Aaron Salter, Jr., Responsible Body Armor Possession Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to restrict civilian access to high-level body armor capable of stopping rifle rounds, making it unlawful for most individuals to possess such gear, while explicitly exempting law enforcement and government personnel.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits civilians from purchasing, owning, or possessing 'enhanced body armor,' defined as body armor meeting or exceeding the ballistic performance of RF1 armor according to National Institute of Justice standards. It establishes exceptions for federal, state, and tribal government entities, as well as qualified active and retired law enforcement officers and corrections officers. Violations of the ban would be subject to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is a common-sense measure to prevent mass shooters and other violent criminals from acquiring body armor that can defeat law enforcement's standard weaponry, thereby protecting first responders and reducing casualties in active shooter events. They emphasize the bill's namesake, Aaron Salter, Jr., a security guard killed in a mass shooting, highlighting the human cost of such violence and the need for protective measures.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue this bill infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to self-defense, including the right to possess protective gear. They may contend that such a ban disarms potential victims and does little to deter criminals who will obtain such armor illegally regardless of the law, potentially creating a black market for prohibited items.
The bill is very short and straightforward, allowing for quick comprehension by any interested reader.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44 by adding Section 935(a).
Civilian Ban on Enhanced Body Armor
This provision makes it illegal for any civilian to purchase, own, or possess enhanced body armor. The intent is to prevent individuals outside of authorized government or law enforcement roles from having access to protective gear designed to stop high-velocity projectiles, which poses a significant threat to public safety and law enforcement personnel.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ban is crucial for officer safety and public protection, as it limits the ability of criminals to withstand law enforcement gunfire during critical incidents, potentially saving lives and reducing the lethality of mass casualty events.
Critics contend
Critics contend this provision disarms law-abiding citizens who may wish to protect themselves with the best available gear, arguing it does not deter criminals who will acquire such items through illicit means regardless of the law.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances public safety and law enforcement protection against individual rights to self-defense and personal property, creating a tension between collective security and individual liberty.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44 by adding Section 935(b).
Exemptions for Government and Law Enforcement
This provision explicitly exempts federal, state, and tribal governments and their agencies, as well as 'covered law enforcement officers,' from the ban. 'Covered law enforcement officer' includes qualified active and retired law enforcement officers (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 926B and 926C) and corrections officers. This ensures that those tasked with public safety can continue to access necessary protective equipment.
Section 2(b), amending 18 U.S.C. 921(a) by adding paragraph (39).
Definition of 'Enhanced Body Armor'
This provision defines 'enhanced body armor' as body armor, including helmets or shields, that meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of RF1 armor, determined using the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standard in effect at the time of purchase, ownership, or possession. RF1 armor is generally designed to stop rifle rounds, establishing a clear technical benchmark for the prohibition.
Section 2(c), amending 18 U.S.C. 924(a) by adding paragraph (9).
Criminal Penalties
This provision establishes criminal penalties for knowingly violating the ban on enhanced body armor. Individuals found in violation may face fines under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. These penalties are intended to deter non-compliance and reinforce the serious nature of the prohibition.
Expands the definition of 'covered law enforcement officer' to explicitly include corrections officers, ensuring they are exempt from the ban on enhanced body armor.
Section 2(a)(2), adding 18 U.S.C. 935(c)(2).
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms and expanding scope within a definition section rather than in the main prohibitory language, ensuring clarity and precision in the application of the law.
Case for: Supporters would argue that corrections officers face significant risks in their duties and require the same level of protection as other law enforcement personnel, making their inclusion essential for their safety and operational effectiveness.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against including corrections officers in such exemptions, as their role in public safety and law enforcement is widely recognized and valued.
Estimated impact: Ensures thousands of corrections officers nationwide retain access to enhanced body armor for their protection.