H.R.3398 - Aaron Salter, Jr., Responsible Body Armor Possession Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3398, the Aaron Salter, Jr., Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, aims to prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians, with specific exceptions for government entities, law enforcement officers, and pre-existing lawful possessions. The bill amends Title 18 of the United States Code to include these prohibitions and defines 'enhanced body armor' based on ballistic resistance standards set by the National Institute of Justice. Violators would face fines and imprisonment.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would restrict civilian access to enhanced body armor, potentially impacting personal safety and security for some individuals. Law enforcement and governmental agencies would remain exempt. The bill also establishes penalties for violations, potentially reducing the availability of enhanced body armor in the civilian market.
Potential Benefits
- May reduce the risk of harm to law enforcement officers during encounters with armed individuals.
- Could decrease the severity of injuries in mass shooting events where enhanced body armor is used.
- Potentially reduces the incentive for violent criminals to engage in confrontations knowing their targets are less protected.
- May lead to a decrease in the overall number of incidents involving enhanced body armor in criminal activities.
- Could increase public perception of safety and security.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Restricts the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with enhanced body armor.
- May disproportionately affect individuals who live in high-crime areas and feel the need for extra protection.
- Could create a black market for enhanced body armor, making it more difficult to regulate and control.
- The definition of 'enhanced body armor' may be subject to interpretation and could potentially encompass a wide range of protective gear.
- May face legal challenges based on Second Amendment rights.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, is a central constitutional consideration. While the Second Amendment's scope is subject to ongoing debate, restrictions on protective equipment could be argued as infringing upon the right to self-defense. The government may argue that this restriction is reasonable and necessary for public safety, falling under the government's police powers to regulate for the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The courts would likely weigh the individual's right to self-defense against the government's interest in preventing crime and protecting law enforcement.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).