There is a bill introduced in the House that would ban the sale, ownership, or possession of 'enhanced body armor. It's not a long bill.
It does exempt current owners and government employees. Also, it defines 'enhanced body armor' thusly:
Type III armor protects from intermediate to full powered rifle rounds of the non-armor piercing design, up to 7.62x51 NATO (M80 Ball). Type I to type IIIA don't offer effective protection from almost any rifle rounds at all (besides .22LR).
I'm unsure what to make of this. What is the point? Is this a problem worth addressing? Is there fear of more North Hollywood gunman situations, rogue militia uprisings, or, something? The North Hollywood gunmen layered protection and home-made a lot of it. Would this bill make home armor that does happen to stand up to 7.62x51 illegal? Should the Hyneman stop working on next gen pikecreate-aluminum-portland cement body armor?
It does exempt current owners and government employees. Also, it defines 'enhanced body armor' thusly:
Quote:
``(36) The term `enhanced body armor' means body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.''. |
Type III armor protects from intermediate to full powered rifle rounds of the non-armor piercing design, up to 7.62x51 NATO (M80 Ball). Type I to type IIIA don't offer effective protection from almost any rifle rounds at all (besides .22LR).
I'm unsure what to make of this. What is the point? Is this a problem worth addressing? Is there fear of more North Hollywood gunman situations, rogue militia uprisings, or, something? The North Hollywood gunmen layered protection and home-made a lot of it. Would this bill make home armor that does happen to stand up to 7.62x51 illegal? Should the Hyneman stop working on next gen pikecreate-aluminum-portland cement body armor?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1vDTX7p
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire