Felons Banned From Sale, Possession of Body Armor

A bill inspired by two of California’s most horrific shootouts and strongly backed by the state’s law enforcement agencies has been signed into law by Gov. Pete Wilson, making it a crime for violent felons to possess or sell body armor.

The James Guelff Body Armor Act arose out of last year’s North Hollywood bank shootout--in which two armored gunmen wounded 10 Los Angeles police officers and two civilians--and the slaying of San Francisco Police Officer James Guelff, who was shot to death by a body-armored carjacker in 1994.

Supporters say the law is being enacted at a time when body armor has become as fashionable as tattoos for many gang members across the state.

“Gangs order large quantities of body armor and outfit groups with it who are engaging in criminal behavior,” said Assemblyman Scott Wildman (D-Burbank), the bill’s main author.

“We wanted to shut the door on that trend.”

Wilson signed the bill Monday.

On Nov. 14, 1994, Guelff, a highly decorated 10-year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department, responded to a call of a man with a gun in downtown San Francisco.

There he found 37-year-old Vic Lee Boutwell--dressed in camouflage and protected by two layers of body armor and a bullet-resistant helmet. Boutwell opened fire with an Uzi, and then with one of two assault weapons in his arsenal, which included more than 2,000 rounds of ammunition.

Guelff fired back with a six-shot revolver, but the bullets bounced off Boutwell’s armor. Guelff was hit six times in the legs and stomach--below his inferior police-issued body armor--and once in his left eye.

A 25-minute shootout with dozens of officers ensued, ending when a sniper found an opening in the body armor and killed the gunman.

“I didn’t like the way Jim died,” said his brother, Lee Guelff. He led an unsuccessful effort in 1995 to pass federal legislation similar to the new California law. “It’s bad enough when officers have to face gunmen with superior firepower, but when they can shield themselves with defensive protection as well, that stretches the definition of acceptable risk beyond what is acceptable.”

Although Lee Guelff persuaded Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak to support a federal body armor bill, a committee hearing was never scheduled. But after a pair of armored robbers engaged in a fierce 40-minute gunfight with Los Angeles police in North Hollywood in 1997, Guelff canvassed roll calls at police and sheriff’s agencies throughout California to generate support for the ban and recruited Wildman to revive the bill on the Assembly floor.

“This [law] will enhance our officers’ safety,” LAPD Cmdr. David Kalish said. The LAPD joined the 11,000-member California Assn. of Highway Patrol Officers and the Peace Officers Research Assn. of California in support of the bill.

“We are happy about this bill,” Kalish said.

One of the world’s largest body armor manufacturers was also a proponent of the bill. Sandra Hatfield, president of Fort Lauderdale-based Point Blank Body Armor Inc., said that because much of the company’s business comes from law enforcement and military agencies, the new law will not seriously affect armor sales.

“This is an absolute win for law enforcement,” she said. “And since we’re in partnership with law enforcement, we win also.”

The only opposition to the bill came from the Los Angeles-based California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, who argued that creating new laws is not the most effective way of dealing with crime.

Regulating the sale of body armor, rather than criminalizing possession, “would go a lot further toward keeping things like body armor out of the hands of criminals,” said Mary Broderick, the group’s executive director.

Guelff hopes the bill’s success in California will be replicated in other states and finally in Washington D.C.

“What happened to Jim wasn’t a fair fight, and that bothers me,” Guelff said. “I don’t want this country walking away from the way my brother died.”