A federal judge in Buffalo has ruled that New York's ban on civilians buying body armor violates the Second Amendment, holding that body armor is an "Arm" protected by the Constitution's plain text. The order is paused for 14 days so the state can appeal.
U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. issued the 47-page decision in Heeter v. James on October 21. The plaintiffs are Benjamin Heeter, Joseph Wurtenberg and the Firearms Policy Coalition, which sued in July 2024. The defendants are Attorney General Letitia James, State Police Superintendent Steven G. James and the district attorneys of Erie and Monroe counties.
What New York's law does
The law took effect July 6, 2022. It bars buying, selling or taking possession of body armor unless the buyer is "engaged or employed in an eligible profession." The New York Department of State keeps the list of those professions, which includes police and peace officers, the military, security guards, firefighters, EMTs, journalists, private investigators, emergency physicians, nurses, attorneys and others. The department says the legislation followed "several mass shootings in the U.S., including in Buffalo, NY." State law defines body armor as "any product that is a personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire."
What the judge decided
Sinatra opened his opinion bluntly. "New York enacted a first-of-its-kind law prohibiting law-abiding residents," he wrote, and "New York's body armor legislation, however, violates the Second Amendment."
The state argued that body armor "is not an 'Arm' as the term would have been commonly understood in 1791 or 1868" and is "at most" a "tactical accessory to firearms." The judge rejected that, relying on the Supreme Court's statement in Heller that the Second Amendment covers "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
He also found body armor is in common use. Market data offered by the plaintiffs estimated more than 82,000 units sold in 2023, more than 87,000 in 2024 and more than 93,000 in 2025, and the opinion noted that 49 states do not ban it.
On history, the state pointed to English laws restricting armor, including the medieval Statute of Northampton. Sinatra said the state had relied on "cherry-picked prohibitions from across the span of Western Civilization" and failed "to identify a single relevantly analogous law." He added, "That Kevlar did not exist at the Founding does not alter the constitutional principles guiding the Court's analysis."
What the ruling does not do
The opinion is narrower than some headlines suggest. It enjoins enforcement only of the purchase and sale provisions, Penal Law sections 270.21 and 270.22 and General Business Law section 396-eee. It expressly leaves in place the separate crime of unlawfully wearing body armor, which applies when someone commits a violent felony while possessing a gun and wearing armor. The judge also rejected the state's argument that a statewide injunction runs afoul of the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, reasoning that CASA limited universal injunctions against federal actions, not relief against a state statute.
Timeline: the appeal clock
July 6, 2022: New York's body armor sale restrictions take effect.
July 1, 2024: The Firearms Policy Coalition files suit.
November 8, 2024: Sinatra denies the state's motion to dismiss.
August 28, 2026: The court hears argument on cross motions for summary judgment.
October 21, 2026: Sinatra grants summary judgment and a permanent injunction, then grants the state's own request for a 14-day stay pending appeal.
November 4, 2026: By the newsroom's count, 14 days from October 21, when the stay runs out unless the Second Circuit extends it.
In granting the stay, Sinatra said he disagreed that the state was likely to win on appeal. He noted that the ban dates to 2022 and that no plaintiff had sought a preliminary injunction. New York's next step is to ask the Second Circuit for a longer stay.
Why it matters beyond body armor
The opinion leans on the same questions the Supreme Court will take up when it hears the AR-15 cases on December 2, including Grant v. Higgins, the Second Circuit case Sinatra cited by name. We previewed those arguments in Cook County and Connecticut Defend AR-15 Bans as Supreme Court Arguments Near. It also fits a run of lower court rulings stretching the word "arms," including the Fifth Circuit's switchblade decision we covered in Fifth Circuit Rules the Federal Switchblade Act's Core Ban Is Unconstitutional and the suppressor fight in Appeals Court Hears Challenge to Illinois Suppressor Ban.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
