At the behest of the city police union, the Baltimore City Council is considering a bill to ban the sale and ownership of bulletproof vests. The rationale for the measure is extremely weak.
The issue arose last month when police officers noticed a billboard on Reisterstown Road advertising a mail-order company, Second Chance Safety, and its line of bulletproof vests. The officers complained that the ad was directed at drug dealers.
Company owner Robert Abrams denied the charge, citing inquiries from lawyers, abortion doctors and pizza delivery workers about buying these protective coverings. But last month the billboard company, responding to police complaints, covered the ad and canceled the contract anyway.
On Monday, City Council President Mary Pat Clarke introduced a bill that would make it illegal for most residents of Baltimore to own or sell body armor. Presently, vendors say they screen sales of body armor, limiting the sales for the most part to police and people licensed to carry handguns, such as business owners and security guards. Mr. Abrams, however, seems geared to sell to the general public.
Such a ban is an emotional reaction to the crime problem. If
enacted, it would do nothing to prevent violence on the streets. Bulletproof vests, unlike firearms, are purely defensive products. street on which everyone wore body armor would be a completely safe street; a street where guns proliferated would be a virtual war zone.
Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke complains the bulletproof-vest ads portray the city in a poor light. He misses the point. Not everybody is going to rush out and buy body armor, but why should those who wish to protect themselves put up with the hassle equivalent to obtaining a handgun permit -- especially if they never intend to own a gun?
Next, citizens will have to have permits to put extra locks on their doors. The whole thing is preposterous.
This regulatory impulse by the FOP and Mrs. Clarke smacks of bureaucratic insanity. And it would do very little to combat crime.