HR-3398-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Timothy Kennedy (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would make it a federal crime for civilians to buy, own, or possess "enhanced body armor," defined as armor, including helmets or shields, that meets or exceeds the RF1 rifle-threat level under the National Institute of Justice standard. Government agencies, current and retired qualified law enforcement officers, and corrections officers would be exempt, as would armor lawfully possessed before the law takes effect. A knowing violation would carry a fine, up to 5 years in prison, or both.
Who benefits
Communities and potential victims of mass shootings, where supporters say fewer attackers would have rifle-resistant armor. Police officers and first responders who could face armed attackers wearing armor that handgun rounds cannot penetrate. Security guards and bystanders at public events who could face such attackers. Families of victims, such as those of the guard for whom the bill is named, who view armor as an enabler of attacks.
Who is hurt
Civilians who would want rifle-rated armor for self-defense, such as people in high-risk areas, journalists in conflict settings, and hobbyists or competitive shooters. Private security contractors and armed guards who are not covered by the law enforcement exemptions. Armor manufacturers and retailers, who would lose their civilian market. People who could face up to 5 years in prison for unknowingly crossing the threshold, for example through an upgrade or inheritance that falls outside the grandfather clause. The grandfather clause also leaves armor owners unable to replace expired or damaged plates under the same exemption.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that attackers in several mass shootings, including the 2022 Buffalo supermarket attack, wore rifle-rated armor that slowed police and security responses and cost lives. They contend that law-abiding civilians have little ordinary need for armor built to stop rifle rounds, and that exemptions for officers, agencies, and existing owners limit the burden. They also argue that armor is protective equipment rather than a weapon, so restricting it targets a specific risk with limited effect on self-defense.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that body armor is purely defensive and that criminalizing it punishes people who want protection and not harm, such as people at risk of violence. They contend that armored attackers are rare compared with the number of lawful owners, and that a felony carrying up to 5 years for possession alone is disproportionate. They also argue the ban could raise Second Amendment problems under Bruen, and that the grandfather clause and use of a changing NIJ standard create confusion for owners.
Constitutional context
Congress would likely rely on its Commerce Clause power, while challengers would likely argue that protective armor falls within the Second Amendment, which would trigger the text-history-tradition test of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Whether armor counts as "arms" is unsettled, and I am not certain of a controlling case. The Due Process Clause could also be raised over the definition tied to a changing NIJ standard, and the Eighth Amendment over proportionality of the 5-year penalty.
Checks and balances
Congress would define the offense and the Department of Justice would enforce it, with courts reviewing Second Amendment and vagueness challenges, and the NIJ's changing standard would effectively set the definition's threshold.
Historical precedent
Federal law already bars violent felons from possessing body armor (18 U.S.C. 931), and several states, including Connecticut and New York, restrict civilian armor purchases. I am not aware of a prior federal civilian ban on rifle-rated armor.