18 U.S.C. § 931 — Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons

(a) It is illegal for a person to buy, own, or possess body armor if that person has a felony conviction for a "crime of violence." This section says "crime of violence" has the meaning given in section 16 of this title. This ban also covers a similar state felony committed within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction" of the United States. This section does not define that term. (b) It is a defense to this charge if two things are true. First, the person's employer gave written certification, before the purchase, that body armor was necessary for safe work. Second, the person used and possessed the armor only while doing that job. "Employer," here, means another employee who supervises the person's work. If the person has no supervisor, any other employee of the business may give the certification instead.

The record. According to the source credit, this section was added by Public Law 107-273, enacted November 2, 2002, appearing at division C, title I, § 11009(e)(2)(A) of that act, and published at 116 Stat. 1821. The credit reflects a single legislative action—the original enactment—and does not indicate that the section has since been amended. Historical context. Public Law 107-273 was a broad piece of Department of Justice authorization legislation enacted in the early 2000s, addressing a range of federal criminal justice matters. The prohibition on body armor possession by persons convicted of violent felonies is generally understood to reflect concerns, prominent in law enforcement and policy discussions of that period, about criminals using body armor to protect themselves during violent confrontations with police, thereby increasing the danger to officers and the public. High-profile incidents in the 1990s involving armed offenders wearing body armor during shootouts are commonly cited as part of the backdrop that spurred interest in such measures. However, the specific legislative record identified here does not include committee reports, sponsor statements, or other materials that would establish Congress's precise reasoning for including this particular provision within the larger 2002 act. Beyond the general historical context described above, the documentation provided does not establish why this section was enacted, and no more specific intent should be inferred.