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, own, or possess enhanced body armor
Estimated Size: 200000
- The global civilian population could potentially engage in activities requiring body armor, such as journalism in conflict zones, private security, and certain types of animal control or research work.
- Certain military enthusiasts or collectors who might have a non-functional interest in body armor could also be impacted.
- Individuals living in conflict or high-crime areas might consider acquiring such protection for personal safety.
- There is a niche market for enhanced body armor among civilians who partake in high-risk outdoor activities, such as hunting in dangerous wildlife areas.
Reasoning
- The demographics influenced by this policy are generally individuals with a professional or personal interest in high-level ballistic protection. Given the specific nature of the restriction (Type III+ body armor), the impact on civilian populations who do not engage in or require such equipment for their activities will be minimal.
- The policy is likely to affect those civilians directly involved in professions with inherent risks like security personnel or journalists. However, many professional environments already provide necessary protection to their employees, diminishing the policy's practical impact on wellbeing.
- There may be psychological impacts among individuals who feel less secure without access to enhanced protection, although these effects will be limited to those already inclined to purchase such armor.
- Budget constraints which need to address a diverse subset of the population suggest prioritization towards awareness campaigns, regulation enforcement, and potential compensatory measures for those whose livelihoods may be directly impacted.
Simulated Interviews
Private Security Contractor (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that my safety could be compromised without access to the right gear.
- This policy might undervalue the needs of those working in dangerous conditions outside typical law enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Journalist (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This makes it significantly harder for me to do my job safely.
- I understand the reasoning, but journalists need protection too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Law Enforcement Officer (California)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My work ensures sufficient protective gear; hence, this law doesn't affect me much.
- However, personal ownership might be reassuring for off-duty situations.
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 |
Research Scientist - Wildlife (Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The armor is a precaution, not a necessity for me.
- I can see the intent of the policy but feel other safety equipment must suffice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Military Collector (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's mainly for collection purposes, but I'm concerned that I'll have to part with some items.
- Collecting is my hobby, this limits what I can have.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Teacher (Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This doesn't affect my life or wellbeing in the slightest.
- Seems like a specialized issue not relevant to most people.
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 |
Outdoor Enthusiast (Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this law is directed toward others louder than my sport's needs.
- No impact on me; perhaps on friends in wilder activities.
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 |
Government Official (Washington D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balancing safety against civil liberties is challenging.
- I understand the policy's intent but acknowledge nuances in its application.
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 |
University Student (Montana)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Body armor isn't necessary for me right now.
- But the policy might affect some research scenarios in the future.
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 Professional (Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm into collecting military gear; if anything, my hobby grows more expensive due to restrictions.
- This policy mainly complicates acquiring niche items.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The body armor market size related to advanced civilian protection gear is limited, impacting cost estimates.
- Compliance and enforcement pose significant challenges and associated costs.
- Public perceptions and the legal landscape could evolve, affecting both enforcement and compliance over time.