show !

    Circle8
    Member
    Circle8

    What is with these idiotic DEMOCRATS? They don’t want you to have a gun to protect yourself. They don’t want you to carry enough ammo to protect yourself. Now they don’t want you to wear protection to save yourself. Are they waiting until we are totally helpless before they take over and make us all SUBJECTS instead of free citizens. These are not politicians they are demented NAZI’s.

    jmb1911
    Member
    jmb1911

    Neither Schumer or Pelosi has been friendly towards gun owner and the Second Amendment. Schumer is a publicity hound and will do anything to be in front of a camera about an issue or legislation he is sponsoring. It would be better not to have a bill outlawing body armor at the federal level. Depending on state laws the purchase of body armor by persons who aren’t in law enforcement may not be legal or may not be illegal. This is ridiculous to have the FBI oversee a program like this, as they are charged with investigating crimes that violate… Read more »

    ras52
    Member
    ras52

    Two faces of evil.

    ras52
    Member
    ras52

    Two of the biggest liars of all time.

    Will Flatt
    Member

    Half the fun of being a Demonrat is being an enemy of liberty and a traitor to the Constitution! The tree of liberty is thirsty for Demonrats… it needs to be watered!

    freewill
    Member
    freewill

    Better yet, Lets ban armed body guards for politicians, let them commute like the rest of us, and if attacked, let them be scared and hide hoping the police arrive in time

    Mike11C
    Member
    Mike11C

    The Tree of Liberty is thirsty. That’s all I have to say.

    tomcat
    Member
    tomcat

    What a pair. I am so glad they are democrats because they look and sound like democrats. I don’t know about smell because I have never been that close to them and don’t want to be. The biggest problem I see is that they are standing in front of the American flag. It doesn’t fit their rhetoric.

    tomcat
    Member
    tomcat

    @USA LOL!

    Oldvet
    Member
    Oldvet

    Points to ponder … Who might go on line to encourage dimwits to go out and preform mass shootings , (so they could demand more gun control) Who would want to kill defenseless babies in the womb , (because they have wait to long to get them to vote democratic ?) Who would open the borders , because they can offer free everything to get them to vote democratic immediately , and or run for office . Who would consider those injured or killed in mass shootings as collateral damage (but numbers to demand more gun control) Who would want… Read more »

    MICHAEL J
    Member
    MICHAEL J

    What’s with these morons? Don’t they know what the word infringement means?

    Oldvet
    Member
    Oldvet

    MICHAEL J…Sure they do … to them it means a way to eat the elephant one bite at a time . That’s how they are taking your rights away one bite at a time !

    JohnBored
    Member
    JohnBored

    Upchuck Schumer probably has stock in a body armor company.

    Oldvet
    Member
    Oldvet

    @John B …He probably thinks it was made by takata and was defective (like the air bags) and got one of his little minion’s killed .

    V12Guy
    Member
    V12Guy

    Schumer wants to ban/regulate body armor because the shooter in Dayton died wearing it? I fail to see the logic in anything this man does.

    Morrigan
    Member
    Morrigan

    I agree with Schumer. I don’t think HE should own body armor.

    Nor should any of his cohorts, and since almost to a man, (or woman, or those who can’t decide) they detest firearms I don’t think that any of them should have armed security details. Ever.

    Mac
    Member
    Mac

    When did a liberal EVER worry if something was legal or constitutional? NEVER!!!

    option31
    Member
    option31

    More ownership mentality from the human ownership mentality form the party that was founded to promote and defend ownership of humans. Where is this power to do this in the Constitution? So now that children and parents have the option of body armor back packs Schumer wants to make them defenseless so their are more victims to promote his authoritarian agenda. Schumer does NOT care about children or anybody else, he only cares about power

    24and7
    Member
    24and7

    I guess politicians , law enforcement and the military is the only ones that need protection in a dangerous world !…Politicians should exempt themselves from wearing body armor as well.. politicians are not law enforcement the last time I checked.. what’s good for the goose is good for the gander..
    Politicians should also strip their security details of so-called “weapons of war” and exchange them for revolvers or 10-round only guns.. and all these weapons should only be California Massachusetts and other Communist States approved..

    nrringlee
    Member
    nrringlee

    This is like removing seat belts and air bags from cars in order to promote safe driving. Their thinking simply warrants a 5150 evaluation at the nearest “mental “health” facility. Nurse Ratched, line one please…………………….

    Craig
    Member
    Craig

    Change name of all body armor to “amniotic fluid”. Therefore the unborn would require the same background checks necessary to be approved, and thus born as a regretful taxpayer of sen. Schmuckmer’s new spork, to live and be subject to his approvals the rest of their unwanted lives…. And, btw hope he swims in a blender some day…. FYI

    Green Mtn. Boy
    Member
    Green Mtn. Boy

    As Commiecrats do not believe in the U S Constitution Chuckles The Effing Clown would be all for further violating the 2 nd. amendment.

    Will Flatt
    Member

    I’ll laugh myself to death the day someone violates ol’ Chucky.

    Deplorable Bill
    Member
    Deplorable Bill

    You bet, the answer to terrorism (homegrown or otherwise) is to make the public more vulnerable? With friends or leadership like this who needs enemies? Not everyone has body armor, not everyone can afford it but to criminalize it and it’s use is not the answer to the problem. How is it that they see the public as the enemy? It is against sound judgment and/or good reasoning to vote for people like these two. How is it they are in office? Most of us can’t afford bullet resistant clothing so that leaves body armor. Government is supposed to exist… Read more »

    Considerthis
    Member
    Considerthis

    Perhaps they have throw this out there knowing it is a bridge too far, a bargaining chip they can retreat from . They will give it up, claim they have compromised, then return to their original demand of “Universal Background Checks”. We should turn their tactics against them by taking the position that body armor is a human right ( like their healthcare tactic ) Now, body armor being a human right, the government should provide it for those that can not afford it. Any claims that we can not afford that, should be countered with- Yes we can, because… Read more »

    StreetSweeper
    Member
    StreetSweeper

    Oh, I use my steel plate for wok cooking over a campfire; that isn’t body armor.