The legislation amends Section 31360 of the Penal Code, thereby modifying the legal framework surrounding body armor possession. Under the new law, individuals who cannot possess firearms due to prior convictions face a misdemeanor charge if they attempt to possess body armor. This change seeks to prevent potential misuse of body armor by enhancing the backdrop of existing firearm prohibitions. Additionally, the bill outlines procedures for individuals whose safety and livelihood depend on the ability to use body armor, allowing them to petition for exceptions based on their circumstances, maintaining a balance between safety and individual needs.
Assembly Bill No. 92, introduced by Connolly, addresses the possession of body armor by individuals who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses. Specifically, it modifies existing laws that make it a felony for those who have been convicted of a violent felony to purchase, own, or possess body armor. The bill introduces a new provision making it a misdemeanor for individuals prohibited from possessing a firearm under California law to also possess body armor. This significant shift aims to enhance public safety by restricting access to protective gear by those with a history of violent crime, potentially reducing risks to law enforcement and the community at large.
The sentiment around AB 92 appears to be generally positive among supporters who advocate for stricter controls on body armor possession to enhance public safety. Proponents argue that limiting access to body armor for individuals with violent felony convictions aligns with broader public safety goals. However, there are concerns regarding the potential impact on individuals whose professions may necessitate the use of body armor, as they may face additional hurdles in their ability to legally obtain this protective equipment. This aspect of the bill sparked discussions around the necessity of the proposed exceptions.
While AB 92 has garnered support for its intent to protect public safety, it has also raised questions about fairness and access. Critics express concern over how the misdemeanor designation might unjustly burden individuals who require body armor for legitimate reasons, such as security personnel or others in high-risk professions. The bill's failure to require reimbursement to local agencies for the new mandates has also raised eyebrows, leading to discussions about the financial implications for law enforcement enforcing these provisions. Ultimately, the bill represents a significant change in how California regulates body armor, reflecting an ongoing tension between public safety and individual rights.