Is Body Armor Legal In Your State?

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights says, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Apparently, the Connecticut legislature does not include body armor as a type of “arms” or if they do, they just don’t care about the Constitution. You see, Public Act 98-127 criminalizes the transaction of body armor unless done face to face. In other words, if you live in Connecticut, you can’t buy body armor online or via a catalog (Military members, Law Enforcement, Judges excepted). New York is following suit and has legislation drafted to prohibit armor as well. New Jersey? Virginia? California? Texas? Who’s next?

If you’ve been paying attention at all, you already know that erosion of the 2nd Amendment is nothing new. So, what about the other 49 states? Still LEGAL (for now).

The Federal Government has prohibited the possession of body armor for convicted violent felons. However, there are a few exceptions: If you have a justifiable need for occupation or personal safety. If this exception might apply to you, you need a note from your employer and you need to petition the local sheriff or police chief for an exception- otherwise it could land you in jail for 3 years and a hefty fine.

Okay, so you don’t live in Connecticut, you’re not a felon, can you own body armor and buy it online or over the phone? Legally, yes. But not every dealer or manufacturer will sell to civilians. Lawyers, liability, and lawsuits waiting to happen… Fortunately, there’s still one company who manufactures body armor in Texas who will sell to civilians (and police too) without a background check. Enter, Infidel Body Armor, LLC. Infidel is becoming more well known and had their first-ever appearance at the 2014 Shot Show in Las Vegas. Their armor surpasses the minimum standards set forth by the National Institute of Justice and stops not only SIX rounds from a .308, but HUNDREDS of rounds from .308, 7.62×39 and 5.56 and more. How do they do it? The secret is not so secret.

If you’ve been thinking about body armor to complement your security and defense, you need to understand a little about what armor can and can’t do, as well as the ratings that go along with them. Armor falls into two broad categories: Pistol armor and Rifle armor. Pistol armor is usually soft and lightweight (that’s what’s worn by most patrol cops today) and is rated as either Level II or IIIa. The rifle armor is ridged and heavier (worn by military and SWAT police) and gets a rating of III or IV. Level III rifle armor will stop pistol rounds in addition to at least 6 hits from a .308 FMJ (7.62 NATO) at 50 feet. The Level IV armor only has to stop ONE round from an Armor Piercing 30 caliber rifle at 50 feet (it may not stop the six 7.62 NATO rounds that the level III can).

Confused yet? It gets worse. The rifle armor is tested only against the specified rounds- not every round that’s out there. So, not all armor is created equal or will stop the same bullets. Independent testing and reviews show that Infidel Armor, in addition to stopping the common 7.62 NATO, can stop hundreds of hits from lots of other rifles like the AK-47, AR-15, 12-gauge slugs, 30-06, and more. What’s more, is that the shrapnel produced from a bullet impacting the armor is trapped in their special polymer coating. Otherwise, bullet shrapnel and ceramic could impact your neck and appendages, leading to secondary injuries and/or death. Wow! Pretty important decision.

Why not just go with E-SAPI plates that the military uses? For one, you can only get them ILLEGALLY at gun shows and who knows how old they are and what condition they are in. Even if you knew they were in good condition (you can’t unless you X-Ray them), they really aren’t the best solution for civilians. Why you ask? The US Military has a bit more of a budget than you and the plates they purchase are designed to be replaced every few years even if they don’t get struck with a bullet. If they do get struck, they are designed to break on impact and become worthless after the first hit. Infidel plates, are designed with the civilian in mind who can’t afford or possibly just can’t replace his armor after an impact. What’s the cost difference? Try $1,200 for the SAPIs vs. $295 for Infidel’s! That can’t be right you say. But it’s true. Let the government overpay for armor that’s designed to break after being hit, but you’re smarter, you know that you can get better protection at a lower price. In fact, Infidel has a whole set up with a plate carrier (vest) and armor for just $375 (if you are okay with a Chinese plate carrier). I’m opting for their Bellator carrier (MADE IN THE USA) for just a few bucks more (got to support Americans).

In sum, body armor may not always be legal or readily available for Joe Six-pack to purchase. You still have time and you still have choices. My pick is Infidel Body Armor What’s yours?

Written by Chad Cooper.

35 Responses to Is Body Armor Legal In Your State?

  1. Bruce says:

    Huh? The authors of the Bill of Rights had no clue what body armor was, how could they possibly include that in the Second Amendment?

    I suppose you are one of those that think you don’t need a drivers license either because it doesn’t say so in the Constitution?

    • exjarhead says:

      You’re right. It’s not in the Constitution. They do give us the right to bear arms to protect yourself. Do you really need someone to write specifics in a document before you deem it applicable to apply to yourself?
      Self defense isn’t a right. It’s human nature.

      • Barry W says:

        The only reason the Supreme Court has prevented states and the fed from controlling your gun rights has been the wording of the 2nd Amendment. If something is admittedly not in the 2nd Amendment, it would seem that there would be no 2nd Amendment right. I actually came to this site to see if there were any authority that armor was included within the definition. I didn’t know if this site was pro or con, I just wanted the information.

        Although the author says the states are degrading his 2nd Amendment rights, if something isn’t covered under the 2nd Amendment, it isn’t degrading the right to regulate that item.

        If there just aren’t enough mass shootings to justify new gun regulations, then there aren’t enough to justify people putting on armor before going to the movies or the mall.

        I just see these types of items as making it easier to do more harm when harm is done. The availability of armor didn’t make any difference in Aurora, Co. No one had any because despite the chance, they aren’t paranoid.

        And, yes, I expect a lot of negative comments from this post, even though I support gun rights.

        • MIKEL says:

          The 2nd Amendment does not speak of regulating the militia in the sense of the government regulating or making policy toward the militia.

          The word regulated means “How much” or “amount of” as in, “How much hot and cold water do you want in your bath?” That is “Regulating” the water.


          And the question is answered in that, “How much?” well, “WELL”

          A WELL REGULATED which means, “as many people as are able”

          That is what is necessary to the security of a free state.

          The Right of the people to keep(to own) and to bear(to carry) arms shall not be infringed!!!

          IF we change this to the way the Government and the left is interpreting this here goes…..

          A militia with many federal laws making it pointless, being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep (which means nothing really) and bear (which means to hold) arms (which means a sling shot with no rubber band) shall not be overburdened…. too much.”

          • Rob says:

            And just what militia are you a part of? You’re not? I didn’t think so. So here’s an easy fix for you to “regulate” If you want to buy this stuff then you have to serve. If you want to go waving that 2nd Amendment over your head, do it while actually serving in a militia.

          • Ken says:

            Rob….. I did serve, but it is irrelevant. The very idea of government is irrelevant, as is the constitution. Nobody has the right to rule you, or me, despite what politicians say.

            As an individual, I don’t have the right to steal from you, initiate force against you or pretty much do anything to you. I cannot DELEGATE that right to someone else, because I don’t have that right to begin with. That’s why NO group of people have the right to “vote” to have someone else steal from me, initiate force against me or anything else. You can’t vote to give someone a right you don’t yourself possess.

            That’s why the very idea of government is in direct contradiction with being human. Nobody has the right to rule another human being.

            Few people bother to ponder that reality

        • Target says:

          Hey I am 18 years old living in Texas and my dad recently ordered me a plate carrier with full plates and a friend of mine pointed out it was illegal to purchase armor until you are 21 but I didn’t know if it was legal to posses it at the age of 18? Anyone know if it’s legal?

        • Bryce says:

          The purpose of the second amendment was not to give us a right but to protect our right. Read the 9th amendment. We all start with rights and the government can only take our rights away. So it comes down to: how much freedom do you want? And does a law against body armor make the purpose of defending liberty more difficult and thereby oppose the spirit behind the second amendment? I’d say yes.

      • MIKEL says:

        The fact that it is human nature MAKES IT A RIGHT.

