In a first-of-its-kind Second Amendment victory, federal judge holds defensive body armor is constitutionally protected, grants FPC summary judgment, and orders permanent injunction against New York's unconstitutional ban.

BUFFALO, NY (October 21, 2026) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today a historic victory in Heeter v. James, securing the first known federal Second Amendment judgment striking down a general ban on the purchase of defensive body armor. In a sweeping 47-page decision, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York held that body armor is an “Arm” protected by the Second Amendment, granted FPC summary judgment, and permanently enjoined New York's unconstitutional restrictions on purchasing and selling protective armor.

U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. rejected New York's attempt to deny peaceable people the right to purchase protective equipment intended to stop bullets and save lives. The court concluded that New York had failed to establish any historical tradition supporting its unprecedented ban.

New York enacted its body armor restrictions in 2022, making it a crime for ordinary residents to purchase protective armor unless they work in a government-approved profession. The law also prohibited businesses from selling body armor to those residents. Violations could result in a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class E felony for subsequent offenses.

FPC brought its lawsuit in 2024 alongside FPC members Benjamin Heeter and Joseph Wurtenberg, who sought to purchase body armor for lawful self-defense but were prevented from doing so by the State's ban.

“This is another first-in-history win for FPC and a humiliating defeat for New York's authoritarian gun control regime,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Governor Hochul and Attorney General James actually made it a crime for peaceable people to buy body armor—equipment designed to stop bullets and save lives—and had the tyrannical audacity to call that ‘public safety.’ Not satisfied with banning guns, they tried to ban the means of surviving criminal gunfire, too. We said from the beginning that this immoral ban was absurd and unconstitutional. Then we backed that up with original historical research, took New York to federal court, and won. FPC has already made history defeating bans on protected arms like semiautomatic rifles, and now we're making history again by establishing that defensive body armor is protected by the Second Amendment. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward until every unconstitutional restriction on the People is eliminated.”

The court's ruling delivers a decisive rejection of New York's theory that the Second Amendment does not protect body armor. As Judge Sinatra explained, the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller expressly relied on founding-era definitions of “arms” that included both offensive weapons and defensive armor.

Indeed, the Supreme Court quoted an eighteenth-century dictionary defining arms as “[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.” Applying that constitutional analysis, the district court concluded that body armor falls within the Second Amendment's protection. The court expressly rejected New York's attempt to exclude body armor from the constitutional definition of “arms,” observing that founding-era Americans understood the term to include defensive armor.

New York also failed to justify its ban through historical tradition. Rather than identify an American tradition of prohibiting peaceable people from acquiring defensive armor, the State relied on restrictions imposed by English monarchs and medieval laws enacted centuries before the American founding.

The court rejected those arguments, observing that New York could not identify a single post-ratification body armor regulation to support its position. It described the State's prohibition as a “novel outlier unsupported by any mainstream tradition.”

The court also rejected New York's efforts to characterize body armor as “dangerous and unusual.” The opinion recognized substantial evidence of modern civilian ownership and sales, and noted that 49 other states do not impose comparable general body armor bans. As the court explained, New York failed to offer evidence establishing that protective armor was not in common use.

In rejecting New York's arguments, the court emphasized the constitutional protection afforded to Americans seeking to protect themselves from violence: “Body armor—in some form—has been available to citizens throughout American history, and the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to purchase it for self-defense—the core right protected by the Second Amendment.”

This historic ruling adds another major first to FPC's record of groundbreaking Second Amendment victories. In 2021, FPC secured the first federal district court Second Amendment victory against an “assault weapon” ban in Miller v. Bonta. In 2022, FPC secured a groundbreaking injunction in Rigby v. Jennings, protecting the right to manufacture one's own firearms, followed by a September 2026 merits victory striking down Delaware's bans on possessing and making self-built firearms. In 2025, FPC's Nguyen v. Bonta victory against California's one-gun-per-month purchase ban resulted in the Ninth Circuit's first final judgment striking down a law under the Second Amendment. And in July 2026, FPC secured the nation's first federal appellate victory striking down an “assault weapon” ban on common semiautomatic rifles in the en banc Third Circuit's decision in Cheeseman v. Davenport. Now, Heeter establishes another historic precedent protecting the People's right to acquire defensive arms.

FPC has also led the fight against the wave of unconstitutional public carry restrictions enacted in defiance of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. Beginning in 2022, FPC secured injunctions against New York's post-Bruen bans on carrying firearms in places of worship and on publicly accessible private property in Hardaway v. Bruen and Christian v. James. FPC went on to secure major injunctions against New Jersey's carry-ban scheme in Koons v. Davenport, Maryland's restrictions in Novotny v. Moore, and California's SB 2 carry bans in Carralero v. Bonta. Those fights have also produced important appellate victories, including the Second Circuit's May 2026 decision striking down New York's presumptive ban on carrying firearms on publicly accessible private property and rulings against portions of New Jersey's and Maryland's carry bans.

The Heeter decision further vindicates FPC's deliberate strategy of combining original historical research with aggressive constitutional litigation. Before filing the lawsuit, FPC commissioned research examining the longstanding American tradition of possessing and wearing protective armor. That research, subsequently published by Joseph G.S. Greenlee as The Tradition of Armor Use and Regulation in America, was expressly cited by the court in its opinion.

The court also rejected New York's efforts to prevent FPC and its members from challenging the law. It held that Heeter and Wurtenberg had standing to sue without first risking criminal prosecution and recognized FPC's standing to vindicate the constitutionally protected rights of its members.

The decision permanently enjoins enforcement of New York's restrictions on purchasing and selling body armor. The court granted the State a 14-day stay pending appeal but expressly rejected the argument that New York was likely to succeed on the merits of any appeal. The injunction does not affect separate laws prohibiting the use of body armor while committing violent crimes.

The Heeter victory is another major result of FPC's sustained nationwide campaign to eliminate unconstitutional arms bans. That fight will reach the nation's highest court in December when the Supreme Court hears oral argument in FPC's Viramontes v. Cook County challenge to bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles.

From original historical scholarship to landmark federal district court and appellate victories, FPC continues to build precedent, defeat unconstitutional laws, and restore the People's right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States.

FPC thanks attorney Nicolas J. Rotsko of Fluet for his work representing FPC and its members in this important case. FPC also thanks Cody Wisniewski and FPC Action Foundation, as well as Pete Patterson and William Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, for their strategic support.

FPC further thanks its Grassroots Army members and supporters for making these victories possible. Individuals who want to join FPC and support its lawsuits, research, and other programs to restore liberty can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that exists to create a world of maximal individual liberty and eliminate unconstitutional gun control laws. FPC works—and wins—for the People through high-impact strategic litigation, groundbreaking research, legislative and regulatory advocacy, grassroots activism, education, and public engagement. FPC’s legal division, FPC Law, is the nation’s leading initiative dedicated to restoring the right to keep and bear arms across the United States. To learn more about how FPC is working—and winning—for the People, sign up for FPC news alerts at firearmspolicy.org and follow FPC on X, Instagram, and Facebook.