Wearing body armor to the gun range?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Parachutes rarely fail. So why bother wearing a reserve?
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm pushing OT rules here, but... If you are a sport jumper, you wear a reserve because it is an FAA regulation that you do so if you are jumping out of an aircraft. The reserve chute has to be regularly inspected and packed by an FAA licensed rigger who must apply his seal to the rig and the jumper must carry the inspection paperwork. As far as the FAA is concerned, you are always jumping your reserve.

(BASE rigs have no reserve as the FAA doesn't regulate them and in most cases there would be zero time to deploy it anyway. Hence the old adage, "If at first you don't succeed, BASE jumping is not for you.")
 
To follow up on the comments made regarding the death of my grandfather, I meant the comment to read as having grown up with this knowledge (my mother and I were visiting the weekend it happened, she rushed him to the local hospital right after it happened), I may tend to be more cautious than most when it comes to gun safety. I am also aware it was a freak accident that a vest would not prevent, and was caused by him getting in a rush to eject the round to take another shot.

This was not the only relative I have that died in a hunting accident, I had a cousin was 2 years younger than I am (we both lived in the same town, but were not that close) that died in a deer hunting accident when I was in high school (he was in Jr. High). Strange accidents seem to run in that side of the family, a few years ago his father died, slipped and fell in his bathroom and hit his head.

On a side point there seems to be a feeling that accidental shootings, ricochets, etc. that cause injuries are a rare occurance at shooting ranges. I am wondering if there is good statistical evidence to back this up, maybe someone here works or has worked at a large public shooting range, because when the topic of ricochets or bullets bouncing back from steel targets comes up it seems there is always someone that pops up saying they have been hit, or something near them was hit from a bounceback, sometimes causing some degree of injury, etc..
 
If I'm paranoid because I choose to train wearing body armor that I most likely will never need, am I doubly paranoid because I choose to train with firearms that I most likely will never need?

I don't train in armor for fear that the guy next to me is an idiot. I train in armor because it is an essential part of my home defense plan. I know wearing armor alters the way I shoot. I'd rather train with it and be aware of how it changes my shot. Also, not all bad guys are bad shots.

Maybe I am paranoid. But I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it, as well as have it and know how to use it, rather than have it and not have a clue.

If I felt someone else's actions were a threat, I'd leave. Otherwise, live and let live. No need to be a Fudd about it.
 
I wear body armor for work everyday and during qualification days we're required to wear them as well, even when qualifying with off-duty guns, even when the vest is in the way of the off-duty holster :(.

On my own time I don't wear my vest to the range as I don't really fear getting shot there. I would feel silly or would worry someone would think I was trying to flaunt my career. I've only ever seen one other person don body armor at a public range who was clearly on his own time. I didn't talk to him but I gathered that he was in LE. For all I know he had some sort of policy that stated he'd wear his vest to any range he visits. Looking back, I don't really care now, but at the time I somehow resented his "need" to wear it. If someone feels safer in doing so good for them, but I don't really see the need unless using long guns with response gear to get the feel for the added bulk.

Isaac1, as far as your grandfather's accident, I don't blame you for looking for safer ways to conduct your shooting experience. I think you were right to leave your relative when he didn't respect your legitimate fears of ejecting hangfires. I always leave a hangfire in the chamber for 30 seconds or so. I happen to like my body as is, and would prefer not to damage it.
 
I don't own body armor, probably because I don't see a civilian application for myself. I know folks who do and train in it as they see fit. As many have said, if it's prudent to wear eyes and ears--and it is--then wearing a vest is not such a great leap. It's not a step I'm prepared to take, but I'm not going to flee like there's an impending nuclear blast just because a range patron has made that choice for himself.

Ricochets aside, at any range it's possible that some shooter will screw up and put a round where it doesn't belong. It's less likely at a range where shooters are carefully screened, but at most ranges anyone who wants to shoot and can pay gets to shoot (after he passes the little test that everyone passes). I'd wager there is at least one ND--and probably several--at the average range every day, but that most go harmlessly down range (thanks to the muzzle control rule) and go unreported. The shooter who runs like the wind from a range where someone is wearing armor because he thinks, "Oh no! There's a guy in body armor, so either he's a freaky video game ninja wannabe or he's seen people launch bullets all over the place at this range," would seem to be saying that he won't shoot anywhere that exhibits any possibility of having a stray round come his way. Aside from one's private range, there just isn't any range where no possibility of a stray round exists.

Has such a shooter forgotten that anyone, including himself, can have an ND? Just as the driver who thinks he's too skilled to be involved in a crash is most prone to complacency behind the wheel, the person most likely to have an ND is the one who thinks he's immune.
 
