Is it legal to own/wear bullet proof vest?
- Thread starter TeflonJohn
- Start date
Nothing in the criminal code about wearing a vest in itself.
I eould imagine it would aggravate the situation in a criminal proceeding of assault.
If you are still in doubt, you can pick up a security guard license for 80$. Unless you have a criminal record.
I eould imagine it would aggravate the situation in a criminal proceeding of assault.
If you are still in doubt, you can pick up a security guard license for 80$. Unless you have a criminal record.
Ardent
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
...seriously, why would you want to own/wear a bulletproof vest? If the "because I can" reasoning comes up again, it's just getting weaker and weaker. I once bought a vest, because it was exceedingly cheap, and I wanted the kevlar for making composites for another hobby. Never ended up pulling it apart, and flipped it, wondering why anyone would want one.
There is no restiction or regulation of body armour in Ontario
Having the priviledge of having spent ALOT of time wearing body armour I don't recommend spending money you don't have to buy it.
If you do....buyer beware Kevlar has a service life. After some time the ballistic integrity of the Kevlar will degrade.
In summation....I agree not really worth it if it's a buy just to have thing!
Having the priviledge of having spent ALOT of time wearing body armour I don't recommend spending money you don't have to buy it.
If you do....buyer beware Kevlar has a service life. After some time the ballistic integrity of the Kevlar will degrade.
In summation....I agree not really worth it if it's a buy just to have thing!
This may be one of those things that actually make sense to restrict more than a lot of the crap they put on the no-no list. Usually they say "what reason does a law abiding citizen have to need a firearm in his possession?" and of course there is none cause in their judgement (and that of the law too) self defense via firearm is unreasonable. However, you gotta be premeditating something dangerous to need body armor outside of a registered situation (like being a security guard, body guard, cop, soldier, someone with a restratining order). Basically if you think about it, if there isn't something on paper that suggests why you need it (meaning something obvious that is a major part of your life, even if its a stalker, which would demonstrate to anyone checking up on you) then you probably are up to something shady, or you're just an idiot that wastes money on something that doesn't do anything cool.
Guns go bang, body armor just makes you slow tired and sweaty.
Guns go bang, body armor just makes you slow tired and sweaty.
Ar180shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
Firstly, wrong forum, this should be in the Legalese section. Second, the search button is your friend
So many things wrong with this statement I don't know where to begin. Firstly, what benefit does banning something that can only be used for defense have? Also, whose business is it if someone wants to spend their money on a ballistic vest, IMO, people buy all sorts of stupid crap all of the time, but I'm not pushing for it to be banned (and I would oppose whoever is). They are not harming anyone by owning it or wearing it, and just owning body armor does not show intent for anything. "If you own a gun, you must be up to something shady" is where your line of thinking leads to.
This may be one of those things that actually make sense to restrict more than a lot of the crap they put on the no-no list. Usually they say "what reason does a law abiding citizen have to need a firearm in his possession?" and of course there is none cause in their judgement (and that of the law too) self defense via firearm is unreasonable. However, you gotta be premeditating something dangerous to need body armor outside of a registered situation (like being a security guard, body guard, cop, soldier, someone with a restratining order). Basically if you think about it, if there isn't something on paper that suggests why you need it (meaning something obvious that is a major part of your life, even if its a stalker, which would demonstrate to anyone checking up on you) then you probably are up to something shady, or you're just an idiot that wastes money on something that doesn't do anything cool.
Guns go bang, body armor just makes you slow tired and sweaty.
So many things wrong with this statement I don't know where to begin. Firstly, what benefit does banning something that can only be used for defense have? Also, whose business is it if someone wants to spend their money on a ballistic vest, IMO, people buy all sorts of stupid crap all of the time, but I'm not pushing for it to be banned (and I would oppose whoever is). They are not harming anyone by owning it or wearing it, and just owning body armor does not show intent for anything. "If you own a gun, you must be up to something shady" is where your line of thinking leads to.
The real concern is that left wing right brained demand for "justification of choice" is getting stronger and stronger. At issue seems to be the right of individuals to have or do anything that falls askew of what "group think" liberals feel on the matter. Otherwise, what would be the harm and what concern is it to anyone else? Rightly;
Q: "Why does Fred want a bulletproof vest?"
A: "Who gives a f**k!"
It is now illegal to own and/wear bullet proof vests in the Province of BC.
El Gordo and his cronnies are trying to make it harder for the gang bangers to commit serious drive by shootings.
Myself, I thought about buying a vest a few years ago for riding my motorcycle after being hit in the chest by a sparrow at 65MPH....mow that hurt.
Rob
El Gordo and his cronnies are trying to make it harder for the gang bangers to commit serious drive by shootings.
Myself, I thought about buying a vest a few years ago for riding my motorcycle after being hit in the chest by a sparrow at 65MPH....mow that hurt.
Rob
Hi-Standard
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Newfoundland
I hadn't even thought about that as a reason to own a vest, that would really hurt!
I've seen people wear them at the range. I thought it was a good idea after talking to the range officer with one. I haven't seen them for sale in BC though.
What's the best brand out there?
Makes sense to me. Just outlaw those darned bp vests and these guys will have no alternative save going back to school and getting a job on Bay Street or else joining the Clergy.
[/QUOTE]Myself, I thought about buying a vest a few years ago for riding my motorcycle after being hit in the chest by a sparrow at 65MPH....mow that hurt.
Rob[/QUOTE]
Well there you have it ! just ban motorcycles, sparrows and people who drive motorcycles. No need for a PB Vest.
How about we ban people who wanna ban things. That would leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves as best we could and pursue our eccentric desires, risking the consequences both good and bad. That'll teach us by golly
!!Why do you think it's a good idea?
I don't really see proper ranges as all that dangerous.
As far as legality, a bulletproof vest is purely defensive. I've never heard of someone being killed by a bulletproof vest.
Personally I don't want one, but I don't see why a responsible citizen shouldn't be able to have one.
Maybe they're scared of criminals, or irresponsible hunters.
Maybe they think they're cool.
A bulletproof vest is pretty darn unlikely to hurt someone.
Also if you get caught committing certain crimes while wearing body armor, it might be easier to demonstrate intent.
Shouldn't that be under federal jurisdiction? Oh wait. I live in a province that makes people take yet another course. Silly me
http://www.theprovince.com/news/would+body+armour+gangsters/2124459/story.html
The Body Armour Control Act would:• Place controls on the possession of body armour by allowing police to seize it from those unauthorized to own it;• Create a licensing program for businesses and their employees who sell body armour, as part of the Security Services Act;• Require those trying to buy body armour to get a permit proving a reasonable need for owning it; and,• Require applicants to undergo a criminal-record check.
The Body Armour Control Act would:• Place controls on the possession of body armour by allowing police to seize it from those unauthorized to own it;• Create a licensing program for businesses and their employees who sell body armour, as part of the Security Services Act;• Require those trying to buy body armour to get a permit proving a reasonable need for owning it; and,• Require applicants to undergo a criminal-record check.
"By taking away criminals' sense of security, we decrease the potential for violence in public settings" (quote from the province)
The person who issued this statement has chocolate oozing out of every orifice of their body. They can pass any bill they want. It won't change anything in the drug trade.
If a person wanted to wear a medieval armour suit while shoppong for lattes....well all the power to them.
I bet the B.C government has no issues at all with gangsters wearing "Daisy Dukes" hiked up their backsides.(which should be illegal) lol.
The person who issued this statement has chocolate oozing out of every orifice of their body. They can pass any bill they want. It won't change anything in the drug trade.
If a person wanted to wear a medieval armour suit while shoppong for lattes....well all the power to them.
I bet the B.C government has no issues at all with gangsters wearing "Daisy Dukes" hiked up their backsides.(which should be illegal) lol.
Last edited:
- Location
- land of f-cktards
it would be more successful to outlaw men wearing pants that are too big
