Rod Watson: If we can’t stop shooters, at least take away their protection

Second Amendment advocates have long had a mantra: Nothing stops a bad guy with a gun except a good guy with a gun.

But the good guy with the gun on Saturday – retired police officer turned security guard Aaron Salter – was thwarted in trying to take down the shooter because the murderer was wearing body armor.

Police said at least one of Salter’s shots hit alleged gunman Payton Gendron before the security guard himself was killed trying to save others. Had Gendron not had on bulletproof clothing and a protective helmet, Salter’s shots might well have prevented or at least mitigated the tragedy that unfolded.  

New York State law makes wearing body armor illegal – but only when the wearer “commits any violent felony.”

That means someone who wants to commit mass murder can buy body armor legally before the crime, and then use it to carry out heinous acts like the ones Gendron is accused of. Sure, authorities can tack on extra penalties after the fact, but that will be of no help to the victims and little comfort to their survivors.

Last year, Newburgh Assemblyman Jonathan Jacobson proposed a bill that would have banned “the purchase or possession of a body vest.” The bill’s goal was to make them illegal except for active law enforcement officers or those “employed in an occupation which requires the use of body vests,” such as security guards or armored car drivers.

The memo explaining the bill could have been presciently talking about Gendron when it said, “Otherwise, bulletproof vests are used by those intending to protect themselves while committing crimes.”

In his writings, the alleged Buffalo shooter practically bragged that “I will be wearing decent body armor and a helmet to protect from other people’s firearms.”

In another section of the screed, he cites the possibility that in addition to police or security guards, some of the shoppers also might be carrying concealed weapons. He writes derisively of his Black targets, “This is Buffalo after all so I am expecting some boys to be packing.”

Thus he felt the need for body armor to protect himself while he shot 13 others, killing 10.

If Salter followed the advice given in self-defense classes, the security guard aimed at “high center mass,” the upper chest area where most vital organs are – but also the area protected by body armor. Without such protection, the murderer would not have been nearly so cavalier – or invulnerable to Salter’s return fire.

“Someone who wears that feels invincible,” Jacobson said by phone. “If police or other people shoot back at them, they don’t care.”

“I don’t know of any hunters that go with body armor,” he added.

Granted, such a New York State law could only do so much. After all, the high-capacity magazine police say was used in the shootings already was illegal under New York law. But that didn’t stop the Broome County man from acquiring it in a state with lax or no controls. He might have been similarly successful seeking body armor.

But at least Jacobson’s bill would make it more difficult, including for street thugs who – despite Saturday’s massacre – remain the biggest daily threat to both police and residents.

And who knows, since body armor isn’t a weapon and shouldn’t arouse the same passions as any restrictions on guns, a similar congressional measure might even draw enough GOP support to enact a national ban. It would be much harder for Republicans – or conservative Democrats – to say they don’t want to protect police officers and security guards when no gun rights would be at stake.

Jacobson said his bill never got any traction in Albany, either because people didn’t think the issue was a big deal or because of blowback from the usual forces. Now he will make another push, and maybe Saturday’s tragedy will be enough to change the dynamics of the debate.

After all, if we can’t stop murderers from shooting, the least we can do is take away their protection when a good guy shoots back.