Radical New York AG’s Body Armor Defense Leaves Conservatives Stunned

Liberty Check

• New York attorney general argues body armor ban is constitutional because protective gear ‘isn’t a weapon’
• Legal challenge brought by citizens seeking to defend themselves and their families from rising crime
• Second Amendment advocates warn this is part of broader campaign to criminalize self-defense

A radical New York attorney general is defending her state’s controversial body armor ban with an argument that has Second Amendment advocates shaking their heads in disbelief. In a supplemental brief filed Friday, she claimed the restriction on civilians owning protective gear is perfectly constitutional — because body armor isn’t a weapon.

The Firearms Policy Coalition sued on behalf of three New York residents in July 2024. These law-abiding citizens simply wanted the freedom to purchase body armor to protect themselves and their families in an era of skyrocketing violent crime.

Instead of recognizing Americans’ fundamental right to self-defense, New York officials doubled down on their anti-freedom agenda. The state’s position essentially argues that if you can’t shoot back with it, the government can ban it — a dangerous precedent that would give bureaucrats nearly unlimited power to restrict what citizens can own.

This twisted logic ignores a basic truth: the right to self-defense includes the right to protect yourself from harm. Body armor is purely defensive equipment that poses zero threat to anyone.

Yet in the minds of anti-gun politicians, even passive protection is somehow too much freedom for ordinary Americans to handle. The same officials who defunded police and implemented soft-on-crime policies now want to ensure law-abiding citizens can’t even shield themselves from the violent criminals those policies have unleashed.

The legal gymnastics required to justify this ban reveal just how far left-wing prosecutors will go to disarm and endanger peaceful Americans. Constitutional scholars have long recognized that the Second Amendment protects more than just firearms — it safeguards the broader right of self-preservation.

This case represents another front in the ongoing battle between Americans who believe in personal responsibility and government officials who think they know better than you how to keep your family safe. The outcome will determine whether states can effectively nullify your right to self-defense by banning the tools needed to exercise it.

The Constitution must be defended.