Key Takeaways
- U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. ruled on October 21, 2026, that New York's body armor ban violates the Second Amendment.
- The court held that body armor is an 'Arm' protected by the Second Amendment's plain text, requiring New York to show historical support for the ban.
- New York's law barred law-abiding residents outside eligible professions from purchasing body armor for self-defense.
- Benjamin Heeter and Firearms Policy Coalition filed the case in July 2024, with defendants including Attorney General Letitia James and other officials.
- The court blocked enforcement of the statute against New York residents who are not engaged or employed in an eligible profession.
Estimated reading time: 2 minutes
BUFFALO, NY — U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. ruled on October 21, 2026, that New York’s ban on the purchase and sale of body armor violates the Second Amendment. The 47-page decision and order in Heeter v. James, out of the Western District of New York, grants the plaintiffs’ motion to block enforcement of what the court called a first-of-its-kind law prohibiting law-abiding residents, outside an eligible profession, from buying body armor for self-defense.
The reasoning is direct. The court held that body armor is an “Arm” protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Under the Supreme Court’s cases on the right to keep and bear arms, that means New York could regulate it only by demonstrating the ban is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. In the court’s words, New York fails that test.
Benjamin Heeter and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. filed the case in July 2024, and Joseph Wurtenberg was added in an amended complaint that August. A third individual plaintiff, Mark Braiman, voluntarily dismissed his claims in June 2025. The defendants are Attorney General Letitia James, State Police Superintendent Steven G. James, Erie County Acting District Attorney Michael J. Keane, and Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley, all sued in their official capacities.
The challenged statutes are N.Y. Penal Law §§ 270.21 and 270.22 and N.Y. General Business Law § 396-eee. The state’s own website says the law was enacted “to further strengthen gun laws.” The product in question stops bullets. It does not fire them. New York decided the way to strengthen its gun laws was to keep a purely defensive item away from residents who are not in an approved profession.
Both sides asked for summary judgment, which means the judge decided the case on the written record without a trial. The plaintiffs won the relief that matters: the court enjoined, meaning blocked, enforcement of the statute against New York residents who are not engaged or employed in an eligible profession. The state’s motions were denied.
More from USA Carry:
Sinatra is the same judge who ruled in Christian v. James, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and FPC, that New York’s restriction on carrying on private property open to the public was unconstitutional.
I will continue tracking Heeter v. James, including whatever the state does next.
