California appeals court throws out state law banning felons from owning body armor

[alp227]

(12-18) 16:12 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- A decade-old California law that bans possession of body armor by anyone with a violent felony conviction is unconstitutional because the average person wouldn't be able to decipher which types of bulletproof vests are prohibited, a state appeals court has ruled.

The law, passed in 1998, was intended to protect police against flak-jacketed criminals such as Lee Boutwell, who fatally shot San Francisco Officer James Guelff in November 1994 and wounded another officer before being killed in a shootout. Congress passed a similar federal law in 2002.

The state law makes it a crime, punishable by up to three years in prison, for felons with violent offenses on their record to possess or wear body armor. State regulations define body armor as apparel that provides "ballistic resistance to the penetration of the test ammunition" for certain types of guns, a standard also used to certify armor for police.

Another law, not involved in the court case, adds one to five years to the sentence of anyone who commits a violent crime while wearing "any bullet-resistant material," a broader definition than the terms of the 1998 law.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/18/BASN1B6DOO.DTL

[valerief]

1. No one needs a bullet-proof vest more than a felon. The courts are only

thinking of the felons. He could be a Wall Streeter.

[Euromutt]

2. I actually liked the court's reasoning in this matter

I've long felt that if the maxim that "ignorance of the law is no defense" is to hold water, the layman must reasonably be able to understand what the law is without having to consult a lawyer (with the expense that entails). The reason the court overturned this law was because it wasn't comprehensible to the layman, which is, in my view, an entirely valid reason.