Why is body armor illegal to posses within 1,000' of a school?

[altimar]

So I was thinking about adding one of those cheapish bullet proof panels to our "tactical diaper bag" just because. We obviously avoid dangerous places, but for $100, it's hard to pass up having some slightly increased chance of surviving (an admittedly very rare) mass shooting type event, should we be so (un)lucky to find ourselves in one.

I knew there was a law about wearing body armor in commission of another crime. I found LA RS 14:95.3 — Unlawful use of body armor. Basically unlawful to A) possess body armor if you've been convicted of any of some nine different crimes, or B) use or wear body armor while actively committing any of the same previous nine crimes. Obviously, does not apply to me. Sounds fine.

Then I found RS 14:95.9 — Wearing or possessing body armor, by a student or nonstudent on school property, at school-sponsored functions, or in firearm-free zones.

A. Wearing or possessing body armor, by a student or nonstudent on school property, at a school-sponsored function, or in a firearm-free zone is unlawful and shall be defined as wearing or possessing of body armor, on one's person, at any time while on a school campus, on school transportation, or at any school-sponsored function in a specific designated area including but not limited to athletic competitions, dances, parties, or any extracurricular activities, or within one thousand feet of any school campus.

B. For purposes of this Section, the following words have the following meanings:

(1) "Body armor" shall mean bullet-resistant metal or other material intended to provide protection from weapons or bodily injury.

(2) "Campus" means all facilities and property within the boundary of the school property.

(3) "Nonstudent" means any person not registered and enrolled in that school or a suspended student who does not have permission to be on the school campus.

(4) "School" means any elementary, secondary, high school, vocational-technical school, college, or university in this state.

(5) "School bus" means any motor bus being used to transport children to and from school or in connection with school activities.

C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:

(1) A federal, state, or local law enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties.

(2) A school official or employee acting during the normal course of his employment or a student acting under the direction of such school official or employee.

(3) A person who has notified the school principal or chancellor in writing at least twenty-four hours prior to wearing body armor.

(4) The wearing or possessing of body armor occurring within one thousand feet of school property and entirely on private property, or entirely within a private residence, or in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1. [This is not the state-issued CHP many of us have, but one authorized by a parish CLEO requiring you to be bonded in the amount of $5K. I am under the impression most CLEOs refuse to issue these. -altimar]

(5) Any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as body armor contained entirely within a motor vehicle.

(6) Any student wearing or possessing body armor to or from a class, in which he is duly enrolled, that requires the use of the body armor in the class.

(7) A student enrolled or participating in an activity requiring the use of body armor.

D. Whoever commits the crime of wearing or possessing body armor by a student or nonstudent on school property, at a school-sponsored function, or in a firearm-free zone shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned, without hard labor, for not less than six months nor more than one year, or both.

E. Lack of knowledge that the prohibited act occurred on or within one thousand feet of school property shall not be a defense.

F.(1) School officials shall notify all students and parents of the impact of this legislation and shall post notices of the impact of this Section at each major point of entry to the school. These notices shall be maintained as permanent notices.

(2) If a student is detained by the principal or other school official for violation of this Section or the school principal or other school official confiscates or seizes body armor from a student while upon school property, at a school function, or on a school bus, the principal or other school official in charge at the time of the detention or seizure shall immediately report the detention or seizure to the police department or sheriff's department where the school is located and shall deliver any body armor seized to that agency.

(3) If a student is detained pursuant to Paragraph (2) of this Subsection for wearing or possessing body armor on campus, the principal shall immediately notify the student's parents.

G. Any principal or school official in charge who fails to report the detention of a student or the seizure of body armor to a law enforcement agency as required by Paragraph (F)(2) of this Section within seventy-two hours of notice of the detention or seizure may be issued a misdemeanor summons for a violation of this Section and may be fined not more than five hundred dollars or sentenced to not more than forty hours of community service, or both. Upon successful completion of the community service or payment of the fine, or both, the arrest and conviction shall be set aside as provided for in Code of Criminal Procedure Article 894(B).

What the hell? It's already illegal for the bad guys, why is it illegal for innocent schoolkids to have a bullet-proof backpack for God's sake? This law seems intended to make children completely defenseless little targets. It would be like outlawing child car seats, this makes no sense to me whatsoever!

Just like the 1000' school gun-free zones that have now thankfully been abolished, it would be rather hard to avoid a 1000' armor-free zones. Anybody with me that we need to amend or abolish this ridiculous law ASAP?

 

[madwabbit]

there are lightweight ballistic backpacks for kids if you google hard enough. ill just leave that little semi-legal tidbit here for your consideration.

 

[Metryshooter]

I'd be willing to bet that the real reason it's illegal is because it made some jackass politician look like they were doing something and their dumbass constituants feel good.

 

[ta2d_cop]

To make the people who believe that laws and signs actually have an effect on the decision making process of the criminal mind have the warm and fuzzies. Signs stop crime, didn't you know that, silly?

Simply put... Feel good legislation.

 

[lesgeaux]

Find the politicians that voted this in, and VOTE THEM OUT with extreme Prejudice at the ballot box.

 

[Fred_G]

Very simple, the bullets bounce off the bullet proof stuff at what, 5 times the velocity? Then they seek out the kids in the school. It is a death vest for students.

Joking aside, I have no idea why, and why silencers so hard to get? I mean, they help you from going deaf...

 

[altimar]

there are lightweight ballistic backpacks for kids if you google hard enough. ill just leave that little semi-legal tidbit here for your consideration.

That's the idea. But I'm sure that's included in the definition, thus illegal. It's ridiculous, you could probably make an argument that shoes are body armor, because they are "material intended to provide protection from ... bodily injury."

(1) "Body armor" shall mean bullet-resistant metal or other material intended to provide protection from weapons or bodily injury.

If you're hinting that it would be less obvious that it is indeed body armor, I'm not concerned about my approach being obvious either. I don't carry concealed without a permit expecting that no one will notice. I'm not using that approach for this either.

In response to the other comments, I simply don't understand what logic was used to say this protects children. It very blatantly does the opposite. Am I missing something? Does kevlar magically cause cancer in the presence of schoolbooks?

I'm dead serious about wanting this gone. Anybody want to help draft a letter and recruit people to send it to send to all of our congress critters?

 

[oscar615]

I think they assumed it would be the bad guy wearing it and did not want him having extra protection. Don't you know only cops and criminals want body armor?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[BR55]

I'm dead serious about wanting this gone. Anybody want to help draft a letter and recruit people to send it to send to all of our congress critters?

I'm up for this. Let me know what I can do to help you.

 

[madwabbit]

yup. stupid rule, intended to be able to slap another charge on an active shooter. I guess the entire discussion on backpack inserts depends on whether or not you see a ballistic backpack in the same definition that they do. I personally do not. It isn't intended to protect her from weapons. It is intended to protect her from bullets, shrapnel, or flying glass- whether that be active shooter or inclement weather. Bullets are not explosives and are not harmful in their own right -thus they do not meet the legal definition of a 'weapon'.

even more stupid are the school policies regarding active shooters. I've already successfully hijacked a few threads though this week, so I won't expand on that.

 

[Hitman]

To make the people who believe that laws and signs actually have an effect on the decision making process of the criminal mind have the warm and fuzzies. Signs stop crime, didn't you know that, silly?

Simply put... Feel good legislation.

Hearts and Minds Gents! Hearts and Minds! .....

 

[machinedrummer]

Just another way to take more rights away from parents. They will provide a safe environment at school by posting signs. It makes me think they want a high body count if and when tragedy does strike. Let me as a parent at least give my child something that might save his life.

 

[JadeRaven]

Y'all act like y'all have never notified your principals and chancellors that you're wearing body armor?

I was tempted to do this in college just to see what kind of response I would get... but I decided not to make myself a guinea pig.

 

[altimar]

I guess the entire discussion on backpack inserts depends on whether or not you see a ballistic backpack in the same definition that they do. I personally do not. It isn't intended to protect her from weapons. It is intended to protect her from bullets, shrapnel, or flying glass- whether that be active shooter or inclement weather. Bullets are not explosives and are not harmful in their own right -thus they do not meet the legal definition of a 'weapon'.

Not trying to be an ass, but read it again. You just admitted your child had an "other material intended to provide protection from ... bodily injury." You're going to jail.

Likewise, I'm certain a bicycle helmet would meet this definition. I know, I know, "No officer would ever arrest a child (or adult?) for wearing a bicycle helmet." You're probably right they WOULD not, but they COULD! That's pretty messed up. We all know there are cops out there that would pull something like that if you catch him on his period and fail to fully respect his authoritah.

 

[altimar]

Y'all act like y'all have never notified your principals and chancellors that you're wearing body armor?

I was tempted to do this in college just to see what kind of response I would get... but I decided not to make myself a guinea pig.

Lol. It does just say "notified". Doesn't say you need his/her approval. I'm guessing an armed officer would be meeting you outside your next class though.

That does give me an idea though. I could possibly notify principles of any nearby schools that I "may or may not, any time from 24 from now to my death, walk on or within 1000' of their campus." A certified letter would give me proof that it was received. This wouldn't be much help when traveling though.

 

[JadeRaven]

Yeah it's a very poorly written piece of legislation.

Like you pointed out though it sounds very broad in what it bans from a campus. Most football teams could, in theory, be criminalized.

 

[geoney]

For the purposes you outline (if I understood them correctly), keeping it in your car just in case, you are fine. Walking around with it would be an issue, kind of like a CCW handgun under a CHP.

C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:

(1) A federal, state, or local law enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties.

(2) A school official or employee acting during the normal course of his employment or a student acting under the direction of such school official or employee.

(3) A person who has notified the school principal or chancellor in writing at least twenty-four hours prior to wearing body armor.

(4) The wearing or possessing of body armor occurring within one thousand feet of school property and entirely on private property, or entirely within a private residence, or in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1.

(5) Any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as body armor contained entirely within a motor vehicle.

(6) Any student wearing or possessing body armor to or from a class, in which he is duly enrolled, that requires the use of the body armor in the class.

(7) A student enrolled or participating in an activity requiring the use of body armor.


Also, I think you are mistaken here:

(4) The wearing or possessing of body armor occurring within one thousand feet of school property and entirely on private property, or entirely within a private residence, or in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1. [This is not the state-issued CHP many of us have, but one authorized by a parish CLEO requiring you to be bonded in the amount of $5K. I am under the impression most CLEOs refuse to issue these. -altimar]

This is also not the parish issued permit you are referring to. If you pull up the above statute, it is referring to state issued special officer commissions, which if I am not mistaken, is a kind of like an old form of state police reserves in a way. They still give them out for different reasons. I think it is mainly used in emergencies to give local law enforcement, and sometimes national guard, statewide arrest powers.

 

[Hitman]

For the purposes you outline (if I understood them correctly), keeping it in your car just in case, you are fine. Walking around with it would be an issue, kind of like a CCW handgun under a CHP.

(5) Any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as body armor contained entirely within a motor vehicle.

Beat me to it...
I was just re-reading the OP and saw #5,
which even gives an example in the Law(rare)
RIGHT after the highlighted #4.

 

[altimar]

Most football teams could, in theory, be criminalized.

I wouldn't go that far. That's excepted by (6) and/or (7).

 

[altimar]

For the purposes you outline (if I understood them correctly), keeping it in your car just in case, you are fine. Walking around with it would be an issue, kind of like a CCW handgun under a CHP.

I know it's fine in my car. But I can't be on any non-private property within 1000' of schools. Can't have it while walking, running, biking, etc on any sidewalks, roads, parking lots within that distance. At best, a gray area getting it out of the truck in a public parking lot and carrying it into a store. Any of you ever notice how many schools there are in most towns? Or am I the only one who tried to adhere to that restriction when it was in place for carrying?

Also, I think you are mistaken here:
...
This is also not the parish issued permit you are referring to. If you pull up the above statute, it is referring to state issued special officer commissions, which if I am not mistaken, is a kind of like an old form of state police reserves in a way. They still give them out for different reasons. I think it is mainly used in emergencies to give local law enforcement, and sometimes national guard, statewide arrest powers.

Looks like you are correct. (There are three different kinds?!) My point was that the CHP I do have doesn't exempt me from this. I'm not about to get another kind (if even possible) nor have my wife and any others who may ever be in possession of this bullet-resistant bag do likewise. We have a constitutionally protected right to open carry, but I can't carry a piece of purely defensive gear?!

Nobody's answered my question, "By what logic does this protect children?" It does the opposite. It restricts protection. Y'all keep saying it's something else to charge a BG with, but it is already illegal with the other law (14:95.3) to be wearing armor during the commission of another crime (also the other crime is illegal). This can be applied to anyone who is not doing anything wrong at all.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. These responses are helping build good points / counterpoints for a letter to initiate the removal of this law.