Aaron Salter, Jr., Responsible Body Armor Possession Act
HB3398, titled the Aaron Salter, Jr., Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, would make it unlawful for civilians to purchase, own, or possess “enhanced body armor,” with limited exceptions. The bill defines enhanced body armor to include body armor, helmets, or shields that meet or exceed the ballistic resistance of RF1 armor under the National Institute of Justice standard in effect at the time of possession. It also creates exceptions for the federal government, state and local governments, tribal governments and tribal law enforcement, covered law enforcement officers, and armor lawfully possessed before the law takes effect.
The bill amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code by adding a new section prohibiting civilian possession of enhanced body armor and by updating the statutory definition of body armor-related terms. It also adds a criminal penalty for knowing violations: a fine, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. In practical terms, the measure would restrict access to higher-level protective gear for the general public while preserving access for government and law enforcement users and grandfathering existing lawful possession.
If enacted, HB3398 would change federal firearms and criminal law in Chapter 44 of Title 18 by creating a new federal offense for civilian purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor. It would also expand the statutory definition of body armor to cover helmets and shields meeting the RF1 ballistic standard and establish a five-year maximum prison term for knowing violations. The bill would primarily affect civilians, armor sellers, and possessors of high-level protective gear, while exempting government entities, tribal authorities, law enforcement officers, corrections officers, and preexisting lawful owners.
The bill appears to have been introduced with support from a sizable group of House Democrats and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but no committee transcript or vote record is provided. Based on the sponsorship pattern and the bill’s public-safety framing, the overall sentiment in the available record appears supportive among its sponsors and neutral-to-unresolved procedurally, since it has only been introduced and referred. There is no recorded floor debate or vote in the provided materials.
The main likely point of contention is the scope of the civilian ban on body armor, especially whether it is appropriate to criminalize possession of protective equipment that some civilians may use for personal safety, training, or lawful self-defense. Another likely issue is the breadth of the definition of “enhanced body armor,” which includes helmets and shields and relies on NIJ ballistic standards, potentially affecting a wider range of products than body armor alone. Supporters are the bill’s Democratic sponsors and likely public-safety advocates; potential opponents would include gun-rights advocates, civil-liberties groups, and some retailers or users concerned about overbreadth and criminal penalties.