Constitutional Right to Install Bulletproof Glass? | Hacker News Reader

Constitutional Right to Install Bulletproof Glass?

reason.com

36 pointscar_analogy24 comments

I am not understanding the article. Someone tried to install a particular type of glass and were told no? Why is this even a thing? I can install whatever I want in a commercial building provided it meets building codes and I can install literally anything in my home. Is there more context behind what is going on?

Well, the article gives some reasons for the "anti-bulletproof glass" sentiment:

> The original motivation for the ban was apparently that such barriers were seen by some as "an indignity" (perhaps with a racial dimension, since many of the customers of the stores are black and many of the owners and employees are Asian).

Also, as a tourist, if you see e.g. policemen with machine guns instead of regular (or no) guns, or police cars looking like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Tangi instead of regular cars, does that make you feel safer, or does it make you want to avoid that area in the future? And I can imagine seeing bulletproof glass in all stores you visit has a similar effect...

Calling it an "indignity (perhaps with a racial dimension)" seems to me to be a classic case of mind reading another's motivations.

There is a much more obvious motivation that is more than plausible: the desire to not get shot.

Bulletproof glass will protect from all attackers regardless of their race. It's really reading in too far to say it's anti-Black; this feels like it means to pit Asians and Blacks against each other.

Is this a case of a silly law on the books or was there an incident where someone was blocked from installing a particular type of glass? I ask in good faith because all fifty states have a myriad of silly laws on the books or silly things codified into their state constitutions, most of which are not enforced. The issue for me would be if a silly law were being selectively enforced.

If this is a case of a silly law on the books that is easy for the governor to solve. "For every one new law you want me to sign, the state must nullify at least two of the laws on this list of silly laws." Or in the case of a state constitution everyone follows a process to amend or ratify changes to remove or negate the silly statutes.

>Is this a case of a silly law on the books or was there an incident where someone was blocked from installing a particular type of glass?

It can hardly be called a "silly law on the books " when the law was enacted 5 years ago.

I don't want to downplay such things but I am curious if this is a case where some politician was trying to appease some group of constituents or are they actually enforcing this? What happens when someone breaks this law? Must the windows be removed? Will the owners be fined daily? Who is enforcing this law?

I ask because similar things are occurring as we speak with body armor. Canada and the US are trying to make it illegal for anyone outside of law enforcement to buy body armor. It's silly of course, since anyone that has any sewing knowledge can easily make a plate carrier and anyone can get plates of steel cut to fit the plate carrier decorated with kittens. One could even use books instead of steel plates as Demolition Ranch demonstrated.

The glass also protects a malicious shooter or burglar etc. who uses the bullet proof glass as cover from cops or good guys being able to shoot them while they're committing crimes.

IANAL but this seems like the kind of thing that gets the state sued every time a barrier could have protected a business or it’s employees but couldn’t because the business was forced to have it removed.

Even if it passed, I can’t imagine something like this lasts long at all.

All the more considering the apparent motivation and justification for such a law—that it is "an indignity" for customers. If such a reason were to be seen as valid, what would be stopping a law that for instance banned customer-facing workers from wearing facemasks due to the resulting "indignity"?

I'm hardly a free-market purist, but this is a prime example of a let-the-market-decide problem. Let businesses decide if they need bulletproof glass or not, and let customers decide if they want avoid the bulletproofed stores if they feel affronted.

One may argue of course that, given the choice, all stores in certain areas would chose to install bulletproof glass, leaving the customers with no choice. If that were the case then surely the problem is much broader in scope than customer dignity.

If you think about it, it's not that different from what they're (again) trying to do with mandating backdoors in citizen-level encryption systems.

I understand that they can be seen as an indignity, unwelcoming, and makes people feel less secure. Though, when you walk into a chicken joint at 1AM next to the Pink Houses and some dude is pounding on the window yelling "yo, wheres my fuckin chicken nigga" I understand why the restaurant and their employees want them.

Very confusing article. You can install whatever windows you want, I remember when Eric Schmidt moved to New York City he put in privacy windows, which a lot of people found ironic.

Please, add "in the USA" to the title, thanks!

That's a bizarre one. I will agree that it is strange and unnerving to be in one of these places with bullet proof glass as a customer and does imply you are in mortal danger. But there are plenty of businesses that disgust me and I wouldn't go into again so it seems to me like laws to post warnings about video surveillance and/or these barriers are sufficient and constitutional.

How about a constitutional right to be safe and secure in our persons against Republican legislators who've been paid off by the gun lobby?

By "gun lobby", are you referring to organizations like the NRA, which get most of their funding from concerned private citizens with no financial interest in weapons manufacturers, who simply care a lot about defending their fundamental rights?

"Most" is a bit of a stretch. Depending upon the year it is anywhere from 45% to 68%, most years it is right on the 50% marker.

Additionally the NRA gets lots of money from corporations and big ticket donors. This seems to typically be around 30% of their income. While a smaller amount overall, this has an oversized weight as one big ticket donor coming and complaining the fear of them taking their money and going home is a lot scarier than a normal membership fee.

But, lawful gun owners want to hurt you!

The lengths people will go to avoid the gun question.

It doesn't make much sense to me. A, the reason for having bullet proof glass still exists because of the guns. B, if that justification made sense, why start at bullet proof and not any transparent barrier, like plexiglass?

Wouldn’t the bullet proof glass also protect from things other than just guns? Also, is it possible to make guns disappear in the U.S.? I’m extremely skeptical. Seems like whatever happens with guns, people should be allowed to protect themselves in whatever way seems necessary as long as it isn’t harming others. If it is so obnoxious that customers stop coming then I’m sure stores will respond appropriately. One thing I’ve heard is that people rarely install bullet proof glass unless there was an incident that got them to be more prepared the next time. I always took this as a fact but I’m starting to realize that might not be true at all. However, I can only imagine the litigation that follows a robbery at gunpoint (or heck, even at knife or sword) after being forced to remove the barrier. Seems like a losing proposition for both parties.

> Also, is it possible to make guns disappear in the U.S.?

No. Partially because of the culture, partially because there are just that many. And even if you could, you would be mostly restricted to taking them from lawful owners.

On a somewhat related note: With guns, I don't see how restricting lawful ownership more and more helps with keeping people from illegally obtaining guns for criminal actions. (Cant pull up actual stats atm because of the company firewall)

And I'd say that the potential of the victim being armed is a pretty good deterrent in a lot of cases.

In relation to the article: I find it quite annoying that concerns about the danger of the area is conflated so much with accusations of racism. It obviously sucks that there are areas with higher amounts of violent crimes. Yes, they often correspond to the what ethnicities live in that area. It more often than not is caused by socioeconomic factors.

All those things can be true, and the reason for the higher security is likely still not based in racism.

> the reason for having bullet proof glass still exists because of the guns

Is that the only reason? Does every county in the US with a lot of guns have bulletproof glass in stores?

No, it's negatively correlated with guns and strongly negative with registered guns. Taking store robbery data as a proxy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com