Judge Smacks Down New York's Unconstitutional Body Armor Ban

Look, I sell firearms and accessories to folks who want to protect themselves and their families. So when I tell you that a federal judge just struck down New York's ban on body armor, that's music to my ears.

U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. ruled this week that New York's prohibition on body armor sales to ordinary citizens violates the Second Amendment. And he got it right.

Here's the thing - Heller defined "arms" as "weapons of offence or armour of defence." That means body armor has always been part of the Second Amendment conversation, whether we're talking about medieval plate mail or modern Kevlar vests. The state couldn't provide a single historical regulation on body armor post-ratification to justify their ban. Instead, they tried to argue using foreign law from before this country's founding. That's not a constitutional argument - that's clutching at straws.

New York also tried to claim that since Kevlar didn't exist in the 18th century, it's somehow not protected. But the Supreme Court in Bruen was clear: the Second Amendment "can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated." If we banned everything the Founders didn't personally use, we'd be stuck with flintlocks and no handguns over .36 caliber.

Now, I gotta be straight with you - this doesn't mean you can run out and buy a vest in New York tomorrow. The judge stayed his decision for 14 days to let the state appeal to the Second Circuit, and we all know how that court feels about our rights. But this is still a big win.

Congratulations to Firearms Policy Coalition and the plaintiffs on this one. It's victories like this that remind us our rights are worth fighting for.