Armour of Defence: The Overlooked Half of the Second Amendment
Armour of Defence: The Overlooked Half of the Second Amendment
Most Second Amendment debates are about firearms. But the Supreme Court’s own definition of “arms” reaches further than guns, and that part almost never gets discussed.
What the Supreme Court said “arms” means
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court had to decide what the word “arms” meant to the people who ratified the Second Amendment. It went to the dictionaries of the founding era. The first definition it cited came from Samuel Johnson’s 1773 dictionary: arms are “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” It also cited Timothy Cunningham’s 1771 legal dictionary, which defined arms as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands.”
Armor is not an afterthought in that definition. It is half of it. The founders understood the right to bear arms as a right of self-defense, and protecting your own body is the most basic self-defense there is. In 2022, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to armed self-defense.
Why this matters now
Body armor is increasingly treated as something ordinary citizens should not own. New York restricted civilian purchases in 2022, and similar proposals keep coming. The pressure doesn’t only come from legislatures. It also comes from the private companies that control the materials armor is made from.
Our surprising experience with Dyneema
Dyneema is the best-known brand of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), the material that forms the backing of modern rifle plates. The brand is owned by Avient.
Some time ago we held a teleconference with Avient about buying Dyneema for our plates. We were told that they would not sell to us unless we had an Avient pre-approved customer vetting program.
We build armor for law enforcement and for law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves and their families. As far as we’re concerned, the Avient position turns its back on the Second Amendment. The right to “armour of defence” does not belong only to agencies and contractors. It belongs to the people.
So we went a different direction
Instead of stepping on the Second Amendment through engaging in an open-ended customer qualification program, we did something better. We went looking for an even more advanced polyethylene, and that search shaped the plates we build today. We partnered with firms that make ultra-high quality polyethylene in NATO member states. Our UHMWPE quality is equal to and exceeds Avient performance metrics for the fiber grade and classes we use. It seems like Avient's corporate big business is restricting the rights of American citizens to obtain access to life-saving polyethylene material by requiring them to be included in pre-approved vetting processes (no one at Avient would tell us what that meant).
The best part about our experience is that it made our products even stronger.
Armor stops bullets. It doesn’t fire them
Body armor is defensive. If the Second Amendment protects anything, it protects a citizen’s right to protect their own body. We intend to keep making armor for the people who exercise that right.
Sources: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581 (2008); New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).