    • Damian says:

      No clue what body armor was? Ever hear of a Knight in Shining armor? Or a roman shield? But General George Washington had no clue of such thing is what you are saying? That as technology grew so would the peoples need to grow with its new possible foes? To be able to Defend. Properly. Effectively. For real.

      • Kek says:

        They didn’t quite have anything that they where willing to wear to stop bullets back then, and I doubt that body armor was the first thing on our founding father’s minds when they where stuck in a sweltering hot room. I don’t believe in the relegation of weapons, nor armor from civilians, but I can understand those that do– “When is the average Joe going to need it?” Which is an understandable question.

        • Robin W. Tong says:

          You are a completely ignorant fool.

          All throughout the medieval ages and culminating in the 15th and 16th centuries (hundreds of years before the American Revolution and the ratification of our Constitution and Bill of Rights) the most renown artisan blacksmiths made custom armor for nobles and aristocrats by making BULLET PROOF armor from alloys of bronze and iron and also made from new discoveries in producing limited amounts of carbon steel.

          Due to the expense and rarity of both the artisan skill as well as difficulty in producing or procuring any quantity of carbon steel and blended alloys, such armor was only available to the most wealthy of nobles and aristocrats whom could afford it and was rarely available to the middle class freemen or lower class peasants whom served as recruits and conscripts during the medieval ages.

          Such armor was distinct from other armors during that era, as in addition to a makers mark, the armor also bore a dent from having been fired upon at short range or point blank range with a 50ish caliber musket ball with a double or even triple measure of powder as proof of its high quality and capability of stopping musket balls on the battlefield.

          To say that they didn’t have anything capable of stopping bullets back then, or for others to say that General Washington or any of the other founding fathers had no concept of body armor, is complete and willful ignorance.

          During our Revolutionary War and our Civil War, do you know what was commonly used by some conscripts and impoverished soldiers? Hand carved and plained 2 inch thick and 3 inch thick slabs of iron wood or whatever the densest hardwood available to a dirt poor conscript was, reinforcing cast iron pans or cast iron lids or scraps of bronze worn under garments over the heart and chest area. Often frowned upon or forbidden as they were cumbersome if worn during forced road marches they were excellent protection against bayonets and hastily fired musket balls fired with damp powder or partial measures of powder, and although often times would not completely stop musket balls fired at close range or point blank range with a full measure or double measure of powder, would often times deflect or help minimize the catastrophic trauma of belly and chest wounds by slowing and absorbing the worst of the kinetic impact of the musket balls and keeping them from blowing a hole completely through a mans body the size of a baseball.

          If you read historical reports of that era, you will even discover that in addition to thick slabs of dense hardwoodsand any cast iron, bronze, or scrap metal that could be bought, stolen, or scavenged, if nothing else could be had soldiers would keep a large bound Bible or any other thick book that could be had over their hearts. And their are numerous historical reports that the only thing that kept some soldiers alive when they were shot in battle was their faith in god and their Bible.

          Some of you are completely and willfully ignorant fools spouting crap and bulls~~t not knowing what the hell you are talking about as you try to justify your political ideology whilst attempting to demonize opposing points of view.

          Our founding fathers knew full well what body armor was when the 2nd Amendment was drafted and ratified.

          Robin W. Tong

          • Mike Green says:

            Great post,Robin!Even for. those who don’t read or. educate themselves,the suits of armor made of metal date back to medieval times.This shows that the concept of self-protection with heavy metal cover was clearly understood since early man went into battle….For you movie buffs,recall the final shootout in “Fistful of Dollars” where Clint makes his own bulletproof vest!Like you said,people want to talk but they have nothing intelligent to offer to the conversation.

        • Mike Green says:

          Have you ever read a “book” or did some research on a topic before you entered into the conversation?……..No.

        • Miltiadem says:

          They have had bullet proof armor since the gun was invented. The Chinese/Japanese used paper with ceramic plates and the Spanish used a copper/bronze plate in between two steel plates of a breastplate.

          During the English Civil War Oliver Cromwell’s Ironside cavalry were equipped with Capeline helmets and musket-proof cuirasses which consisted of two layers of armor plate (in later studies involving X-ray a third layer was discovered which was placed in between the outer and inner layer).

    • Redbeard says:

      It actually does say it in the constitution, because the point of the second amendment was so civilians (like the Colonials) would have equal access to any of the same armaments as those their (or any other) government might use against them. Keep in mind the what they had just dealt with, at the time. Any impliment of war is considered armament, which is arms, for short. Besides, since when did it become okay for everyone to be considered guilty before a crime is even committed? Anything the government says is illegal to possess assumes that a crime will be committed while possessing that item. If I want to buy a select fire H&K 416, MP5SD, integrally suppressed Sniper rifle,a rocket launcher, case of grenades, and a Glock 18 to go along with my body armor, why can’t I? Because the government has assumed that if I own those things, I’m going to use them to commit a crime. Really? Full auto and explosives aside (even though that is what would be required to stand a chance against up to date equipped military forces,just like the colonials had to face), they are afraid civilians can’t own suppressors for hearing protection, or short barreled weapons for easier handicapped use (or even just because they’really cool!), WITHOUT nefarious illegal intent. And the people have put up with that shit for 81 years, now. Personally, I think that’s about as unconstitutional as it gets.

    • jon says:

      Here is one….BODY ARMOR CAN NOT HURT ANYONE THE ONLY THING IT CAN DO IS PROTECT THE WEARER. How the (*$^%# is this even a debate? This is CLEARLY Government overreach. Yeah, if you are committing violent crimes and wearing a bulletproof vest….ill vote a stiffer sentence. Otherwise

    • Sov Wil says:

      Considering the internet and movies weren’t mentioned in the First Amendment, I’ll guess you just like to have inconsistent opinions and be intellectually dishonest in general.

    • Edwin says:

      Ct body armor laws.

      (Illegal Sale of Body Armor)
      In Connecticut, it is a class B misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, to sell or deliver body armor unless the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the sale or delivery.

      The term (DELIVERY) is used only for CT sellers, businesses and individuals all who want to sell and pay for postage to deliver their product within the country of CT which is Illegal to do but not Illegal unless face to face. ** UPS and USPS will never get in trouble for something the seller paid for to get delivered.

      That said, the statue does not say anything about (buyers) living in Ct buying from outside sources out of state. It only talks about (sellers) within CT.

      The statue does not say anything about out of state businesses, sellers or persons. Also does not state anything about a (buyer) buying from out of state suppliers which are not part of Ct so, Ct law does not apply to them nor them paying UPS OR USPS to deliver their product from within their state laws and not selling from within CT. If they didn’t pay the postage in CT to get their product delivered, the law does not apply to them.

      The (buyer) which the statue doesn’t say anything about has all the right to buy from out of state and online in Ct as long as the seller within CT Does not pay postage to deliver without face to face contact.

      The law exempts sales or deliveries from CT sellers wanting to pay postage to deliver to:

      1. authorized officials or sworn members of local police departments, the State Police, the Division of Criminal Justice, the Department of Correction, or the Board or Pardons or Parole;

      2. authorized municipal or Department of Administrative Services’ officials who buy body armor for the above agencies;

      3. authorized Judicial Branch officials who buy body armor for probation officers; and

      4. members of the National Guard or armed forces (CGS § 53-341b).

    • Carol says:

      Drivers license is a privilege not a right. Not at all the same thing. Should we all be able to buy tanks and nuclear materials to protect ourselves? How about missles. Ridiculous!

      • BlindShooterEngineering says:

        you are my friend. the worst kind of idiot. the kind who thinks they are right. with no reason behind it

      • Mike Green says:

        How does a purchase of a bulletproof vest endanger you personally,Carol?If someone wants to protect themselves from external violence,how does that affect you?It is a case of You infringing on that person’s rights.I’m sure that your liberal mindset says that protesting publicly is your “right”!That same protest could easily escalate into violence….so innocent bystanders can become victims of “your right”…..think about how you infringe on others before you get self-righteous!

    • Jason says:

      I suppose every single moronic antigun biggot is one of those who believes that the first amendment only covers feather quills, parchment, and 18th century style printing presses.

      Also Mormonism and The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the people who call themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses) didnt exist back then when the constitution was written….so I suppose anti-gun biggots think that the first amendment shouldn’t apply to those religions.

  2. KemW says:

    In Oregon, anyone can purchase and use Body Armor, unless he or she has been convicted of a felony

  3. Witheld says:

    Body armor is a normal part of a soldier’s wardrobe. Remember the militia are the defacto army of a free society. It’s best to stick together and not to concentrate too much on extreme anti-second amendment laws.

    In some cases, move states.

    • Jason says:

      Body Armor is a good thing for security gaurds, armored car drivers, and Truck Drivers to have.

      The security gaurd even if UNARMED is the first guy whos going to get shot in a mass shooting situation. If your going to pass a law how about exempting ALL security gaurds and truck drivers? Nope…liberal morons are to stupid to think about that.

      How many truck drivers have been murdered hmm? Lots. A $100,000 vehicle that transports up to hundreds of thousands of dollars of product….truckers should be armed and allowed vests I tell you whst. Furthermore a class 3 vest and a kevlar helmet would protect truck drivers in an accident wouldnt they.

      Buying body armor isnt about being paranoid or nuts and only a complete moron wouldn’t be able to figure that out.

  4. Niko Bellick says:

    Infidel is great but on the more expensive side when compared to other companies. I have ordered a set of level IIIA front and back plates with anti spalling coating and carrier for about 350 with tax. The carrier included with it also includes a cummerbund and side pockets if you want to pick up side plates later on. There is a 10 week lead time but it’s the exact same thing produced in Phoenix. Either way Hard armor is a must in my mind, not going to have a Corpsman or Trauma unit on hand nor a medivac when SHTF.

  5. Tonky says:

    I’m planning a trip to the movies next week and would like to go suitably dressed. Any recommendations for body armor that is effective as well as being comfortable to wear in a movie theater (or the Opera, which i visit occasionally).

  6. Rey says:

    Anyone know of a local militia in Washington state west side, Thurston, Lewis counties? Thanks in advance.

  7. Alan says:

    Rey the Militia in reference to the 2nd amend. is you and all men in the state of Washington and all states included in the United States. However, the state isn’t going to buy or give you anything nor are they coordinated enough to realize they themselves (aka lawmakers) also are a part of said Militia. In this Country We are the kings not the Government or the lawmakers in Washington. We have an outside thrust agenda from within Nato and Nato countries to push americans into a submissive account and its civilians to comply with outside international laws. Your Idiot lawmakers are limped dicked and the idiots inside our country who know nothing about rights wish to demand that all citizens become submissive to the Governing body. I for one Served and I for one say you wont get my weapon not at least while I’m alive. Americans who would vote for anything Obama or Clinton simply is against the constitution and the founding fathers who fought and died for their rights to live free. Carol state its ridiculous for someone to own a tank, however I bet if some foreign country slipped into our country to over throw it she would tuck tail and wonder why someone else isn’t protecting her. Typical loud mouths always push to get rid of self protection while its calm and safe but totally lack the ability to see that freedom comes at a price but most americans don’t pay with their own lives but always expect another to do it for them. Carol I for one wish people like you who lack understanding of what freedom is all about and who is the actual governing body of this country, would stand a post in Iraq and shut up till you spill a little of your own blood for this country before you say ridiculous. I’m betting those who rely on the government for protection don’t even realize what protection means! Enough said..To my brothers in arms I wish you well.

  8. Caleb says:

    This is insane. If they do not allow the armor then perhaps they can provide them armor. I would be concerned if you can’t buy body armor or bullet proof vest then how can you deflect projectiles and bullets. I guess everyone has to dodge bullets like its a normal thing. Armor protects us from tyranny under this status,we the people will not be violated.
    Everyone should have either a plate vest, kevlar vest or some type of chest armor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *