New York State not only makes it incredibly difficult to own a gun. Lawmakers have made it needlessly harder to protect yourself from harm by banning the sale and use of body armor by average, everyday citizens.
Now a federal judge has struck down that prohibition, ruling that the law violates our right to keep and bear arms.
U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. concluded that body armor is an "arm" under the Supreme Court's prior Second Amendment cases, and for good reason. Heller actually defined "arms" as "weapons of offence or armour of defence." Given that, it was a relatively straightforward task to conclude that modern body armor is as protected by the Second Amendment as a medieval knight's suit of armor.
With the plain text of the Second Amendment implicated, Sinatra then concluded that body armor is in common use. Tens of thousands of units are sold every year, but body armor is also legal to possess in 49 of the 50 states.
Given those determinations, it was up to New York to come up with historical analogues to justify its modern prohibition. According to Sinatra, the state failed to do so.
The State argues that there exists a "centuries-long historical tradition" demonstrating that, "when body armor has been in use, it has been subject to government regulation." Yet, the State is unable to identify a single regulation on body armor post-ratification. Instead, the State seeks to support its body armor ban by drawing on foreign law that predates this Nation's founding.
That's a goofy argument, but I suppose it was the best one that New York had.
The State also attempts to shoehorn its body armor ban into this Circuit's "unusually dangerous" standard set forth in Lamont, 153 F.4th at 227, cert. granted sub no,n. Grant v. Higgins, 146 S. Ct. 2811 (2026). The State argues that "advanced synthetic materials like Kevlar ... did not begin to emerge until the late 19th and 20th centuries," "was never contemplated by the Founders," "was not possessed by early Americans," and "descends from historical lineage of tactical gear strictly regulated and restricted to the government's peaceable forces." The Supreme Court in Bruen, however, noted that the Second Amendment to "the Constitution can, and must, apply to circumstances beyond those the Founders specifically anticipated." And Heller left no doubt that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
If body armor can be banned because it's a technological advancement over leather, chain, or plate mail, then presumably modern handguns could be banned because they're more technologically advanced than cap and ball pistols. Sinatra rightfully notes the ridiculousness of that position and concludes that the "technological changes in body armor have occurred since the Nation's founding does not save New York's ban."
You can read Sinatra's full decision here. I'll also caution New Yorkers not to run right out to purchase a Kevlar vest. The judge stayed his decision for 14 days in order for the state to appeal to the Second Circuit, and given that court's hostility towards our right to keep and bear arms I'd be downright shocked if it allowed Sinatra's injunction to actually go into effect while the litigation continues.
So, from a practical standpoint, today's decision doesn't change the reality on the ground in New York. It does, however, set up the very real possibility that New York's ban on body armor will be null and void in the next couple of years. Congratulations to Firearms Policy Coalition, the individual plaintiffs, and attorney Nicolas Rotsko for a significant win in support of our Second Amendment rights.
Editor’s Note: FPC and other organizations across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member