Southridge? The VLA? No boundaries now, I guess. Too bad. So sad.

Those selling the crap have money, why would they want to live in the VLA? Kinda confirms the bust on Simon Fraser a few weeks back, chalk one up for the queens own cowboys, they must be on a push to justify the $45 million dollar digs downtown

I haven't heard how much the cost is or what the purpose of the old Kal tire building on 20th will be. Why couldn't a building be found downtown where we require more police presence?

I've said it before, take all the bad guys possessions and hire more good guys with the proceeds. End result, all good guys.

Take their proceeds? good point...I think it could be taken a little further...
you drive drunk...you loose the vehicle.
You drive under the influence...vehicle gone.
you drive while suspended...you loose the vehicle.
and if you are driving a friends vehicle ...too bad for the friend..vehicle gone.
Maybe fewer people would be loaning their vehicles out.
would it work...probably, will it happen..not likely ...to many cry babies.

Sensationalism at its finest, a guy is arrested with a prohibited firearm on his person, but the headline mentions the kevlar vest.

BCRACER. No idea why you decide to ramble on about some drinking and driving things when this story has absolutely nothing to do with drinking or driving, Also if you are gonna make stupid statements for all us to have to read can you please learn how to spell, Its LOSE there vehicle not LOOSE. Then the end where you said to many cry babies. Seriously where was there anyone crying in here.

BCRACER. No idea why you decide to ramble on about some drinking and driving things when this story has absolutely nothing to do with drinking or driving, Also if you are gonna make stupid statements for all us to have to read can you please learn how to spell, Its LOSE there vehicle not LOOSE. Then the end where you said to many cry babies. Seriously where was there anyone crying in here.

The point to be taken here is that the vest is an additional charge that was laid. Topical since the law was passed the day before. I didnt read illegal firearm, just illegal weapon. Banning vests makes....well no sense whatsoever. We ban certain weapons, arguing that they can hurt people. We ban the use of protective gear (on some people) because they could...what? use them to hit us on the head with? I wonder how long this little gem would last if it were applied to the general poulace? Doesnt some even remotely constitutional to me.

"Its LOSE there vehicle not LOOSE."

Um, actually, it's "Lose THEIR vehicle", not "Lose THERE vehicle" if you want to get technical.

caranmacil,

BC outlawed vests for non-lawful use, that is, not by law enforcement, or guards, security guards, or people with permits (mostly for people who are going to show up in court and need to stay alive to plea guilty).

Basically the thinking goes, if you have body armor, it gives you a sense of saftey, leading to more reckless or dangerous behavior. Gun fight, no problem, I've got my vest on!

And honestly, the every day civillian doesn't need armor and indeed, should never NEED armor in day to day life.

If you feel the need to protest this "vital" right to own something, please, move somewhere with the other gun nuts.

Okay my spelling isn't the greatest..
and willy my comment about losing vehicles was in response to the blog ahead of mine. And my referal to cry babys had to do with will the confiscating of vehicles ever happening, and no, I don't think it will. but it would supply some money for operation costs for policing of our fair city if they were.

As for this story , I don't think the party wearing the vest would be charged with that as it isn't against the law...yet! But illegal firearms and ammo...you bet...

hope that clears up all the questions...

"And honestly, the every day civillian doesn't need armor and indeed, should never NEED armor in day to day life."

This is really what it comes down to. If you feel the need to wear body armour and you're not a cop, you better choose another line of work.

The point to be taken here is that the vest is an additional charge that was laid. Topical since the law was passed the day before. I didnt read illegal firearm, just illegal weapon. Banning vests makes....well no sense whatsoever. We ban certain weapons, arguing that they can hurt people. We ban the use of protective gear (on some people) because they could...what? use them to hit us on the head with? I wonder how long this little gem would last if it were applied to the general poulace? Doesnt some even remotely constitutional to me.

OK for those of you who think i have to justify each and every one of my rights, i think it is time for YOU to move over with the idiots who take their rights for granted. I do have a right to do pretty much whatever i waqnt to unless it hurts someone. At least that would be true in a free country.
For all you folks who see no 'need' for me to wear a vest, before you jump in here consider the fact that no one in canada NEEDS a gun, a bow, a car that goes fast, a pet (of any kind) a red car (it has been shown that red cars goes faster), a summer holiday overseas, freedom of expression...need i go on? OKAY, aside from myself and a few other outdoor workers, no one NEEDS a skidoo, a quad or a dirt bike. No one NEEDS a boat, or heaven forbid a seadoo.
I realize i am belabouring this but i am tired of the same foolish nonsense being thrown out every time the govt strips us of a right. If you can see where my wearing a kevlar vest is as likely to cause mayhem as my owning a horse or a big dog or a fast car then speak up.
The idea that allowing people to wear vests will encourage them to get into gun fights is ALMOST too stupid to refute. There is no evidence that any of the very few gun fights in BC were prompted by one or more of those involved putting on a vest and saying 'no problem'. More to the point, exactly how many 'gun fights' have there even been in BC? As i remember it most of the gang killings and such involved one side shooting and the other catching. Maybe, to take your logic and run with it, vests ought to be encouraged since maybe then the folk who are doing gangster style hits woulod feel less likely to succeed and just decide to give up crime and get a job at Walmart.

lol@the idiot who typed LOOSE.

Wow, I'm amazed corruption hasn't been banned from this site for his antics in some of the other threads.

And caranmacil, I think you're getting 'right' confused with 'privledge'. Two different things entirely.

