"Finding a Founding-era precedent for banning civilians from owning defensive equipment is a steep hill to climb—New York will have to locate one, or the law falls."

That's the whole game under Bruen. The burden shifted — New York has to produce the historical analogue, not FPC. I'd genuinely like to see what argument they bring, because I can't think of a single colonial-era law that banned a citizen from protecting his own body.

"This case isn't really about body armor. It's a stress test of how broadly Bruen applies."

That's the part worth watching. If a court applies the historical-tradition standard to defensive equipment and strikes it down, that reasoning doesn't stay in New York. It becomes a template — and there are plenty of states with defensive-equipment restrictions that have never been seriously challenged.

Worth noting the article is clear-eyed about timeline — summary judgment, opposition briefs, oral arguments, then almost certainly an appeal. This doesn't resolve in a news cycle. Could be years before it means anything on the ground.

For those of us who carry, body armor is one of those things that rarely comes up at the gun shop counter — but if you've ever thought about wearing a plate carrier during a range trip or keeping one at home, the legal landscape around that equipment varies more than most people realize.

Have any of you looked into body armor for home defense or range use, and did the laws in your state factor into that decision at all?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett