Body Armor Law Changes & Legislative Trends
How body armor regulation has evolved from 2002 to 2026, and what's coming next
Reviewed by Ethan Harper · Last updated March 2026
The Shifting Legal Landscape
Body armor law has undergone more change in the past four years than in the preceding two decades. The 2022 Buffalo mass shooting was the inflection point — before that event, body armor was largely unregulated beyond the federal felon prohibition. Since then, New York has banned civilian purchase of soft body armor, Connecticut has restricted online sales, and multiple states have introduced bills to further limit access.
The debate centers on a fundamental tension: body armor is a purely defensive product that cannot harm anyone, yet it can make an armed attacker significantly more dangerous by neutralizing the ability of law enforcement and armed civilians to stop them. Proponents of restrictions argue that mass shooters have increasingly used body armor, while opponents argue that restricting defensive equipment punishes law-abiding citizens and violates constitutional principles.
Legislative Timeline
James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act signed into federal law, making it illegal for convicted violent felons to possess body armor (18 U.S.C. § 931).
NIJ publishes updated 0101.06 standard, establishing the Level IIA through IV rating system still in common use.
Connecticut enacts Public Act 19-7, banning online sales of body armor and requiring face-to-face transactions at licensed dealers.
Multiple states introduce body armor restriction bills following mass shooting incidents. Most fail to advance out of committee.
Buffalo, NY mass shooting — the gunman wore body armor, which prevented an armed security guard from stopping the attack. This event catalyzed new legislative action.
New York enacts S.9407-B/A.10497, banning civilian purchase of 'body vests' (soft body armor). The law takes effect July 1, 2022, making New York the most restrictive state for body armor.
Aaron Salter Jr. Responsible Body Armor Possession Act introduced in Congress, proposing a federal ban on civilian purchase of Level III+ body armor. Named after the retired police officer killed in the Buffalo shooting.
Several states introduce body armor restriction bills: Illinois, California, and New Jersey propose enhanced penalties and purchase restrictions. Illinois passes enhanced crime penalty provisions.
NIJ begins rollout of the 0101.07 standard with new HG1/HG2/RF1/RF2/RF3 level designations, conditioned testing, and female-specific testing protocols.
New York's body armor law faces legal challenges. Courts uphold the core prohibition but questions remain about the scope regarding hard armor plates sold separately from soft vests.
Federal Aaron Salter Jr. Act reintroduced but fails to advance past committee. Bipartisan opposition from both Second Amendment advocates and civil liberties groups.
California introduces AB-92, proposing age restrictions (21+) and enhanced background checks for body armor purchases. The bill is pending as of early 2026.
Multiple states propose 'school safety' bills that include body armor provisions — typically banning possession on school grounds or at public events.
NIJ 0101.07 standard adoption accelerates. Major manufacturers begin transitioning product lines to new HG/RF designations. Both 0101.06 and 0101.07 certified products remain on the market.
Key 2025-2026 Developments
NIJ Standard Transition (0101.06 → 0101.07)
The most significant non-legislative change is the NIJ's transition to the 0101.07 standard. This affects the legal landscape because some proposed legislation references specific NIJ levels. As the naming convention changes from Roman numerals (IIA, II, IIIA, III, IV) to the new HG/RF system (HG1, HG2, RF1, RF2, RF3), existing laws that reference old level names may need updating. This creates a temporary ambiguity that could affect enforcement.
State-Level Trends
Three patterns are emerging across state legislatures:
- Enhanced crime penalties: The most politically viable approach. Adding years to sentences when body armor is worn during a crime has bipartisan support because it targets criminal use without restricting lawful civilian ownership.
- School and public venue bans: Several states are adding body armor to the list of items prohibited on school grounds and at public events. These laws are modeled after existing weapons-free zone statutes.
- Purchase process restrictions: Rather than outright bans, some states are considering age limits, waiting periods, or background check requirements for body armor purchases — similar to the approach used for firearms.
Federal Outlook
The federal Aaron Salter Jr. Act, which would ban civilian purchase of Level III+ body armor, has been introduced in multiple sessions but has not advanced. The bill faces opposition from both sides: Second Amendment groups argue it restricts a defensive product, while some civil liberties organizations argue it could disproportionately affect communities that face elevated threats of violence. The most likely federal action in the near term is enhanced sentencing provisions rather than purchase bans.
What to Watch
- New York legal challenges: The outcome of ongoing litigation over New York's civilian body armor ban could set precedent for other states considering similar laws.
- California AB-92: If passed, California's age restriction and background check bill would create a new regulatory model that other states may follow.
- NIJ 0101.07 full adoption: As the new standard becomes dominant, expect legislative language to be updated, which may create opportunities for both expanding and narrowing restrictions.
- Mass shooting incidents: Historically, body armor legislation has been reactive to high-profile events. Future incidents involving body armor could rapidly accelerate legislative action.