Position: Opposed

Summary: Would ban the purchase, ownership, or possession of "enhanced body armor" by civilians, with exceptions.

  • Would allow for keeping enhanced body armor that was lawfully possessed by any person at any time before the date this section takes effect.
  • 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.
  • Being a federal felony, violators would be fined, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
  • Exempts current and former law enforcement officers, an Equal Protection discrimination issue.
  • Exempts any U.S. government agency or department.


In a time rife with rioting, looting, and civil unrest, the brilliant minds in Congress are running with what they think is the perfect solution for too many people being shot and killed: ban body armor. You know, the thing that is used to reduce the chance of being killed if shot. As discussed here and elsewhere, the Second Amendment is about more than guns. Bearing arms covers many types of weapons, gear, activities, and so on which were not available at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.

This bill is nothing more than the goalpost being moved again, a constant erosion of confiscating The Peoples' rights and property. It's part of a continuous effort to make us soft, compliant targets. Further, the hypocritical title of the bill touts it as being "responsible" for civilians to not own body armor unless you're in law enforcement (or have been), yet nationwide we're seeing protests and violence in response to some law enforcement officers being irresponsible. To imply that it's irresponsible for us to have modern tools and use them for our family's safety is preposterous and un-American.

Congress has a rich history of incrementally working towards disarming us and taking our once-lawfully-owned property away, by the stroke of a pen and a healthy campaign of fear mongering. HR4568 is another attempt to accomplish that goal, same as this 2015 attempt featuring the same title and nearly identical text. This political hot potato gets shuffled around from Congressional session to session, and one of these years, they may get enough traction to pass it. So regardless of how likely it is that this bill will pass, we need to remind our representatives that this concept should be wholly rejected, the only acceptable amendment here is a withdrawal of this attack of personal defense as a natural birthright.


Using the form below, contact your Congressional Representatives and let them know you oppose this infringement!