Bill Overview
Title: Aaron Salter, Jr., Responsible Body Armor Possession Act
Description: This bill establishes a federal statutory framework to restrict the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor by civilians. The term enhanced body armor means body armor, including a helmet or shield, with a ballistic resistance that meets or exceeds the ballistic performance standard of Type III armor, as determined using the National Institute of Justice standard in effect at the time the person purchases, owns, or possesses the armor.
Sponsors: Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6]
Target Audience
Population: Civilians seeking to purchase or possess enhanced body armor
Estimated Size: 500000
- Enhanced body armor is typically used by security personnel, law enforcement, and individuals seeking personal protection in high-risk areas.
- The bill specifically focuses on civilians, which includes anyone not in the military or law enforcement.
- Certain professionals such as journalists in conflict zones, private security personnel, or civilians living in high-crime or conflict-prone areas may seek to possess enhanced body armor for personal safety.
- The legislation directly impacts current owners and potential buyers of Type III or higher body armor by imposing restrictions.
- The global market for body armor includes a wide range of users, but those affected by this legislation would primarily be individuals within countries where similar restrictions are not in place.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on restricting enhanced body armor, which is more niche compared to general body armor due to its advanced ballistic resistance.
- The primary affected group includes security professionals and individuals in high-risk occupations or residing in areas with high crime rates.
- Most of the U.S. population will be minimally affected as this targets a specific market segment.
- The budget suggests a modest enforcement effort relative to the total U.S. population, indicating fewer individuals will be directly impacted.
- The simulated interviews will illustrate diverse perspectives from high to no impact, balancing cost constraints and target reach.
Simulated Interviews
Private Security Contractor (Detroit, MI)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy makes my job riskier if I can't use enhanced armor.
- I'll need to find alternative ways to protect myself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Journalist (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe my safety is directly compromised by this policy.
- It restricts my ability to report safely from dangerous regions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Civilian (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is concerning for my personal safety.
- I'm unsure if I'll feel secure in my neighborhood without this protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Retired Policeman (Newark, NJ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the intent behind the policy, but it feels restrictive to those of us who've left law enforcement.
- I'll have to comply, but it seems unnecessary for a retiree.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't really affect my daily life.
- I understand its importance for public safety, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Gun Store Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could hurt my business with restrictions on Type III armor sales.
- I'll need to adjust inventory to accommodate the policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is reasonable for public safety.
- It doesn’t affect me personally but seems thoughtful enough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Freelance Photographer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about being less protected while on jobs that could turn violent.
- I support restrictions, but I'd appreciate professional exemptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Student (Oakland, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm aware of the policy but it doesn’t seem directly related to my life.
- My peers and I focus more on broader socio-political changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
IT Specialist (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious about the policy's impact on privacy and protection rights.
- Personally, I don’t own or need such gear currently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $15500000 (Low: $12500000, High: $18500000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $19000000)
Year 5: $17000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $19000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $22000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost estimate involves administrative and enforcement costs related to the ban on enhanced body armor.
- The restriction could lead to a niche effect on related industries, especially those that manufacture and sell high-grade body armor.
- Possible resistance and legal challenges from advocacy groups representing those potentially affected by the ban.
- Limited direct fiscal savings from the policy; focus is on public safety and crime prevention.