Buffalo, N.Y. (WBEN) - A federal judge in the Western District of New York has struck down a state ban on law-abiding residents from being able to buy body armor, saying bulletproof vests and other protective gear is protected under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In a 47-page ruling issued Wednesday, Judge John Sinatra in Buffalo said body armor is and "arm" protected by the Second Amendment.
"As such, regulation in this area is permissible only if the state demonstrates that the new enactment is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. New York fails that test," Sinatra wrote.
A 14-day stay has been issued by Judge Sinatra, as the state may look to appeal the ruling in an Appellate Court.
The actions taken by New York State regarding restrictions on body armor and bulletproof gear came as a direct result of the May 14, 2022 racially motivated mass shooting at the Tops Friendly Market on Jefferson Avenue in Buffalo. In the attack, the 18-year-old gunman was wearing a bulletproof vest and a tactical helmet as he went on his shooting spree that killed 10 Black people and wounded three others.
In the state's law, residents that were not a military member, in a profession like law enforcement or other professions designated to be able to own have body armor were not allowed to purchase those materials, nor could businesses sell, exchange or transfer bulletproof vests.
Along with New York State taking action against "body vests," work was being done in Washington, D.C. to keep body armor away from mass shooters thanks to Congressman Brian Higgins (D), Congressman Chris Jacobs (R), and Congresswoman Grace Meng (D). In the years since, Congressman Tim Kennedy (D) has continued those efforts to ban military-grade body armor, but there has been no such traction taking place at the federal level.
The bill introduced and proposed by local lawmakers in Washington is named after former Buffalo Police Lt. Aaron Salter Jr., who was killed while working as a security guard at the Tops that afternoon when the attack took place. Salter Jr. was able to return fire, striking the gunman, but it had no effect before he was tragically gunned down.
"Unfortunately, the shots that Aaron fired were repelled because the mass shooter was wearing military-grade body armor. But for that body armor, he would have been taken out, and we wouldn't have lost so many lives in that Tops shooting," said Jacobs, who did not run for Congress after the end of his term in 2022. "That is the context of what we said, it was not a absolute ban."
So when Jacobs heard of the ruling from the federal judge striking down New York's body armor law in place, it came as a complete shock.
"I have immense respect for Judge Sinatra, but the fact that, basically, the ruling is saying that body armor is akin to a gun and that it is protected constitutionally by the Second Amendment; boy, in all the discussions of crafting this legislation, that was never brought up by anyone on my staff or on committee staff that had expertise in this," said Jacobs in an interview with WBEN.
"My perspective on this was this was a one way, it wasn't invading the issue of the Second Amendment, in terms of firearms and so forth. But it is functioning as another incentive and comfort for a mass shooter. They're cowards. They want to go in and they want to not get harmed themselves. If they didn't have that ability to easily get body armor, they may think once or twice or three times again before going in and and doing this mass shooting and this horrific act."
Jacobs believes this is a ruling that should be appealed by the state.
"If, in fact, it goes up all the way to the next level, or maybe the Supreme Court and it holds this decision, then we'll know, and we'll have to find another way to skin this cat," Jacobs said.
"I really would urge the powers that be Gov. Hochul or whoever would be the relevant person to begin an appeal process to do it. There's other states, the federal government, federal legislators (Congressman Kennedy) want to continue the legislation that we introduced, or someone else. So I think it's an important enough thing."
While Jacobs feels Judge Sinatra is making this ruling as he sees it, being "uncharted territory," he feels there's no historical context for this decision, which is relevant, but not determinative in constitutional analysis.
"I think that is why I think one perspective is, I believe, insufficient on something that I think could be very significant in saving lives," Jacobs explained.
"I don't think myself or Congressman Higgins, Congresswoman Meng, any of us ever considered that this would be viewed as a firearm, and that is what this judge is saying. It's the same as a rifle, same as an assault rifle, same as a defensive Second Amendment protected tool."
Among the questions Jacobs is left to consider now with this decision is what is the constitutional protection in this case?
"Is a helmet, is that going to be covered under the Second Amendment? Are steel-toed shoes going to be covered under the Second Amendment? That is outrageous," Jacobs said. " I think this is a significant enough and a broadening of the Second Amendment beyond what, I think, a lot of people who are familiar with this field would see."