I can't say I have ever really felt the need for it. I do know my Father once commented on that particular subject and even he realized that it is really unnecessary. Most of the places we go the range officers are armed and very "in tuned" with everything going on. (I don't know why but when he asked me my thoughts on that subject my first smart remark out of my mouth referred to the "Dumb & Dumber" movie> "But what if he shot you in the face?" He did not think that was funny but I did. :)
 
The only time I wore a vest to the range was when I was working as an instructor teaching firearm safety while going to university. It was less about my safety or paranoia and more about the professional image. Most instructors were LEO or military staff so we used our issue vests and didn't make the others buy $300 vests.
 
you cant really compare car accidents to range shootings, as car accidents kill millions of people each year.....and range shootings kill maybe a few hundred.
Click to expand...

If that's supposed to be the USA, both figures are greatly exaggerated.
 
Let me offer that in my local jurisdiction, wearing body armor is sufficient PC to initiate a field interview by local LEOs. Take the code words out of all of that and it means that you have drawn attention to yourself by the cops. If you simply don the armor at the range, it may not be an issue; if you are wearing it from home to the range, you should expect more "attention". Me, for one--I like to maintain a low profile...
 
if you are wearing it from home to the range, you should expect more "attention"
Click to expand...

A phone call to the cops about a guy in body armor outside a range will definitely get some attention. This happened here in September:

Monroe man arrested for wearing bullet-proof vest at fair

Ouachita Parish sheriff's deputies have arrested a man accused of wearing body armor to the Ark-La-Miss Fair. The News-Star reports 23-year-old Herbert Nappier of Monroe was booked Saturday into Ouachita Correctional Center on a charge of unlawful use of body armor.

In an arrest affidavit, dispatchers told Monroe police patrolling around the outside of the fairground an anonymous caller told them a man was putting on a bullet-proof vest outside the fair.

The report stated Nappier did not know it was illegal to wear body armor. He told deputies a friend gave him the vest. It was unclear whether Nappier has an attorney.
Click to expand...

http://www.hebert-law.com/index.php/News/Page-6.html
 
what possible justification did a state have for making it illegal to wear body armor?

as to wearing at the range? I agree with others in that if you want to train with it, go for it. If you feel you need it in any situation you should reevaluate being in that situation.
 
I wear body armor while stalking game, especially turkey when I'm in full camo (heavy stuff - interceptor vest with plates), because Bubba might mistake me for an animal and go bush busting.

But I don't wear it to the range. :)
 
A phone call to the cops about a guy in body armor outside a range will definitely get some attention. This happened here in September:


Monroe man arrested for wearing bullet-proof vest at fair

Ouachita Parish sheriff's deputies have arrested a man accused of wearing body armor to the Ark-La-Miss Fair. The News-Star reports 23-year-old Herbert Nappier of Monroe was booked Saturday into Ouachita Correctional Center on a charge of unlawful use of body armor.

In an arrest affidavit, dispatchers told Monroe police patrolling around the outside of the fairground an anonymous caller told them a man was putting on a bullet-proof vest outside the fair.

The report stated Nappier did not know it was illegal to wear body armor. He told deputies a friend gave him the vest. It was unclear whether Nappier has an attorney.
Click to expand...
http://www.hebert-law.com/index.php/News/Page-6.html
Click to expand...

im going to assume there is more to that story....

because on the state level, i was unable to find any laws relating to the use or ownership of body armor.

federally it is prohibited for a violent felon to buy or own body armor.

so chance are:

1) the man arrested was a violent felon

2) the police falsely arrested the guy

3) the news report screwed up or got details wrong.
 
In Illinois, it's a felony to commit a crime wearing body armor (including misdemeanors).

I really love the way our laws work.

"It's a crime to commit a crime"... well... DUH.
 
Trent said:
In Illinois, it's a felony to commit a crime wearing body armor (including misdemeanors).

I really love the way our laws work.

"It's a crime to commit a crime"... well... DUH.
Click to expand...

The law has a purpose. "Aggravators" are not uncommon.
 
Warp said:
The law has a purpose. "Aggravators" are not uncommon.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't doubt the intent, or even disagree with it.

However, there are so many NON violent misdemeanors on the books that it makes it VERY risky for a normal civilian to wear concealable body armor in Illinois. There's certain places where I still do so, but even hunting, I have to make sure I'm in compliance with EVERYTHING because even a minor infraction of hunting laws in IL can justify a misdemeanor offense. Which would then become a Felony.
 
Trent said:
Oh I don't doubt the intent, or even disagree with it.

However, there are so many NON violent misdemeanors on the books that it makes it VERY risky for a normal civilian to wear concealable body armor in Illinois. There's certain places where I still do so, but even hunting, I have to make sure I'm in compliance with EVERYTHING because even a minor infraction of hunting laws in IL can justify a misdemeanor offense. Which would then become a Felony.
Click to expand...

Yes...they really ought to specify specific crimes or types of crimes that this is an aggravator for.

But being Illinois...lol, good luck with that
 
Warp said:
Yes...they really ought to specify specific crimes or types of crimes that this is an aggravator for.

But being Illinois...lol, good luck with that
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was one of those "for the children" bills, I think.

"Unlawful Use of Body Armor"

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...hapterID=53&SeqStart=89300000&SeqEnd=89725000

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.


(720 ILCS 5/Art. 33F heading)
ARTICLE 33F. UNLAWFUL USE OF BODY ARMOR

(720 ILCS 5/33F-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 33F-1)
Sec. 33F-1. Definitions. For purposes of this Article:
(a) "Body Armor" means any one of the following:
(1) A military style flak or tactical assault vest

which is made of Kevlar or any other similar material or metal, fiberglass, plastic, and nylon plates and designed to be worn over one's clothing for the intended purpose of stopping not only missile fragmentation from mines, grenades, mortar shells and artillery fire but also fire from rifles, machine guns, and small arms.
(2) Soft body armor which is made of Kevlar or any

other similar material or metal or any other type of insert and which is lightweight and pliable and which can be easily concealed under a shirt.
(3) A military style recon/surveillance vest which is

made of Kevlar or any other similar material and which is lightweight and designed to be worn over one's clothing.
(4) Protective casual clothing which is made of

Kevlar or any other similar material and which was originally intended to be used by undercover law enforcement officers or dignitaries and is designed to look like jackets, coats, raincoats, quilted or three piece suit vests.
(b) "Dangerous weapon" means a Category I, Category II, or Category III weapon as defined in Section 33A-1 of this Code.
(Source: P.A. 91-696, eff. 4-13-00.)

(720 ILCS 5/33F-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 33F-2)
Sec. 33F-2. Unlawful use of body armor. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of body armor when he knowingly wears body armor and is in possession of a dangerous weapon, other than a firearm, in the commission or attempted commission of any offense.
(Source: P.A. 93-906, eff. 8-11-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/33F-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 33F-3)
Sec. 33F-3. Sentence. A person convicted of unlawful use of body armor for a first offense shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and for a second or subsequent offense shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
(Source: P.A. 87-521.)
Click to expand...

Interesting point I don't remember seeing "other than a firearm" in there before.
 
This one cracks me up:
If you think you'll need the body armor, you need to avoid that place.
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard: If you think you'll need the gun, you need to avoid that place.

I occasionally wear one of my two vests to a commercial range. I simply want to shoot as much as possible, apart from work training, while wearing body armor. I suspect that's why most people would wear body armor to the range, and not because they're worried about taking incoming from other shooters.
 
Have you ever heard: If you think you'll need the gun, you need to avoid that place.
Click to expand...
That applies just as much to guns as body armor.

Going to practice is quite different from needing to use it.
 
Oh Illinois is FULL of stupid laws, like this one. Just in case it's not otherwise blatantly obvious - criminals currently imprisoned in a penal institution can't possess machineguns anymore.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/97/097-0237.htm

(b) It is unlawful for any person confined in a penal
institution, which is a facility of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, to possess any weapon prohibited under Section
24-1 of this Code or any firearm or firearm ammunition,
regardless of the intent with which he possesses it.

...

Violation of this Section by a person who is on parole or mandatory supervised
release is a Class 2 felony for which the person, if sentenced
to a term of imprisonment, shall be sentenced to not less than
3 years and not more than 14 years. Violation of this Section
by a person not confined in a penal institution is a Class X
felony when the firearm possessed is a machine gun. Any person
who violates this Section while confined in a penal
institution, which is a facility of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, is guilty of a Class 1 felony, if he possesses any
weapon prohibited under Section 24-1 of this Code regardless of
the intent with which he possesses it, a Class X felony if he
possesses any firearm, firearm ammunition or explosive, and a
Class X felony for which the offender shall be sentenced to not
less than 12 years and not more than 50 years when the firearm
possessed is a machine gun. A violation of this Section while
wearing or in possession of body armor as defined in Section
33F-1 is a Class X felony punishable by a term of imprisonment
of not less than 10 years and not more than 40 years. The
possession of each firearm or firearm ammunition in violation
of this Section constitutes a single and separate violation.
Click to expand...

So if you get caught with a machinegun AND body amor in prison you can be charged with 2 class X felonies AND sentenced to 90 years in prison....

.... which you are ALREADY IN.

I think if inmates get access to body armor and machineguns in prison, we have bigger problems than what to charge them with.

Man I hate this state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Body Armor Question
Replies
13
Views
1K
GlockStar
G
T
  • Locked
Body armor for the gun range
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
5K
Thin Black Line
T
L
  • Locked
Body Armor
Replies
6
Views
978
Kevlarman
K
D
  • Locked
Should Security Guards Wear Body Armor Like LEOs?
Replies
18
Views
3K
gunsmith
G
S
  • Locked
Body armor at the range?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Splat Shot
S
Back
Top