When exactly is body armor illegal?

[theweakerbrother]

Chain mail was sooo yesterday! I only wear plate!

Wear both. The zombie guide recommends it for bites.

 

[clgustaveson]

I get the point you guys are trying to make, but unless your wearing a shirt made of nano-material (which exists, bullet resistant shirts do exist), I'm just saying that without putting the law under a microscope armor wouldn't really be classified as clothing - in lay-mans terms. Having worked quite in depth with composite materials and most of the materials used in making armor, I can't imagine anyone using it as clothing. Not to mention, most ballistic material is useless without proper processing or a silly amount of layering. Anyone who considers DAPS, plates, or a vest "clothing" is going a bit too deep in my opinion.

Also, you'd be surprised, the design of armor can be just as important as the materials used!

typically the design is used to lessen the transfer of energy at the POI. It isn't as important in making the material bullet proof.

Are you suggesting a flak jacket or helment are not clothing?

Hopefully its not "Clothing" but it most certainly is "clothing", anything that clothes someone is clothing.

The point you made was that it isn't the materials that are being banned, the point I was making is that it is. The law is specifically defining the material it is made out of, the intended operation of the garnment, and the situation it is used in.

A law as vague to say "body armor" without indicating the material would be a very slippery slope.

 

[grimor]

Sec. 13. (a) As used in this section, "body armor" means bullet
resistant metal or other material worn by a person to provide
protection from weapons or bodily injury.

Actually how else would you define body armor?

wouldn't this mean that any safety equipment like shoulder pads, shin guards, safety glasses etc are "body armor" since they are worn by a person to provide protection from bodily injury?

 

[clgustaveson]

wouldn't this mean that any safety equipment like shoulder pads, shin guards, safety glasses etc are "body armor" since they are worn by a person to provide protection from bodily injury?

Yeah, since those are all made from bullet resistant metal!

AGAIN it is the material being defined along with the purpose. The purpose is useless and the material is useless without the other.

 

[Booya]

typically the design is used to lessen the transfer of energy at the POI. It isn't as important in making the material bullet proof.

Are you suggesting a flak jacket or helment are not clothing?

Hopefully its not "Clothing" but it most certainly is "clothing", anything that clothes someone is clothing.

The point you made was that it isn't the materials that are being banned, the point I was making is that it is. The law is specifically defining the material it is made out of, the intended operation of the garnment, and the situation it is used in.

A law as vague to say "body armor" without indicating the material would be a very slippery slope.

Your right partially on the design portion, typically that is what the design is for. But if the design is bad or incorrect, the ballistic material, while still somewhat ballistic, isn't a fraction as protective as it could be. In most cases the design makes a world of difference as to whether you can take that material and have it certified as armor. Basically I'm saying the design and processing are just as important as the material. Hell with the right design and processing you can make bullet resistant armor out of canvas.

and yes, I'm saying that a flak and kevlar are not clothing. AS FAR AS I"M (just me) CONCERNED. If I saw a guy walking down the street in a flak and kevlar and we'll say some IIIA drop legs, I would not call him dressed or clothed...in fact I'd call him a crazy person, but not clothed. Ballistic material is not armor, it's just material, if not designed and processed correctly, it's not armor.

True body armor had been manufactured and tested and classified as armor. I buy rolls of ballistic material regularly, then I turn that material into armor. I have never bought a roll of armor. See my point? I see what you mean though. I do see your point.

 

[clgustaveson]

Your right partially on the design portion, typically that is what the design is for. But if the design is bad or incorrect, the ballistic material, while still somewhat ballistic, isn't a fraction as protective as it could be. In most cases the design makes a world of difference as to whether you can take that material and have it certified as armor. Basically I'm saying the design and processing are just as important as the material. Hell with the right design and processing you can make bullet resistant armor out of canvas.

and yes, I'm saying that a flak and kevlar are not clothing. AS FAR AS I"M (just me) CONCERNED. If I saw a guy walking down the street in a flak and kevlar and we'll say some IIIA drop legs, I would not call him dressed or clothed...in fact I'd call him a crazy person, but not clothed. Ballistic material is not armor, it's just material, if not designed and processed correctly, it's not armor.

True body armor had been manufactured and tested and classified as armor. I buy rolls of ballistic material regularly, then I turn that material into armor. I have never bought a roll of armor. See my point? I see what you mean though. I do see your point.

I see your point, and agree for the most part, but as far as the law is concerned it does not mention design.

I am advanced in the field of physics, and did very well on the MCATs and understand what would be required for ballistic material to be protective, but it is not what makes it illegal.

The law states it has to be bullet resistant and be worn to protect you from bodily injury. Done.

There is no other qualifier.

The material being METAL (not canvas), bullet resistant, and worn on the body. If it meets this and you are commiting any felony you have then broken another federal crime. EVEN IF it has pink flowers on it.

 

[Booya]

I see your point, and agree for the most part, but as far as the law is concerned it does not mention design.

