California Democrat Wants to Prevent Citizens From Wearing Body Armor

Screen Shot 2014-08-08 at 4.49.12 PM

Democrat Representative, Mike Honda wants to ban body armor in California..
Honda calls it the “Responsible Body Armor Possession Act,” and yet it BANS the sale, possession, transfer and usage of body armor for anyone except law enforcement and military.

According to press release on Honda’s website,

“Congressman Mike Honda (D-CA17) today introduced the Responsible Body Armor Possession Act of 2014, which allows law enforcement to respond to active shooters more effectively. It accomplishes this by prohibiting the sale, purchase, use, or possession of enhanced military-grade body armor by anyone who is not a member of law enforcement, active duty military, or other authorized users.
“There is no reason this type of armor, which is designed for warfare, should be available in our communities except for those who need it, like law enforcement,” Congressman Honda said. “There’s nothing more dangerous than what a well-armored, unstoppable active shooter can do. This bill is common-sense and long overdue.”

Sound familiar?
This was the same argument the anti-gun movement used to promote the ban of what they refer to as “assault rifles”.

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.”

Of course Honda is counting on the assumption that mass murderers are going to abide by the law and not purchase body armor because of his bill.
Once again, the anti-gun movement proves they do not care about the lives of law abiding citizens.
People who live in California already have so many restrictions on them regarding gun ownership and carrying, it has forced citizens in to a position where wearing armor is just another option for protecting themselves.

I saw a movie once where the only people who were armed and in possession of defensive armor were the members of the government, police, and the military..
It was called Schindler’s List.


Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Phil McMorrow

    Vote bums such as this idiot out of office. What a fool.

  • kumbayah

    Dumb as a box of rocks.

    • The.Swami

      You’ve just insulted every box of rocks on the planet.

  • George

    It’s already a felony in California to wear body armor, actually referred to as ‘body vests’ in the penal code, in the commission of a felony or attempted felony. So now it’s going to be more illegal? *sigh*

    • GI Joe

      I lived in Pasadena, CA, at the time of the North Hollywood bank robbery and shootout. I recall such prohibition being passed in the wake of that episode due to the full-body armor the robbers were wearing. So, just what is this guy trying to accomplish? As you said, George, wearing body armor is already a felony. Ah, on more careful reading of his proposal, I see. He also wants to prohibit the ownership, possession, transport, etc, of body armor. So he wants to expand the prohibition so in the event the SHTF, no Californian will have access to body armor unless they take it from the body of a dead “law-enforcement officer” or active-duty military member. What a nice guy! Stuff like this are the reasons I felt compelled to leave my home state (I’m a native Californian) and relocate. Now I live in a “free” state and am MUCH happier than I ever was in California.

    • boccagalupe

      This shows that criminals will wear armor as they commit crimes. Weren’t the cops that beat the black man which started the L.A. riots wearing body armor?
      Well of course they were. They were not convicted but they did a crime.

  • Conservativesniper

    So, I am a law abiding citizen and I am forbidden from taking steps to defend myself in a passive manner IN MY HOME. I think Mr. Honda should be required, by law, to appear in public only bare chested, as long as he’s alive. Not surprising he’s an idiotic democrat.

    • 19greg45

      That’s the only kind of democrat there is. With any luck, they will be an endangered species after the next two elections.

    • Terrell Heick Jr

      They are going to issue bullseye t-shirts that we all must wear in public, for our safety of course.

  • Ntech

    Problem. This law wouldn’t be valid. See the commerce clause and the 10th Amendment. States do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce. That’s a federal power. This would be unconstitutional.

    Everybody is so worried about the 2nd Amendment they forget that there are other checks and balances in the constitution as well.

    • GI Joe

      There is already a prohibition on the wearing (publicly?) of body armor. This will just expand that to include possession, transportation, etc. I don’t think it will run afoul of any other laws, rules, regulations, etc. I’m sure they’ll rely on the 10th Amendment to support their right to govern their state as they see fit. That’s how they “spit in the eye” of the US Constitution regarding the 2nd Amendment.

    • Jim

      Honda is a federal Rep. His bill is federal, not state. The story is wrong.

    • Christopher Chason

      True. But when was the last time that Stopped them?

  • dumbvet

    Once again we hear from the land of fruits and nuts!

    • EdWatts

      And flakes. California is the very definition of granola. Yeah, I live there.

  • Clay Fitzgerald

    It says a lot about the intellect of the voters in California that continue to vote donkeys like Honda into public office.

    • PatHenry

      Bunch of pot smokers with dead brain cells!

  • OnTheRightInTampa

    Hope he doesn’t get any BODY ARMOR either – what an idiot – pure INTRUSION on Personal Freedom.

  • Joseph

    Dumb LIBTARD Communist piece of human dung.

  • 19greg45

    Why stop with body armor? Why not just prohibit locks on our doors, so the cops won’t have to break a sweat swinging battering rams to break them down? Why not prohibit our dogs so the cops won’t have to shoot them when they storm our homes in black tactical gear and hiding behind face masks?

