Federal Judge Strikes Down New York Body Armor Ban, Rules Armor Protected by Second Amendment
A federal district court judge in the Western District of New York has struck down the Empire State’s ban on body armor, finding it unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The case, Heeter v. James (1:24-cv-00623, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York), is a Second Amendment challenge to New York’s body armor purchase and sale restrictions. On October 21, 2026, Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, struck down the ban as applied to ordinary law-abiding civilians, and denied the defendants’ cross-motions.
The complaint was filed by Benjamin Heeter, Joseph Wurtenberg, and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). The plaintiffs sued officials, including Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James, and district attorneys for Erie and Monroe Counties.
The suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the ban violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Individual plaintiffs stated they intended to purchase body armor for personal safety (e.g., crime or unrest) but refrained because of the threat of enforcement.
New York’s Body Armor Ban and the Challenge Against It
The New York State law was passed in early 2022 with an effective date of July 6, 2022. It came after a neo-Nazi carried out a mass shooting at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store while wearing body armor. Because of the attack, New York State passed a slew of anti-gun laws.
The relevant provisions in this case are primarily N.Y. Penal Law §§ 270.21 and 270.22, plus General Business Law § 396-eee. They generally prohibit people who are not “engaged or employed in an eligible profession” from purchasing or taking possession of body armor (defined as personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire). Eligible professions include police officers, peace officers, military personnel, and others the Department of State designates (e.g., certain security, emergency, and related roles). Sellers are restricted from transferring body armor to non-eligible buyers.
First-offense purchase violations are typically Class A misdemeanors (escalating to Class E felonies for subsequent offenses). A separate provision (§ 270.20(1)) criminalizes wearing body armor while committing certain violent felonies with a firearm; the ruling does not affect that provision.
The law is the first of its kind in the nation.
How Heeter v. James Reached Summary Judgment
The plaintiffs filed the complaint on July 1, 2024, and amended it shortly after to include plaintiffs Mark Braiman (Cazenovia / Madison County resident), Joseph Wurtenberg (Fairport / Monroe County resident), and defendants William G. Gabor (District Attorney for Madison County) and Sandra Doorley (District Attorney for Monroe County). The amended complaint updated the party descriptions and standing allegations so each individual plaintiff (Heeter, Braiman, and Wurtenberg) alleged a desire and intention to buy body armor but was deterred by the threat of enforcement in their respective counties. The legal claims, the description of the ban (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 270.21 & 270.22 and Gen. Bus. Law § 396-eee), and the constitutional theory remained essentially unchanged.
On June 2, 2025, Braiman voluntarily dismissed his claims, and the claims against Gabor were also dismissed. That left Heeter, Wurtenberg, and FPC as the remaining plaintiffs, with the original state defendants plus Keane and Doorley.
The court denied New York State’s motions to dismiss in a November 8, 2024 decision, finding standing (including for the individual plaintiffs’ pre-enforcement challenge and FPC’s associational standing). Cross-motions for summary judgment followed in 2026, with extensive briefing, amicus participation, and oral argument in late August 2026.
Judge Rules Body Armor Is Protected by the Second Amendment
The court denied the defense’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion. Judge Sinatra held that the ban on law-abiding residents outside eligible professions from purchasing and selling body armor violates the Second Amendment.
Under the Bruen framework, the plaintiffs must prove the conduct falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The court said body armor qualifies as an “arm.” The court relied on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which cited founding-era dictionaries defining “arms” to include “weapons of offence, or armour of defence” and “any thing that a man wears for his defence.” The Second Amendment extends prima facie to bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding.
The court rejected arguments that armor was obsolete or rare in 1791 as incompatible with Heller’s textual analysis and noted that modern body armor is far more common today than many founding-era arms were then.
New York Fails the Bruen Historical Tradition Test
Once the plain text is implicated, the burden shifts to the state to show the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation. New York failed.
The state identified no post-ratification American laws banning civilian purchases of body armor. English history (royal proclamations, the Statute of Northampton) was deemed insufficiently analogous or probative under Bruen and Rahimi. Those earlier measures often targeted public wearing of armor to terrify the public, not a categorical prohibition on law-abiding people acquiring defensive armor for self-defense (including at home). Existing laws already address criminal misuse of body armor.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ requested relief (declaratory and injunctive) as to the civilian purchase/sale ban for non-eligible persons and denied the defendants’ cross-motions. It found no genuine issues of material fact requiring trial on the constitutional question. Judge Sinatra stayed the effect of his judgment for 14 days to give the defense time to appeal.
New York State is expected to appeal to the Second Circuit and ask the court to stay Judge Sinatra’s decision. The Second Circuit is made up of 9 judges appointed by Democrats and 6 judges appointed by Republicans.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.