[philipkglass]

It looks like Connecticut first enacted body armor regulations in 1998, the year after the North Hollywood police shootout with a pair of heavily armed and armored men:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Weapo...

It's hard to find 1998 news articles about it now, but I would guess that the law was a reaction to this high profile crime.

[forshaper]

Why did Connecticut do it, as opposed to other states? I guess CA would've made sense for that example. I understand such events would be used to argue in favor of the policy, but it seems like if it was just the event, other states would've done the same. And other countries do it as well, without as salient an event.

[philipkglass]

California also limited body armor ownership in the wake of that shootout, though a court decision invalidated the law in 2009:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-dec-20-la-me-bo...

The decade-old ban was enacted after the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, a confrontation between police and two heavily armored bank robbers that injured officers and civilians. The state Legislature passed the ban in 1998 as a measure to protect police.

The law was subsequently revised to pass court scrutiny and reinstated:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-reinstates...