I am advanced in the field of physics, and did very well on the MCATs and understand what would be required for ballistic material to be protective, but it is not what makes it illegal.

The law states it has to be bullet resistant and be worn to protect you from bodily injury. Done.

There is no other qualifier.

The material being METAL (not canvas), bullet resistant, and worn on the body. If it meets this and you are commiting any felony you have then broken another federal crime. EVEN IF it has pink flowers on it.

I'm tracking what your saying, but I guess I don't fully understand. let me pose this question to you and see if maybe we're saying similar things. Today pretty much no body armor is made of metal with the exception of a very thin layer of aluminum (solely used to prevent back-face deformation). If I robbed a bank and was wearing processed canvas, enough to make it bullet resistant, but it was never classified as armor then would I be charged for it?

 

[Booya]

I guess I will retract my question.

ec. 13. (a) As used in this section, "body armor" means bullet
resistant metal or other material worn by a person to provide
protection from weapons or bodily injury.

In that case any material worn with the intent to provide protection from weapons would be illegal. Whether it be metal or canvas...

So yes, any safety equipment or actual armor would qualify.

 

[clgustaveson]

I guess I will retract my question.

ec. 13. (a) As used in this section, "body armor" means bullet
resistant metal or other material worn by a person to provide
protection from weapons or bodily injury.

In that case any material worn with the intent to provide protection from weapons would be illegal. Whether it be metal or canvas...

So yes, any safety equipment or actual armor would qualify.

Or bodily injury... football pads qualify!

 

[reaper101]

its not a big deal unless you are committing a crime. i own a kevlar vest and were it daily as it is a part of my uniform lol Indiana is pretty lax on body armor unless use in the commission of a crime or if you are carrying and catch the wrong Officer. they way bust your balls a little. They dont really like it but there is not a whole lot that can be done.

 

[scottmo]

I am the originator of this law. I was a patrolman in Fort Wayne, Indiana, when we were finding several of the gangbangers that were doing drive-by shootings, were wearing bullet-proof vest. The only reason they were wearing the vest was to defeat the threat brought against them, which was the police or other gangbangers.
Before working in Fort Wayne, I was a Deputy Sheriff in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Louisiana had a law making it illegal to wear a vest in the performance of a felony. After going back home, doing research and interviewing the state legislator who originally drafted the law, I brought it back to Indiana. I had meetings with State Senator Tom Wyss, who, along with Fort Wayne Police Chief Neil Moore, helped me draft the law. We presented it to the Indiana State Legislature and the law went into effect in 1996. The charge is an augmentation of a felony, adding three years to the charge. So far, the law has beaten any challenges brought before it and is a protection for law enforcement and one more tool to use in conviction.

 

[Rookie]

Helluva first post. Welcome to INGO.

 

[KellyinAvon]

And may your first post be a necro-post! Welcome to INGO

 

[vitamink]

I know some of your EOD folks up there...wacky guys

 

[ghuns]

Sooooooo. What if I wear body armor everyday cause I like it's slimming effects. And say one day, I go all George Zimmerman and make a questionable decision regarding my personal defense...

 

[HoughMade]

Sooooooo. What if I wear body armor everyday cause I like it's slimming effects. And say one day, I go all George Zimmerman and make a questionable decision regarding my personal defense...

If you are found to have committed a felony, you may be found to have committed a second felony. If your "personal defense" was not a felony, then wearing body armor wasn't one either.

This isn't hard.

 

[ghuns]

If you are found to have committed a felony, you may be found to have committed a second felony. If your "personal defense" was not a felony, then wearing body armor wasn't one either.

This isn't hard.

Thanks Denny. Thought we could take this sumwheres funner.

 

[T.Lex]

So far, the law has beaten any challenges brought before it and is a protection for law enforcement and one more tool to use in conviction.

First, thank you for your service.

But, second, it doesn't really help with convictions. It may add some time to a sentence, but it really isn't a separate crime. To be convicted of it, you also have to be committing another crime. It really isn't a sentence enhancement, either, so under certain conditions, might not even require consecutive sentencing, depending on the judge.

Plus, it really doesn't have any affect other than providing a false sense of security. Does this really deter criminals? Very unlikely. To an extreme. But, it makes people feel like they're protecting LEOs.

And, feelings matter.

 

[voidsherpa]

Here's a notion, why not properly punish criminals out of the gate? Instead of you know, adding more arbitrary laws to the books.

 

[Thegeek]

SOURCE: Indiana Code 35-47-5
IC 35-47-5-13
Unlawful use of body armor
Sec. 13. (a) As used in this section, "body armor" means bullet
resistant metal or other material worn by a person to provide
protection from weapons or bodily injury.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally uses body armor
while committing a felony commits unlawful use of body armor, a
Class D felony.
As added by P.L.227-1996, SEC.1.

If you're a felon, you're not allowed to wear a motorcycle helmet, or wear a seatbelt.