You Won’t Believe The Latest Argument Letitia James Made To Save New York’s Body Armor Ban
Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James argued in a supplemental brief filed Friday that the state’s ban on civilian possession of body armor was constitutional since body armor was not a weapon.
Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James argued in a supplemental brief filed Friday that the state’s ban on civilian possession of body armor was constitutional since body armor was not a weapon.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sued James in July 2024 on behalf of three New York residents who wished to purchase body armor for personal protection. In the reply brief filed Friday, attorneys from James’ office responded to what the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez meant for the case, which targets the state’s unique restriction on civilian possession of body armor.
“Plaintiffs seize on a single clause in Wolford’s recap of the Heller opinion – not part of the Court’s enumeration of the governing test, which, again, requires a ‘weapon,’ where Justice Alito described the earlier case as saying that arms ‘refers to implements used for offense or defense,’” James’ office argued. “But that clause was a paraphrase, not a quotation – the word ‘implement’ does not appear in the cited section of Heller or anywhere else in that opinion. And even if ‘implement’ were the test, body armor would fall outside of it since a gun or knife, which is carried in the hand and actively used, fits the term; body armor, which is passively worn, does not.”
FPC dismissed the Friday filing when reached for comment by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“Letitia James is an idiot. We look forward to extending her losing track record against FPC,” FPC said in a statement. James did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.
New York enacted its ban on private ownership of body armor in the aftermath of a May 2022 mass shooting