Nope, in a free society we have the 'right to do as we please'. By labelling some of our rights as privileges we seek to control who gets what rights. It is just a way for the state to decide what rights we get. Shift a right into the 'privilege' category and it is easy to justify taking it away from pretty much everyone. Who gets to decide what is required to earn our privilege? Who in this country do you feel you could trust to decide which of your rights you get and which you earn? The definition of a privelige is: a right granted as a benefit or favour, esp as attached to an office. Hence the cops have the privilege of wearing body armour, the populace at large does not. Law enforcement and a selct few bushmen have the privileg of carrying ahandgun on their person, the rest of the nation does not have the right to do so.
You are correct to say that rights and privileges are two different. The former is priceless and needs to be protected, the latter is useless to the populace at large. There is no confusion on this issue on my part, just the opposite.

Hmmm IMO anyone living in Prince George should have the right to wear protective gear! Untill its a safe place to live its our GOD GIVEN right to protect ourselves!
And also our GOD GIVEN right to bare Arms...

what am i to do with my 2 vests? do i take them to the detachment and get charged because i have them? or can i just sell them on ebay and try to recoop some money? they say its now law but what do we do with the ones we have? rcmp dispatch cant answer these question without going in there personally nor what type of vests are banned. my opinion repo men should be allowed vests!

Here is the logic of the vest applied to seatbelts.

- If I wear a seat belt while driving, I feel safer.

- Since I feel safer, I will tend to drive more recklessly.

- If I drive more recklessly I will tend to do more damage to other people's property and person

- Thus, to reduce the number of accidents and property/person damage, seatbelts should be outlawed rather than required.

Same goes for hard hats and any other safety device that encourages people to act more dangerously so that their actions could hurt others as well.

It just occurred to me that the vest logic might be: people who wear vests (and are likely to actually get shot) are mostly criminals, we want less criminals, so lets ban vests so they are more likely to be killed in a drive by shooting. OK that was cynical even for me. Here is what the logic should be: vests make it harder to kill criminals,so make gangsters wear vests so that gang shootings will be less likely to succeed in their goal, thus reducing gang style shootings.
Just pulling your legs, I still feel very strongly that there is no logic behind this violation of our rights (call it an aspect of our right to secutrity of person, if we have one). other than the police geting one more useless charge to level when they are rousting those 'known to police'. Yay! we exchange some personal freedom so some thug MIGHT spend an extra day in jail!

Caranmacil:

Please don't feel like I'm picking on you, I do understand where you are coming from. I understand how this _is_ a civil liberty being taken away. However, as I have read it, and as I have talked to a few judges who believe it will be enforced as, what this law means is if you own and use body armor for unlawful use, you will be charged.

that means that privateone's point about repo men being allowed to use vests is valid and they will be able to apply for permits.

You too could apply for a permit.

If you don't have a record, nor are a known associate of OC, then you will not be denied the "right" of owning a vest. Something similar to how gun control goes now. (as horrifying as that is)

As to the logic of this measure, I can't really try to convince your mind, except to say seat belt use is mandatory for monetary reasons, not health reasons, the government originally ruled in favor of seat belts to reduce medical costs. They were invented long before but were not legislated until much later. Same with infant car seats and now booster seats for kidss, both of which are now required by law, if not by common sense.

That last paragraph made little sense to the arguement, I meant to refute Gus' arguement.

BTW if gus, if you didn't have a seat belt, would you be tempted to drive as fast or as recklessly, knowing that you weren't as safe, and in the event of loss of control, you'd more likely be horribly injured or even killed?

thanks for the info Jimmy. I dont really have a problem with going through an approval process based on a criminal record check. I may well have gone off the deep end there if that is the case. My apologies. Personal rights and freedom are, as you all may have gathered a sore point for me, esp when people seem to get more riled up over a small tax increase than they do over the question of the state walking over (someone elses ) rights.
I agree with your point regarding seat belts, it was a monetary measure. While i agree that the state has a role in some aspects of child protection (and thus get my support as far as mandting belts/car seats) i have always thought seat belt laws for adults to be a bad law. Worse yet, the law has become the single most quoted precident for the restriction of other rights. Motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, boat operator licenses, pet restrictions, censorship, etc. The argument being: "see? the state already regulates what you can or can't do, regardless of harm to toher people so why not this time?".
I would say, though i am sure GUs will answer you as well, that i have never modified my driving based on whether my belt was on or not. Anyone who drives fast or reckless based on a feeling of safety is, well a fool. It might actually help reduce the number of deaths out there if people had a little less faith in their vehicle/tires/seat belt. Not really on topic, i know but i have been thinking of it since Gus brought it up.
By the way, i did not feel i was being picked on. If anything i was very happy that at least someone took an interest in the subject.

Caranmacil:

The following quote is the reason why the law was passed:

"I would say, though i am sure GUs will answer you as well, that i have never modified my driving based on whether my belt was on or not. Anyone who drives fast or reckless based on a feeling of safety is, well a fool. It might actually help reduce the number of deaths out there if people had a little less faith in their vehicle/tires/seat belt."

That is, in terms of seat belts, because people know they are "safe", they take risks that are silly, like driving too fast for conditions.

In terms of this law, the thinking goes, people will take risks, ie, gun fights, they might have thought twice of, because they are wearing body armor and are "safe."

Fact of the matter is, I don't think this law will be too much of a matter to John Q Public, except to put up to 10,000 dollars in extra tax money into the system.

Cheers, I always enjoy a logical and thoughtful dialogue :)

Maybe those five people who were stabbed by a wacko in Vancouver are now wishing they should have been wearing Kevlar vests. Betcha.

Dear Harbinger,

Please note soft body armor, or "bullet proof" vests offer less then stellar protective values against low velocity weapons, ie knives and such.

Even the RCMP soft body armor only provides slightly better then none against a sharp knife.

Vests are highly vulnerable to stabbings and only offer slightly better against slashing attacks.

So no, I don't think those 5 victims are wishing they had armor on, I bet they wish they'd run away instead.