Most of us don't walk around with body armor on, though plenty of us have it. After all, we're a free society where many of us understand that we may be called upon to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

What's more, it's not likely it's regularly showing up at crime scenes.

That's not to say it hasn't. For example, the Buffalo shooter wore body armor.

But the truth is that armor protects people. It can help people survive an attack, which makes it safety equipment that's also handy in the event that, frankly, we need to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

So, of course, some of the usual suspects want to ban it.

They tried before and it went nowhere. Now, they're trying to raise that bill from the dead.

As we marked two years since the Buffalo mass shooting the issue of body armor has been brought up once again.

Police say It is something the shooter wore on 5-14. 2 On Your Side took another look at where this issue stands.

In Congress It is now a reintroduction of a reintroduction. 

The Aaron Salter Jr. Responsible Body Armor Possession Act was introduced this session by Representative Grace Meng of Queens and co-sponsored by newly sworn-in U.S. Rep. Tim Kennedy.

The Buffalo Democrat spoke on the House floor yesterday of the actions of the posthumously promoted Lt. Aaron Salter.  He is the retired Buffalo police officer turned armed Tops market security officer who literally put his life on the line that terrible day by firing his pistol at the shooter.

Kennedy stated: "He died a hero. Delaying the shooter and giving more people precious seconds to escape. Lt. Salter didn't hesitate. He opened fire hitting the target. But because of the shooter's body armor he was unharmed and fired back killing Lt. Salter."

And let's understand that Salter did, indeed, die a hero. He met the attack as he should have but it wasn't enough, unfortunately.

But let's be real here, there's more at play than this one incident.

Body armor protects people. It has no volition of its own. All it does is get worn by people, most of whom never use it for anything illegal. It's one of those things most who buy it pray they never actually need it.

Yet, like banning guns, it's not going to have the desired effect.

First, as we've seen with literally everything else they anti-gunners lose their mind over, the more they talk about it and try to restrict it, the more the wrong people start to use said item. AR-15s weren't overly common at mass shootings until the anti-gunners went on a rampage. So-called ghost guns weren't a concern until politicians started screaming about them. Why would this be any different?

It's one thing if they keep showing up in criminal hands. It would still be wrong, but I could at least get it.

Instead, we have a handful of incidents as most, and even Buffalo came after someone tried to ban armor. 

The reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms is preserved in the Second Amendment was our Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to meet any threat on as even a playing field as possible. 

Luckily, there's little chance this particular Congress is going to let this particular measure through. It's just one more reason to get out to vote in November.