Is it legal to own/wear bullet proof vest?

Ardent said:
...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.
Click to expand...

hmm how about BECAUSE I FKING WANT ONE. :)

do we really need a reason? absolutely not. it's just like asking why would you want to conceal carry?

they are both for protection, one offensive the other defensive ;) i have one, level 4, it's sweet and can withstand a few 762x39 at point blank
 
That is what level IV is for... rifle shots. Depends on the plate type whether it can take multiple hits. IIIA and lower only protects effectively against pistol and most shotgun threats.

BC now trumps ontario for stupid bull#### nanny state laws. I never intended to own body armour, but now I will.

Having to justify your every choice to the government is a sure path to losing other rights. Freedom is called freedom for a reason.
 
Oh yeah, if you read that Oct 20 Province article, you'll see that the Association of Chiefs of Police endorse it. Just like the gun registry. I detest those vermin.
 
So from my understanding, the same criminals that use smuggled firearms are going to obey the law and not buy body armor.
It's like cancer..... We look for a cure instead of prevention...

EDUCATION IS THE KEY
But then again the government hates educated people
The are a threat to them
 
All this discussion is well and good but lets not overlook the stamp collectors.

Why does anyone need so many stamps ?

Isn't the postal service used to commit fraud, blackmail, and for other nefarious purposes ?

Infant children can choke on a stamp and a stamps bright colors and tasty paste are attractive to young kids.

How about a 10 stamp limit ?

Think of the trees !

If it saves one life ,,,!

You stamp collectors need to find another hobby !!

Darn pencil necks don't care who they hurt. They just care about playing the mall egghead with their darn stamps.

This little exercise also works with BP vests, guns, cars that produce more than 10 HP and anything not powered by wind,, pretty much anything :D.
 
P*Funk said:
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. :p
Click to expand...

Well luckily, I dont care what you or the govt says, and if I want to wear it, I will wear it if I feel like it. It is my God Given right to own a gun and a ballistic vest.
 
If you're going to wear armour, get the right kind- tailor it to your needs, if you're going around breaking up gang fights, you'll want IIIA, if you're worried about getting smoked by a hunter in the woods mistaking you for bambi, go IV, and stop wearing that white fur on your @ss.

If you're walking around downtown whatever and think you might get shot, don't bother- A, you're going to smell bad after all the sweating, B, you're going to look like you have something worth protecting, hence a neck slash or head shot will be more in tune with how you're presenting yourself and C, you're going to have a LOT of cops stop you and ask why you're wearing armour- the odds of you being shot (unless you're a banger or a bodyguard) walking down the street are so minimal, especially since our laws make it illegal for someone to carry a handgun concealed unless they're a cop etc.
 
FLHTCUI said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where your getting your info from, but your wrong. Simply having a valid PAL is one of the many ways you can purchase and use body armor in BC.

Read the last line from the exemptions category of the "BC body armor control act"


Exemptions
2*(1)* Section 2 (2) of the Act does not apply to a person described in section 2 (3) (a) or (b) of the Act when the person is not in the course of employment for the period during which the person holds a licence referred to, and is employed to perform work described, in section 2 (3) (a) or (b) of the Act.

(2)* For the purposes of section 2 (3) (c) of the Act, section 2 (2) of the Act does not apply to a person for the period during which the person
(a)*is employed as a peace officer,
(b)*is employed by the government, a government corporation, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, the government of Canada or a local authority, if wearing body armour is required or allowed in the course of the person's employment,
(c)*is employed as a security guard at a gaming facility, as defined in the Gaming Control Act, and registered as a gaming worker under that Act, or
(d)*is an individual who holds a valid licence issued under the Firearms Act (Canada) authorizing the individual to acquire or possess a firearm.
 
FLHTCUI said:
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
Click to expand...

FAIL

its not illegal if you have a PAL or security license....
 
My nephew used to be a gasoline attendant who had to pay out-of-pocket for any (non-paying, thieving) drive-offs. Drive-offs happened all the time, and one attendant was snagged and then dragged (by an escaping vehicle) to his death. All gasoline attendants should have the right to own and wear body armour, and they shouldn't need any permit.

My cousin is a LEO who was rear-ended in an MVC. The surgeon told him that his body armor had saved his life and had minimized his injury. All motorists who drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway should have the right to own and wear body armour, and they shouldn't need any permit.

