Illegal to own a bullet proof vest

81

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_ ... roof_vests

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a challenge against a federal law making it illegal for criminals to own bulletproof vests. The appeal had questioned Congress' lawmaking ability under the Commerce Clause.

The high court refused to hear arguments from Cedrick B. Alderman, who was convicted under a federal law making it illegal for convicted criminals to own body armor that has been sold across state lines.

Congress passed that law in 2002, citing its authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce.

Alderman was convicted of armed robbery in 1999. Police caught him with a bulletproof vest in 2005, and he was sentenced to prison for 18 months.

Alderman challenged the law, saying it exceeded Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld the conviction and sentence.

The Supreme Court refused to hear Alderman's appeal.

Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia said they would have heard the case.

Not hearing the case "threatens the proper limits on Congress' commerce power and may allow Congress to exercise police powers that our Constitution reserves to the states," Thomas said.

The case is Alderman v. United States, 09-1555.

BinauralJam

illegal to smoke weed, but i.....you get my drift.

JOEJOEJOE

This is a difficult topic.

I wonder if a convicted criminal woul base his/her decision to re-offend on whether or not they could use body armor when committing a crime.

Do crimimals try and predict the probability of getting killed when deciding whether or not to committ a crime?

Interesting case!

81

Makes no sense. I get that felons can't own guns. That makes sense, at least in relation to those that have committed a violent crime (robbery, beating, etc). But to now allow them to buy a bullet proof vest which is used for protection and nothing else. Makes no sense to me.

Godfather.

he is a covicted felon....what on earth would he be doing with a bullet proof vest ?

Godfather.

81

protecting himself i would guess.

Godfather.

81 wrote:

protecting himself i would guess.

maybe from a cops gun while he robs a bank or a liquor store ?


Godfather.

Nothingman54

Yeah that's crazy. Iv come up with a design for a "bullet proof" vest. It's very high tech. NOTHING will be able to touch you. Now iv got to build it....

keeponrockin

Wait. What the fuck. Citizens can own guns (a weapon) to 'protect themselves' but they can't own something that can ACTUALLY protect you and doesn't harm anyone else.

81

keeponrockin wrote:

Wait. What the fuck. Citizens can own guns (a weapon) to 'protect themselves' but they can't own something that can ACTUALLY protect you and doesn't harm anyone else.

they can, if they haven't been convicted of a crime.

JOEJOEJOE

keeponrockin wrote:

Wait. What the fuck. Citizens can own guns (a weapon) to 'protect themselves' but they can't own something that can ACTUALLY protect you and doesn't harm anyone else.

It harms others in the sense that it may give a criminal more protection while committing a crime.

keeponrockin

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

Wait. What the fuck. Citizens can own guns (a weapon) to 'protect themselves' but they can't own something that can ACTUALLY protect you and doesn't harm anyone else.

It harms others in the sense that it may give a criminal more protection while committing a crime.

I agree that one with a bulletproof vest (a criminal) PROBABLY doesn't have the best intentions... However, I'm not sure it sits right with me.

JOEJOEJOE

keeponrockin wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

Wait. What the fuck. Citizens can own guns (a weapon) to 'protect themselves' but they can't own something that can ACTUALLY protect you and doesn't harm anyone else.

It harms others in the sense that it may give a criminal more protection while committing a crime.

I agree that one with a bulletproof vest (a criminal) PROBABLY doesn't have the best intentions... However, I'm not sure it sits right with me.

They could grant special permits for those who really need protection, just like they do for concealed weapons.

Cosmo

North Hollywood Bank of America, circa 1997.
That's my arguement why non-military/non-police should not have body armour.

JOEJOEJOE

Cosmo wrote:

North Hollywood Bank of America, circa 1997.
That's my arguement why non-military/non-police should not have body armour.

I vividly remember that day.......seemed surreal!

Godfather.

Cosmo wrote:

North Hollywood Bank of America, circa 1997.
That's my argument why non-military/non-police should not have body Armour.

I always wondered why a head shot wasn't taken right away. but yes i would agree with you
at least not with out a special permit,

Godfather.

Cosmo

Godfather. wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

North Hollywood Bank of America, circa 1997.
That's my argument why non-military/non-police should not have body Armour.

I always wondered why a head shot wasn't taken right away. but yes i would agree with you
at least not with out a special permit,

Godfather.

...
Because, it is extremely difficult to make a head shot with a 9mm pistol when there is an incoming barrage of automatic gunfire. Some of the loads were armor piercing rounds that passed through the engine blocks of LAPD cruisers. SWAT did not arrive on-scene until 20 minutes into the firefight... and SWAT eventually took out the second gunman.