Judge Strikes Down New York’s Body Armor Ban

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that New York’s ban on civilian possession of body armor violated the Second Amendment.

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sued Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James in July 2024 on behalf of three New York residents who wished to purchase body armor for personal protection. In the 47-page opinion, United States District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., a Trump appointee, dismissed claims James’ office that body armor wasn’t covered by the Second Amendment.

“Body armor is an ‘Arm’ protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” Sinatra wrote. “As such, regulation in this area is permissible only if the State demonstrates that the new enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. New York fails that test.”

New York enacted its ban on private ownership of body armor like Kevlar vests in the aftermath of a May 2022 mass shooting in a Buffalo supermarket that left ten people dead. The state is the only one that prohibits possession of body armor by civilians who are not involved in a list of authorized professions.

“Plaintiffs have adduced reliable evidence that body armor is in common use today,” Sinatra wrote. “Plaintiffs’ calculations, supported by market reports, conservatively estimate that more than 82,000 units of body armor were purchased in 2023, more than 87,000 were purchased in 2024, and more than 93,000 units were purchased in 2025.”

Sinatra also noted that the other 49 states allowed civilians to purchase body armor in his opinion, which made it more likely body armor was in common use.

“In light of Defendants’ lack of evidence to the contrary, the Court may reach the (common sense) conclusion that body armor is in common use for lawful purposes based on Plaintiffs’ statistical evidence, combined with the assertions of amici, which is consistent with how the Supreme Court reached similar conclusions in Heller and Bruen,” Sinatra wrote.

The judge also addressed claims by James’ office that the technology used for modern body armor didn’t exist at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted.

“That Kevlar did not exist at the Founding does not alter the constitutional principles guiding the Court’s analysis,” Sinatra wrote. “If the Court were to adhere to the State’s analysis, technological advancements in handgun technology would render many today to be unusual and dangerous compared to technology that was available at the Founding.”