My grandfather took a ride on the rack of a whitetail buck. If he hadn't had a hunting buddy with him he might not have made it out of the woods that day. As it was, he had serious trauma to his thorax and abdomen and he required hospitalization. Years later he still bore the scars. All big game hunters should have the right to own and wear body armour, and they shouldn't need any permit.

In my opinion, all motorcyclists and all bicyclists have a valid reason to own and wear ballistic body armour (while engaging in motorcycling and bicycling, at least), and they shouldn't need any permit.

Modern soft body armor was invented by Richard Davis, a pizza delivery man who had been robbed and shot one time too many. His invention has saved many lives, and there is no reason why this effect should be limited only to government agents. All pizza delivery people should have the right to own and wear body armour, and they shouldn't need any permit either.


A motorcyclist or bicyclist who is involved in a crash, as they often are, any pump attendant, store cashier, hotel or motel clerk, taxi driver, truck driver, delivery driver, motorist, range officer, or hunter - ALL facing dangers inherent to the activity - could prevent serious injury - and reduce or eliminate the Medicare costs associated with it - simply through the common-sense precaution of wearing body armour. Heat stress considerations might cause a bicyclist or hunter to avoid use of body armour, but the choice should be left up to the law-abiding individual.
 
Last edited:
Wendell said:
My grandfather took a ride on the rack of a whitetail buck. If he hadn't had a hunting buddy with him he might not have made it out of the woods that day. As it was, he had serious trauma to his thorax and abdomen and he required hospitalization. Years later he still bore the scars. All big game hunters should have the right to own and wear body armour, and they shouldn't need any permit either.
Click to expand...

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the way i see it is that body armour prevents penetration, not impact. You can still get pretty serious injury from the impact of the bullet itself if you're shot at close range, as there is still a transfer of energy to your body. Meaning that it wouldn't have done your grandfather any good against such a powerful hit to the thorax...
 
sewktbk said:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but the way i see it is that body armour prevents penetration, not impact. You can still get pretty serious injury from the impact of the bullet itself if you're shot at close range, as there is still a transfer of energy to your body. Meaning that it wouldn't have done your grandfather any good against such a powerful hit to the thorax...
Click to expand...

You're wrong. The impact is spread over a wider area. He did have broken ribs, but (with armour) he might have avoided that.

Having said that, the scars that I still remember showed a number of penetrations (maybe 4-6?, I don't remember exactly) and a long tear (maybe 4-10"?, I don't remember exactly).

I am confident that - had it been available, and had he been wearing it - soft body armour would have been very protective in that situation.
 
Well depends where you live... I bought a vest when I after I was hit by a stray bullet on the range.. it stung but didn't break skin. Its legal to wear in some provinces if you have a use for it illegal in some and legal for only certian people in others. Meaning yes no they all correct depends were you live. In BC you only need a firearms lience to own a vest be a officer gaurd ect. You can't walk around with it on in public as that would be illegal but at the range its legal because you are shooting or hunting it would be legal to wear. Now if you walk around with body armour what does that say to everyone around you it draws negative attention. Now at the range ect no issuse hunting no issuse in the middle of the city well then you might get in trouble..
 
Wendell said:
You're wrong. The impact is spread over a wider area. He did have broken ribs, but (with armour) he might have avoided that.

Having said that, the scars that I still remember showed a number of penetrations (maybe 4-6?, I don't remember exactly) and a long tear (maybe 4-10"?, I don't remember exactly).

I am confident that - had it been available, and had he been wearing it - soft body armour would have been very protective in that situation.
Click to expand...

alrighty! i stand corrected.

Its just that to me, the blow of the kick he received was already a lot wider than a bullet impact. And therefore, the armour wouldn't have toned it down that much.

but fair enough.
 
Body armour does not impose upon the rights of others. Therefor it should be legal. Period.

unfortunately, here in Canada we forget that "your rights end where another person's begin" and tell people what they can and can't do.

AFAIK here in Alberta it's still legal and I would get some plates if I could afford some.
 
somebody's sigline says something to the effect of "in the absence of a law to the contrary, people are free to do as they wish". This is insanity- I can't wear armour that is solely for my protection (or that of someone standing 'downrange' of me) because might make a gang-banger less dead should he be shot?

If they're so concerned about drive by shootings, why not ban cars and motorcycles?? That would be easier to enforce, produce significantly fewer fatalities every year and give cops one less thing to worry about so they can go out and catch real bad guys. Granted, it would take me a week to get all the work done I do in a day, having to push around a cart full of tools and equipment and walk everywhere, but I wouldn't get smoked by a drunk driver, or be the victim of a drive-by shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom