Armor For Me, But Not For Thee

First Half: A look at the ever-morphing battle for the 2nd Amendment in Virginia, and how the State Police are obviously anxious to begin enforcement of some of the new anti-2nd Amendment laws in play, but have been kept in check by GOA and VCDL.

Second Half: Letitia James attempts to persuade the court (in a challenge against NY's ban on citizens owning and wearing body armor) that body armor is not protected by the 2nd Amendment, and her linguistically and mentally tortuous applications of history are proof that Democrats think we're all stupid.

Transcript

Freedom Guns is your local gun store for the Rockledge Cocoa area in Brevard County,
Florida. Stop in and meet Mike and the gang and see the great deals they have on long guns,
handguns, accessories, ammunition, AR build kits, and Liberty Safes that come with free delivery
and installation. They're located at 1255 Florida Avenue, just north of Rockledge High School.
For more information, check them out at freedom-guns.com. Tell them you heard about them on the
Shooting Straight Radio podcast.
The Gun Sight in Merritt Island is your one-stop shop for all of your Second Amendment needs.
Stop out there and see my friend Steve Kennedy and check out his nine-lane, 25-yard indoor
shooting range. He's got handgun rentals galore out there. If you want to try it before you buy it,
the Gun Sight in Merritt Island is where you need to go. Also, we've got a great selection of
ammunition, accessories, range bags. You name it, you'll find it out there at 125 South Banana
River. Drive in Merritt Island. Check him out at gunsightrange.com.
Make sure you tell Steve Kennedy that Royce Bartlett sent you. And
someone helped
load it in loud on the Shooting Straight Radio podcast. This is all about firearms with a heavy
emphasis on the Second Amendment and all things pertaining thereto. I am Royce,
your oh-so-benevolent host, still saturated with gunshot residue.
Toxic masculinity in a faint yet oh-so-wildly tantalizing whiff of the cologne of my people,
hops number nine. If you'd like to reach out to me, shootingstraightradiopodcast at gmail.com or
shootingstraightradioshow at gmail.com, and I usually respond...
the hour. If for some reason I don't. Don't take it personal. Reach back out to me.
Something might have got missed in transmission. Or it might have ended up in my spam folder. I
don't know. But I usually reach out back. Or actually get back to you within the hour.
So reach out there. If you got a comment or a question. You want to share some articles. Or if you
want to tell me I'm a jerk. Plenty of that lately. So join in.
shootingstraightradiopodcast at gmail.com. All right. Let's get right on into it.
No need for any further introduction. You know,
being that we're going to be looking at this elitist notion of gun control again today,
which is what we cover a lot here on this program. I sit there and think about the attitude
necessary to convey this notion that these people in high places,
allegedly high places, they're actually positions of service, but they fancy themselves to be above
the people, and therefore they want to tell the people that they know what's best for them.
They also have this contempt. for the people.
They have to. I mean, what else, what other emotion could possibly steer your mind in the direction
of thinking that you have a right to be protected, but the common everyday citizen does not?
Or that the common everyday citizen has no right to the same armaments that their government does?
Last I checked, this was the government of, by, and for the people. The people are the final
authority in all matters of the Constitution. Even Abraham Lincoln said the people are the rightful
masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but to overthrow those who would pervert the Constitution. What we've got going on right now,
especially in Virginia, which we'll be taking a look at here again, they are going to be heavy and
hot in Second Amendment news for a while, thanks to little Miss Commie Spanberger.
These people, to think that we are so beneath them that they have a right to be more heavily armed
than we are. We the people. Or the government. We're a government of,
by, and for the people. The government can only operate with consent of the governed,
and that consent is laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution is the format.
It's not just the format. It's the supreme law. Anything that steps outside of those boundaries is
unlawful. It's null and void as far as the founders were concerned and as far as many court cases
have stated, many court decisions have stated. So now we've got this brouhaha going on in Virginia
and they're trying to raise all these laws that forbid people from age 18 to 21 from purchasing
firearms and ammunition. And they also want to ban assault weapons,
the same weapons that their police carry, the same weapons that their state guard carries.
And they try to claim that the Second Amendment doesn't cover these weapons or these arms.
When, you know, they're either speaking in ignorance, which I doubt, or they're speaking in
deception. which I would give that probably more credence. But here's an article by Cam Edwards,
and if you don't follow BearingArms.com, you should. Cam Edwards is a great author,
writes a lot of good stuff concerning the Second Amendment. And the title is,
Virginia Governor Gets Bad News on Background Check Bill. Here's the article.
been a whole lot of confusion about Virginia's HB 1525, which raises the age to purchase handguns
from 18 to 21 and requires the Virginia State Police to resume conducting background checks on
private sales. What? I don't know about you,
but I don't think there's too many people in Virginia who are actually going to go seek out the
services of the Virginia State Police for a private sale. I just don't see that happening.
Maybe at a gun show, but yeah, I don't know. Anyway,
back to the article. Governor Abigail Spanberger's amended version contained language that declared
the act an emergency. which would allow it to take effect immediately. Does that ring a bell,
by the way? That's what Lujan Grisham, the governor there in New Mexico,
claimed that it was an emergency, that she had to have those proposals that she put forth in place.
And she issued an executive order to make sure that they were implemented immediately.
Yes, it's an emergency. I'm not sure what grounds you're calling this an emergency on,
but I don't think the evidence backs it up. He said, but the legislature did not approve the
changes with a four-fifths vote, which is supposedly what's required in order for that emergency
provision to be adopted. The Virginia legislative website lists the effective date for HB 1525 as
July 1, but the Virginia State Police put out a notice on Tuesday that declared the law is already
in effect. That was good news for Spanberger. All right,
since when did the state police declare what's in effect and what's not? Secondly,
this does not bode well. for the relationship between the people and the Virginia State Police.
It seems to me the Virginia State Police are going to be going whole hog on this and making sure
that it's implemented and enforced. I think they also know that they're going to hurt a lot of
innocent people, and I also think that means that they don't care. Yeah.
I think before I run a rabbit trail too far, I'm going to continue with what we're talking about.
But first I want to say, I hope the Virginia state police notice,
I hope that notice they put out was met with righteous indignation from incalculable numbers of
Virginians. And yes, I hope that those people dared the state police to enforce this law.
Yeah, this is time right now in Virginia. This is the time for them to say,
you guys are about to step across a line that you are going to find yourself indefensible on.
They need to tell them the same thing that the gun owners of Connecticut said when the Connecticut
State Police started sending out threatening letters after they had their assault weapon ban.
And the state police realized there was almost 100,000 people that had not registered their guns,
and they sent out notices. And guess what they were met with?
They got notices too. The Connecticut people who owned those guns basically said,
grab yourselves some hammers and head for the nearest sand pile. We outnumber you and we outgun
you. Good luck enforcing this. The attitude from the Connecticut State Police then was,
well, you guys, you're supposed to comply with the law. You know that, right? Well,
it took the bravado out of their contempt and out of their desire to enforce this stuff.
I think the Virginia State Police have declared openly. whose side they are on.
And it is not the side of the people. It is not on the side of the Constitution that they swore an
oath to uphold and defend. They're coming down on the side of the government.
The government that has just written and passed illegal laws, laws that contravene the rights of
the people contained in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment forbade this.
The Second Amendment definitely forbade this. And they're saying, well, we don't care. We got to go
along and enforce the law.
No, you don't. You could die. You could actually stand up and say, sorry, governor.
and lieutenant governor and attorney general. We're not going to enforce this.
It is constitutionally vile. And we're not about to lend our power that these good people gave to
us. And we're not going to take that power and turn it against them now. No, they're not saying
that. They're saying we're going to enforce this. This law is in effect. It's in place.
Get ready for enforcement. Maybe not in so many words, but that's exactly what they're doing.
And that's why I say I hope they got a bunch of nasty grams from the citizens there in the state of
Virginia, letting them know you boys done declared yourself. And now I'm not going to speculate too
much further than that. Okay. Anyway, back to the article. The bad news?
The Virginia State Police won't be resuming background checks on private sales of firearms anytime
soon, at least not without a court order. I kind of seriously doubt anybody will actually be
seeking out their background check services for private sales anyway, if I know Virginians.
But Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League...
had threatened to seek contempt charges against the head of the Virginia State Police if they abode
by Spanberger's edict, and it looks like the Virginia State Police did not view that as an idle
threat. So apparently they're going, okay, maybe we're stepping across the line here.
I'd like to know personally why the Virginia State Police would even want to enforce this.
Do they not realize these laws will also affect cops, especially when they retire,
as well as their immediate and extended families? It's going to affect all of them.
I don't think they'll be enforcing it on their own families as much as they will upon others,
though. Do they really want such laws enforced against themselves and their families?
Now, the article continues,
to the Virginia state police to begin enforcement of the enjoined universal background check law
because the court put out an injunction against it and said, you may not enforce this.
So the only portion of the law that the state police say will not be enforced is the section of.
the law regarding background checks on private sales of firearms. And as far as the agency is
concerned, it's now against the law for a 20 year old to purchase an AR 15 in Virginia,
even through a private sale. So you're saying you're going to enforce that against grown adults in
your state. And yes, I'm referencing the Virginia state police in this use that you guys say,
You're going to enforce this. You don't even bother even taking a flippant look at the Constitution
to make sure that you're in compliance with it. Nope. You're just going full bore,
blazing guns. Maybe not, you know, literally. You're going full bore on your enforcement on this.
Now, I'm sure the retailers are going to be stopping any under-21-year-old sales.
But as far as private sales, you know what? If I lived in Virginia, I'd probably go buy an extra
old cheapy AR-15 just to find somebody 20 years old and do a private sale with it just to be a
defiant little cuss because I have nothing but contempt. I have more contempt for these people and
their tyranny than they do for us and the supreme law.
How about you guys? All you Virginia State Police, you apply this. You apply all of this against
your own family members first, then against all family members of all other law enforcement
officers within your state. You do that first. You want to set an example of being a good,
compliant citizen, don't you? You want to show that there's really nothing to this.
You just simply comply and everything will be fine, right? You enforce it against you and yours
first. Yeah, you set your house in order before you try to correct anybody else's.
Says, of course, as of July 1, it will be illegal for any adult over the age of 21 to purchase an
AR-15 too. The Virginia State Police said they're going to enforce that too, by the way.
The sale ban wasn't the primary motivation for HB 1525.
It was the restoration of the state's universal background check law. Now, why would they give that
primacy over the rest of the portions of the law? Because in order to fully implement and enforce
universal background checks, there has to be a total gun registry in place.
That's why. And I promise you, if enforcement goes smoothly,
and I pray to God it does not, If it does go smoothly,
give it just about two or three months from now,
maybe six, and they will absolutely propose and pass a firearm registry bill in the state of
Virginia. I said it here today, 29th of April, 2026.
It says, and the Virginia State Police just said that isn't happening until a judge tells the
agency it can resume enforcement. Well, you know what? A dang well shouldn't happen even after
that. And why do y'all need a judge to tell you what's constitutional or not, huh? Why did you
swear an oath to uphold and defend something you don't even understand? Now,
my comment here is, would you like to put a stop to this? I'll tell you how to do it.
We need the help of the gun industry, though.
We the people can fix this by inflicting consequences upon those people enforcing these laws.
Yes, on police officers, on sheriffs, on highway patrol departments.
We can heap consequences upon them and do it first,
and then upon all those who foolishly wrote the illegal laws in the first place. But what we need
is every manufacturer of ammunition, firearms, gun parts,
accessories, body armor, every manufacturer within the United States needs to cease and desist any
and all sales to all law enforcement departments and agencies within the state of Virginia,
and not just the state of Virginia, Illinois. New York, Massachusetts,
Maryland, so on, so forth. Yes, all of you manufacturers forbid retailers from selling your
products to police officers. If the people cannot be armed with these weapons,
neither can the police. If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
You want to disarm the people? Well, you know what? The people can disarm your police. How about
that? All you retailers in all these areas, all the communist-occupied territories,
need to follow those manufacturer directives to not sell to those places or craft your own policies
and cease sales to law enforcement officers in all of those territories.
No guns for the people, no guns for the cops. Mm-hmm. Let's see how y'all like being without
those guns, without those armaments, without those rifles, without everything. How would you like
to be stripped of that? Yeah, because y'all are keeping your AR-15s because you guys have a
special proviso carved out in these laws, and you are relishing your new lofty and elevated status
above the people, above the common people who... own those weapons oh but you can so you're a
special protected class yeah all of you manufacturers and retailers the guns and ammo you're
selling them is arming tyranny you're literally arming those who have effectively empowered every
gun control law that has ever unlawfully harmed innocent people Let the police feel the same
helplessness everybody else does. That'll break this crap loose real quick.
We'll take a brief commercial timeout. We'll be right back. And we're gonna look at how Leticia
James, the Attorney General for New York, seems to think that citizens wearing body armor is
dangerous and unusual. And it's a danger to police.
Be right back with more Shooting Straight.
This is your humble host, and I am proud and honored to say that Sicario's Gun Shop is a sponsor of
the Shooting Straight Radio podcast. They're up on North Wickham Road in Melbourne. They are your
full-service gun store. They offer a wide range of firearms, including Class III and NFA weapons,
ammo and accessories, gunsmithing. If you want to buy or trade, head on down to Sicario's Gun Shop.
They also offer transfer service, custom builds. If you need a muzzle device pinned and welded, no
problem. them that can do that too. Coatings, refinishings, cleanings, survival safety items.
Sicario's Gun Shop is your full service gun store in North Melbourne. They also have a fine
selection of gun safes to choose from. Check them out at Sicario'sGunShop.com.
Make sure you tell them you heard about them on Shooting Straight. Sicario's Gun Shop, where you
come first for your second.
Norm's Music Shop. Producer and music creator for Shooting Straight Radio Podcast.
I can write and record a personalized music track for your audio or video projects. Do you want a
song for a special occasion? I can do that. For more information, contact Norm's Music Shop at
gmail.com.
Let's create your musical identity. Thank you. Welcome back to the program.
We've been talking about how people in... presumably high places, think it's okay to strip the
rights from those that they figure are beneath them by passing laws that say you may not have these
particular types of arms. Oh, but we can. And our enforcers can.
And our protectors can. If you haven't noticed by now, it seems that too many in the police
profession
They basically have switched sides. They're no longer the people's cops.
I'm not saying that's true in every single department. Don't give me any of that crap.
Don't send me hate mail telling me I'm anti-cop like I've been getting. I am not anti-cop.
I'm very pro-constitutional law enforcement.
Any cop that upholds and defends the Constitution, I will back him any day.
I will stand in constant and consistent support when police officers uphold and defend the
Constitution as per their oath. That includes not enforcing unconstitutional laws,
okay? So don't tell me I'm a cop hater. That's not even remotely true,
and anybody that knows me knows that that's a bunch of crap. What I am a hater of is tyranny.
And when law enforcement steps into the arena and aligns themselves with the tyrants,
then you've aligned yourself with the wrong side. We the people gave you your authority.
We the people gave you your power. You should be protecting and serving the people.
but primarily you should be upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States, that is
the Supreme Law. Now, Ms. Letitia James seems to think that body armor is too dangerous for lowly
peon citizens. And I'm going to be referencing another article by Cam Edwards.
He's getting top billing today for sure. First, I'm going to give you the definition.
from Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary for the word arms,
as in right to keep and bear them. Arms, number one.
The first, it's a noun. Arms, weapons of offense or armor for defense and protection of the body.
That's number one, right at the top. The second is arms for war, arms for warfare.
So, Miss Letitia James seems to think that lowly citizens are not fit to own body armor.
Why? To protect the police. Why?
Are citizens in body armor assaulting cops or something? What's going on here?
Let's read the article.
New York makes it incredibly burdensome to exercise your right to keep and bear arms, but to add
insult to injury, lawmakers in the Empire State have also made it illegal for those outside of
certain elite professions to possess body armor, a purely defensive article that the state claims
is too dangerous for average, everyday folks like you and me to possess. You know,
like those assault weapons in Virginia. Firearms Policy Coalition and several individual plaintiffs
are challenging that ban. And on Monday, the state of New York issued its reply to Firearms Policy
Coalition's motion for summary judgment. In it, Attorney General Letitia James argues that for a
variety of reasons, the lawsuit should be dismissed, including... the dangerousness claim.
Okay, well, I read her 40-page diatribe,
and she claims to use text and history in it. You want to know where she got the history?
She goes back across the pond to England and brings up law, English law,
claiming, well, the founders predicated a lot of their law here on that.
She actually goes back into the 14th and 15th century England to try to prove that there's history
backing up her claims. Yes, it's laughable, okay? I'm making a note here right now to add the link
to her, that 40-page scripted bunch of toilet paper. And if you want to read it yourself,
it's hilarious. It really is. In it, Attorney General Letitia James argues that for...
I'm sorry, I already read that part. I've got to ask this question. How is it dangerous for the
disarmed people of your state to wear body armor, especially as many of them as are being stabbed
by all the Muslims you let in? James's first argument is that the plaintiffs don't have standing to
sue, but even if the U.S. District Court allows their case to proceed,
the law should stand, since body armor isn't protected by the Second Amendment anyway.
Okay, you remember the definition I just read, right? This was her comment,
or one of them. The clearest source for understanding the meaning of arms comes from the Founding
Fathers themselves, who used the term regularly in legislation designed to ensure,
quote, the security of a free state. Lady, you're about to talk yourself into a hole there.
You know that, right? All of your arguments against the Second Amendment? Yeah. U.S.
Constitution Amendment 2, but always in a way that encompassed weapons rather than armor.
Yeah, encompassed weapons.
You don't want to run that rabbit trail, honey. On May 22nd, she said, 1794,
Congress passed, quote, an act prohibiting for a limited time the exportation of arms and
ammunition and encouraging the importation of the same. And yes, they did.
On May 22nd, 1794, they passed one statute 369,
an act prohibiting the exportation of arms and ammunition for one year to ensure national defense.
while incentivizing importation. So this measure was basically part of increased efforts in the
1790s to secure and stockpile weaponry that the colonists found themselves lacking in many fights
with the British prior thereto. And they wanted to strengthen... armaments and supplies against
potential conflict in the future. Remember, a mere 18 years later,
we were back at war with Britain again, so it makes perfect sense that they wished to never be
caught underprepared again. So she continues her scripted bull fertilizer.
The law explained what was covered by the term arms, namely, quote, any cannon,
muskets, pistols, bayonets, swords, cutlasses, musket balls,
lead, bombs, grenades, gunpowder, sulfur, or saltpeter.
Okay, so you're saying all of those should be lawful now. Oh,
because armor wasn't listed explicitly, it must be disallowed,
then all of these things that were expressed should be allowed.
Using your logic, the Fifth Congress, she said,
reenacted the law in 1979 with minor changes, again covering the same enumerated list of arms.
I don't think she got her date right anyway. But I guess so,
because body armor was not explicitly mentioned, then that means that the founders never...
wanted the people to ever have it again throughout the entire history, the rest of our history as a
nation. Lady, you are crippled way too high for crutches. Okay, one more time,
ma'am. The word arms, Noah's 1828 dictionary.
Arms, weapons of offense or armor for defense and protection of the body.
So. Cam Edwards asks, is Letitia James arguing that cannons and grenades are cool under the Second
Amendment? Of course not. Those are military arms, not meant for civilian hands.
Much like the body armor that's prohibited in New York. Letitia James also points out that at the
time of the founding, armor had fallen into disuse among the military and was virtually...
unheard of among the citizenry. No, it wasn't. Armor was something that was used all the way up
until the Revolutionary War. It was often made from leather and iron mixed together,
not to mention tightly woven fabric to give it some resilience and some resistance.
And the only reason that it had fallen into disfavor was because small units,
small, fast-moving units, began to be used more readily,
and the economists began to adopt tactics that the Native Americans did,
and the armor weighed them down. It had nothing to do with them not wanting to wear it.
Also, they had to keep adding more iron because of the... the power being increased in some of the
firearms and such, but it was not unheard of. So she also said,
soldiers of that era did not wear metal suits or chain mail.
I've already talked about what they wore. And the protective leather gear of that pre-Kevlar era
was notoriously ineffective against bullets, meaning civilians did not typically wear such body
protection either. No, the civilians did not. But the people of the militia,
the citizens, had it. They still had it. They just didn't wear it. I have body armor.
I don't wear it every freaking day. She said instead of referring to personal protective gear
analogous to modern body armor, the founders understood the term armor in entirely different
contexts. According to the Corpus data, armor typically referred to the protective gear worn by
knights, soldiers, or royalty in the distant past. That's not true. That's a lie,
and she knows it. Periods long before the founding era. Alternatively,
the term was used metaphorically. For instance, founding era texts frequently referenced the
religious armor of God used by believers to fight sin and Satan,
the secular emotional armor politicians adopt to debate opponents, or the physical characteristics
animals use to protect themselves, such as the armor of a hedgehog.
In total, the evidence from Corpus data makes clear that the word arms in the Second Amendment does
not include armor. One more time, you silly heifer. Arms,
Noah Webster's. Weapons of offense or armor for defense and protection of the body.
Cam continues, while James spends a lot of time on the linguistics of armor and whether or not it's
considered an arm, she completely ignores what the Supreme Court said in the Heller decision when
it defined arms. The 18th century meaning is no different from the meaning today.
The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined arms as,
quote, weapons of offense or armor for defense. Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal
dictionary defined arms as, quote, anything that a man wears for his defense or takes into his
hands or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.
By that metric, body armor is clearly an arm. James,
though, contends that even if that's true, body armor is dangerous and unusual and therefore
unprotected by the Second Amendment. How can a passive article worn for protection be dangerous and
unusual when it is, by nature, passive? Miss James says body armor is unusual because the vast
majority of sales are to military and law enforcement, and outside of those groups,
body armor is more typically purchased by armed guards, firefighters, and others in particular
professions rather than average citizens. Um, newsflash,
commie girl. All police, all armed guards,
all... are civilians.
You got that right. They're ordinary citizens just like the rest of us.
The only person and people that you can put into the category of non-civilian are military
personnel. Okay? Besides that, in this day and age,
Every retailer that supports this program that sells body armor has told me the overwhelming
majority of their sales of body armor are to citizens. Regular citizens,
non-law enforcement, non-specialty services. By the way,
why do these police and armed... and firefighters, why do they wear this body armor?
To defend themselves against criminals, the same ones that assail the citizens whom these body
armor wearing cops claim to be protecting and serving. Her explanation?
The Attorney General claims these items are dangerous because, quote, it constitutes an
unprecedented threat to law enforcement officers. Really?
How? And by the way, what about the people? Do they not deserve the same protection as law
enforcement officers, their fellow citizens? Are the people undeserving of such protection?
That is exactly what she is intimating. She also said,
modern ballistic body armor. a tactical asset originally engineered for the battlefield.
Well, then that means we have the right to have it. You know that, right, honey? You know the word
militia does have a military context, right? No, you don't know that,
obviously. Yeah, so we have a right to have it if it was a tactical asset originally engineered for
the battlefield. She said it's unusually dangerous. Precisely, listen to this part.
This is the best. You let these people have enough rope and they'll hang their stupid selves every
time. It's unusually dangerous precisely because it neutralizes the foundational premise of public
defense that the good guy with a gun, particularly a law enforcement officer,
can stop a bad guy with a gun. You just dug yourself a hole in this argument,
honey, not to mention buried yourself in any future discussions on the Second Amendment.
What about the good guys with the guns who don't wear badges? I tell you what.
Honey, you don't even believe in that premise of a good guy with a gun, and here you are defending
it. Oh, but you're referencing... police as the only ones capable of being good guys with guns.
That's not a mistake, by the way. She said it fundamentally alters the dynamic of armed
confrontation, transforming its wearer from a vulnerable participant into a fortified threat.
Well, number one, that's what groin and head shots are for. Second,
are you calling body armor wearing cops fortified threats? No,
of course not. James contends, said Mr. Edwards, that body armor has become an increasingly common
part of a mass shooter's toolkit. Is it not also a common part of the average civilian police
officer today?
pointing not only to the person behind the mass shooting at a Buffalo grocery store that led to New
York passing the body armor ban, but the man charged with murdering a Minnesota lawmaker and his
wife and critically injuring another as well. Here's the translation of that.
The people's right to wear body armor is contingent upon whether or not bad people have ever
misused it. That's the logic behind that. Cam continues,
the Supreme Court noted in Heller that handguns were a popular choice for criminals, but they were
also commonly possessed by lawful citizens and police officers. Even if a significant percentage of
the very small number of individuals interested in carrying out a mass shooting purchased body
armor, That alone is not enough to justify a ban on their use by most New Yorkers,
especially if body armor is a popular means of protection among law-abiding citizens as well.
And according to... This 2022 report by NPR,
National Public Radio, the civilian market is growing by leaps and bounds. Most of the companies,
oh, I'm sorry, I'm going to screw it on down here. It said many retailers said gun owners are the
most common return customer. They purchase body armor as an accessory to go with their weapon.
But there is growing popularity among people who just want a body shield.
to wear in everyday life, especially if they live in New York freaking city. Um,
let's see. Uh, Mr. Goldberg said of the national body armors customers, most people haven't worn
body armor before, and they just want to be able to wear something and feel comfortable. That is
that if they were to get shot with a handgun, they're going to be protected. What's wrong with
that? What is so horrible about somebody not wanting to be a, an easy pass-through shot for a 9mm.
If New York's gun control laws worked, as well as people like James claims that she likes to boast,
there'd be no need for a body armor ban because there'd be no demand for body armor in the first
place. Touché. Clearly, though, there is a market for these products that's far bigger than the
minuscule number of evil and deranged individuals intent on committing excuse me,
committing heinous crimes.
Let's see here. Also, she talked about how body armor is not in common use.
Well, it most certainly is. It's in common use in every police department across the country, and
civilians with body armor far outweigh the number of cops with body armor.
I'm going to scoot on down here. It says, The Supreme Court's definition of arms clearly
encompasses defensive articles like body armor. Bans on such items are nowhere to be found at the
time of the founding. And even today, the vast majority of states do not impose the kind of
prohibitions found in New York. Yeah, she didn't reference that as far as back at the founding era.
She didn't say they banned it. She just said, well, they didn't mention it, so it doesn't count.
He said they are in common use for lawful purposes, both in those eligible occupations that she
referenced, like security guards and paramedics, but also among the civilian population at large.
They're not inherently dangerous, though their use may aid dangerous individuals by making them
less susceptible to police firepower. Well, again, another good reason for all law enforcement
officers to train religiously for headshots and groin shots at distance, okay?
Let me give you the summary of Letitia James' position. You may not own or wear body armor to
protect yourself from the exact same criminals that cops wear body armor to protect themselves
from, and you must remain a defenseless victim-in-waiting at all times in order to protect...
officers. They, after all, or they're a higher, more protected class than the rest of you lowly
peons, and they're cut from a higher moral fabric than the rest of you. I'll tell you what.
Soon, the Islamofascists in New York are going to be taking advantage of this lack of body armor.
And matter of fact, a lot of them are already buying body armor because a lot of them have become
cops in New York and they've had it issued to them. Yeah. Matter of fact,
one sergeant. New York, she was wearing a burqa or hijab or whatever it is.
I don't know anything about Islamic fashion. She said, we have 1,200 Muslim officers,
10 in hijab. I guess that means standard Muslim garb, meaning 10 women cops.
I look forward to another 100,000 ladies wearing hijabs in the near future as NYPD.
Yeah, wearing hijabs and body armor and maybe a suicide vest or two also.
Because, yes, guns and armor are only for the upper crust of society.
That is, they who write the laws, they who pass the laws,
and they who enforce the laws against all of us lowly peons who are unworthy.
of personal defense items, such as body armor and guns.
The same ones that our fellow citizens in blue wearing badges, the same ones they carry,
the same stuff they wear, but they're a cut above the rest of us somehow.
Yeah. Arms for thee. I'm sorry, arms for me,
but not for thee. We're above you. Stay in contact with your reps,
stay armed up, stay trained up, stay stocked up, and never forget, incoming rounds always have the
right of way. Royce out.