photo #9454214

New York went to federal court to defend its ban on bulletproof vests.Its best historical evidence was a law from 1328.Not 1791. Not 1868. 1328. That’s before the Black Death.On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John Sinatra Jr. struck down the ban. It was the only law like it in the country.Here’s how New York tried to save it.First, the state claimed body armor isn’t an “arm” at all, just a “tactical accessory.” The problem is that the Supreme Court already defined “arms” using founding-era dictionaries, and those definitions include armor.Second, the state argued armor was rare in 1791, so it isn’t protected today. The judge pointed out the obvious. If armor was protected when it was rare, it doesn’t lose that protection by becoming common.Third, the judge asked for American laws banning body armor after the Constitution was ratified. The state couldn’t name one. So it reached back to English kings and a medieval statute.Underneath all of it was one assumption: anyone who wants a vest is probably up to something.The court called that out. The state was using suspicion of the entire population to ban a purely defensive piece of gear.Meanwhile, people in “eligible professions” could keep buying. So the government got vests, and a store clerk working nights faced a misdemeanor, then a felony on a second offense.The Buffalo shooting that sparked this law was a horror. Ten people were murdered, and nobody is waving that away.But wearing body armor while committing a violent felony was already a crime in New York. It still is, because the judge left that law fully in place.The ban never touched criminals. It only reached people who follow the law.One important note: the judge paused his ruling for 14 days so the state can appeal, so the ban is still in effect for now.Should buying a bulletproof vest ever be a crime?