{"id":116611,"date":"2026-05-05T17:24:53","date_gmt":"2026-05-05T22:24:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116611"},"modified":"2026-05-05T17:24:53","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T22:24:53","slug":"116611","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116611","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Justice Scalia\u2019s majority opinion in Heller<\/em> had this to say about what arms meant:
\nThe 18th-century meaning [of arms] is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson\u2019s dictionary defined \u2018\u2018arms\u2019\u2019 as \u2018\u2018[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.<\/strong><\/span>\u2019\u2019 Timothy Cunningham\u2019s important 1771 legal dictionary defined \u2018\u2018arms\u2019\u2019 as \u2018\u2018any thing that a man wears for his defence…<\/strong><\/span>\u2019\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

NY AG Claims Body Armor Isn\u2019t a Second Amendment Right<\/a><\/p>\n

BUFFALO, NY \u2014<\/strong>\u00a0A legal battle is brewing in New York over whether law-abiding citizens have the right to\u00a0purchase and own body armor for personal protection.<\/a>\u00a0Attorney General Letitia James has formally requested a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which challenges the state\u2019s ban on the sale of this defensive gear to most civilians.<\/p>\n

The FPC originally filed the lawsuit on behalf of New York residents who simply want the ability to protect themselves. In response, the state is arguing that body armor is a \u201cdangerous and unusual\u201d item that falls outside the protections of the Second Amendment. Attorney General James\u2019s office claims that because modern body armor didn\u2019t exist when the Constitution was written, it shouldn\u2019t be covered.<\/p>\n

However, this line of reasoning seems to ignore a key Supreme Court ruling. In the 2016 case Caetano v. Massachusetts, the court affirmed that the Second Amendment isn\u2019t limited to 18th-century technology. Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that even firearms commonly used for self-defense today, like revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, did not exist back then. The court\u2019s logic was clear: new technology doesn\u2019t negate a constitutional right.<\/p>\n

The True Purpose of Body Armor<\/h2>\n

New York\u2019s argument portrays body armor as a tool for criminals, suggesting it turns a person into a \u201cfortified threat\u201d and is part of a \u201cmass shooter\u2019s toolkit.\u201d This perspective overlooks the fundamental nature of body armor: it is purely defensive. Unlike a\u00a0firearm<\/a>, body armor cannot be used to inflict harm. Its sole purpose is to stop projectiles and protect the life of the person wearing it, which is the very essence of self-defense. Many everyday citizens, from late night convenience store clerks to people living in high crime neighborhoods, seek this protection for peace of mind.<\/p>\n

The state\u2019s ban was enacted following the tragic 2022 mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket. Now, groups like the National Rifle Association are pushing back, stating that such laws only penalize law-abiding citizens. They argue that criminals, by their very definition, do not follow the law, so a ban on body armor only prevents good people from having another tool to ensure their own safety.<\/p>\n

This case is being watched closely, as its outcome could set a precedent for whether states can prohibit citizens from owning defensive gear, raising critical questions about the modern application of the right to self-defense.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Justice Scalia\u2019s majority opinion in Heller had this to say about what arms meant: The 18th-century meaning [of arms] is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson\u2019s dictionary defined \u2018\u2018arms\u2019\u2019 as \u2018\u2018[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.\u2019\u2019 Timothy Cunningham\u2019s important 1771 legal dictionary defined \u2018\u2018arms\u2019\u2019 as \u2018\u2018any thing that … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8,29,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-enemies-foreign-domestic","category-rkba","category-safety","category-self-defense"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116611","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=116611"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116611\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":116612,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116611\/revisions\/116612"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=116611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=116611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=116611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}