    • whitefeather

      Exactly Greg. They are so proud of their service to community that they wear MASKS, and come in people’s homes when everyone in the neigborhood is ASLEEP……

  • Bruce in AZ

    Yet another of Pelosi’s friends. They support Hamas but not the rights of the American people.

  • Lawabider

    I cannot understand the incredible stupidity of believing that criminals will actually follow that law. Hey, they are criminals! They rejoice if law abiding citizens comply to make their life easier. Leave the law that makes it criminal to wear armor in place in the commissioning of a crime only.

  • brucefandrews

    Again the liberals (and you can call them anything you please) want all of us venerable to a tyrannical government. As you can plainly see in the above picture of a seen from the movie Schindler’s list they want us on our knees with a gun to our head. Most people are so stupid (sottish) they will volunteer to kneel in front of them!

  • HDMania

    Honda needs to go back from where he came from and continue making Yahama motorcycles and forget his stupid laws..

  • As one who lives in his district, I can tell you it is some of the most openly draconian legislation that we are witnessing. Coupled with the fact that the Sheriff who was just re-elected after being indicted in 2011 for forcing an on-duty deputy to do bodyguard detail for a VIP, it is very apparent the blood will flow high in the streets – either by the people turning on each other in an economic collapse or by the government turning on the people to produce a modern day “Killing Fields”.

    The ones that continue to elect Mike Honda bring new meaning to the term “Sheeple”. Forget ISIS, be prepared to read about the systematic slaughter here.

  • Steve H

    Typical moron that doesn’t know a thing about the issue. Take away law abiding citizens right for protection. Ban guns then only criminals will have guns, ban assault rifles then only criminals will have assault rifles, ban body armor then only criminals will have body armor. Listen moron CRIMINALS DON’T CARE ABOUT LAWS!

    • Christopher Chason

      Just one little correction, Steve: It is already against the law for private citizens too own/possess “Assault Rifles”, and has been for a LONG time. By definition, an “Assault Rifle” has “Select Fire” capability – which means it can fire at Semi-Auto OR Full-Auto. Without a Class 3 FFL, no one can own a Full-Auto firearm. The problem is, media Talking Heads and certain Politicians have brainwashed the Sheeple into thinking that “Semi-Auto” MEANS – it is a Machine-Gun! Anyone who understands firearms KNOWS that is a Lie, of course, but MOST of the average Sheeple are just too busy trying to earn a dollar and don’t grasp what is being sold too them. The AR-15 and the AK-47 varients that you and I CAN buy and own, are all Semi-Auto, which makes them Assault Rifle LOOK-A-LIKES.
      Just wanted to clear that up. 🙂

      • Steve H

        Dah! I’m former LEO & Military. Of course I know the difference. An AR15 is a civilian version of an assault rifle. Call it whatever you want I really don’t care, that wasn’t the issue I was addressing and you know it. Now I hope you feel better thinking you’ve made some type of correction. BTW, you can make your AR fully automatic without a Class 3 FFL by getting a Slide Fire Bump stock. The ATF does not classify it as a full auto because it does not change the selector switch nor the internal workings of the AR firing mechanism and is LEGAL to own. With training you can fire it just as effective as a full auto AR. But then maybe you already knew that and I didn’t have to educate you on it?

        • Christopher Chason

          Right you are: I was – of course – speaking primarily for the benefit of those who read this conversation and do NOT know the difference. I, too, am former L.E. and military. It is we who must re-educate our fellow citizens on such simple things, as the media and the Poli-TICK-shuns have no desire in doing so.

          • Steve H

            Agreed! Sorry if I took it the wrong way!

  • Gramps43

    People like this are dangerous to freedom and liberty. If Mr. Honda wants to live in a country where all liberties have been taken away then I suggest he get a one way ticket to Havana. People like this dingbat should be given a lengthy pre-qualification test, if the test indicates they are Socialist leaning they should be given that one way ticket and a certificate of revocation of citizenship. In any case the first step is to get bird brains like this out of office.

    • GI Joe

      Mr Honda appears to be of Asian heritage and his website has a link in Chinese characters. Instead of inflicting him on the Castro brothers, I suggest he be returned to his, apparent, ancestral home. Send his smelly butt to China.

      • Wumingren

        Honda is a Japanese surname.

  • whitefeather

    Makes me want to go order some of those ceramic breast plates right now!

  • Jim

    “Democrat Representative, Mike Honda wants to ban body armor in California..”

    Correction. He want to ban it nation wide!

  • Henry

    California strikes again : STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES !!!!!

  • Billy Bob Johnson

    I can think of no reason that a private citizen would need to possess or wear body armor. Unless of course they are robbing a bank or mounting an attack on Capitol Hill.
    Maybe if some city slicker is trying to milk a bull or wrestle with an elk, one would then need body armor.