TexasCHLforum.com

Instead of outlawing type 3 body armour they should provide a penalty for using it while committing a crime.

MeMelYup wrote:Instead of outlawing type 3 body armour they should provide a penalty for using it while committing a crime.

Wasn't there a penalty for the original crime? It apparently didn't stop them from committing that crime.

I don't see the logic. It should be mandated that a criminal make it easier for himself to be killed if he fails to obey the law?

To me that makes about as much sense as thinking that a criminal will avoid carrying a firearm into a gun free zone because of the penalty for breaking that law, when they're going to commit a crime that has a penalty of 25 to life... or the death penalty.

clarionite wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Instead of outlawing type 3 body armour they should provide a penalty for using it while committing a crime.

Wasn't there a penalty for the original crime? It apparently didn't stop them from committing that crime.

I don't see the logic. It should be mandated that a criminal make it easier for himself to be killed if he fails to obey the law?

To me that makes about as much sense as thinking that a criminal will avoid carrying a firearm into a gun free zone because of the penalty for breaking that law, when they're going to commit a crime that has a penalty of 25 to life... or the death penalty.

It won't stop a criminal. Why should I be penalized for something a criminal might wear? If I own such an item why should I be made a criminal without committing a criminal act?

MeMelYup wrote:

clarionite wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Instead of outlawing type 3 body armour they should provide a penalty for using it while committing a crime.

Wasn't there a penalty for the original crime? It apparently didn't stop them from committing that crime.

I don't see the logic. It should be mandated that a criminal make it easier for himself to be killed if he fails to obey the law?

To me that makes about as much sense as thinking that a criminal will avoid carrying a firearm into a gun free zone because of the penalty for breaking that law, when they're going to commit a crime that has a penalty of 25 to life... or the death penalty.

It won't stop a criminal. Why should I be penalized for something a criminal might wear? If I own such an item why should I be made a criminal without committing a criminal act?

I agree with you. I'm saying that either law is ridiculous. Why should law abiding citizens be restricted from protecting themselves in the manner that they choose? Especially in a manner that causes no harm what so ever to any other person.

However, there is an exception to the bill. The bill reads all body armor will be illegal to possess unless the person in question is a government employee. All personnel who work for the various government agencies, departments, or “political subdivisions” are exempt from this potential new law as the bill is currently written.

If our government is not preparing to go to war with its citizens, it sure is trying to look like it.

Yea, I don't like the different "classes" thing either.

98% opposed on popvox.

VoiceofReason wrote:However, there is an exception to the bill. The bill reads all body armor will be illegal to possess unless the person in question is a government employee. All personnel who work for the various government agencies, departments, or “political subdivisions” are exempt from this potential new law as the bill is currently written.

If our government is not preparing to go to war with its citizens, it sure is trying to look like it.

So, if I get a job with the FDA I can legally possess body armor? And I don't have to work for one of the law enforcement agencies?

C-dub wrote: So, if I get a job with the FDA I can legally possess body armor? And I don't have to work for one of the law enforcement agencies?

I'd say that you could get a job sweeping roads for the City and you're protected.. :-)

Doesn't say "federal' government.

cb1000rider wrote:

C-dub wrote: So, if I get a job with the FDA I can legally possess body armor? And I don't have to work for one of the law enforcement agencies?

I'd say that you could get a job sweeping roads for the City and you're protected.. :-)

Doesn't say "federal' government.

Woohoo, street sweeper here I come. Or maybe even trash collector. Those guys might need it more than a street sweeper.

clarionite wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Instead of outlawing type 3 body armour they should provide a penalty for using it while committing a crime.

Wasn't there a penalty for the original crime? It apparently didn't stop them from committing that crime.

I don't see the logic. It should be mandated that a criminal make it easier for himself to be killed if he fails to obey the law?

To me that makes about as much sense as thinking that a criminal will avoid carrying a firearm into a gun free zone because of the penalty for breaking that law, when they're going to commit a crime that has a penalty of 25 to life... or the death penalty.

It would be an add-on charge that would hopefully increase the criminal's vacation in the greybar hotel.

C-dub wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:However, there is an exception to the bill. The bill reads all body armor will be illegal to possess unless the person in question is a government employee. All personnel who work for the various government agencies, departments, or “political subdivisions” are exempt from this potential new law as the bill is currently written.

If our government is not preparing to go to war with its citizens, it sure is trying to look like it.

So, if I get a job with the FDA I can legally possess body armor? And I don't have to work for one of the law enforcement agencies?

Go with the USDA. I heard those folks got some cool 40 Cal submachine guns....

C-dub wrote: Woohoo, street sweeper here I come. Or maybe even trash collector. Those guys might need it more than a street sweeper.

I was in just for the post-retirement health care. Now that there is a body-armor bonus, I'm going to have to start the job search...