I've brought up the notion of equipment with aspects before, and, in general, here is how we intend to play it for the campaign I run:

Items bought at base value are of...well...base value.  They provide no bonuses and have no inherent penalties (carrying a gun or sword in broad daylight can still lead to some issues, no matter what).  Items can be "purchased" via Resources declarations.  Items that are cheaper than usual tend to have negative aspects (keep in mind, these can be compelled, earning the character a fate point...something to keep in mind for those cash-strapped, high refresh cost characters).  Items that are more expensive than normal can have generally positive aspects applied to them (many of these can still be compelled, but often require more specific circumstances..."Laser Sight", for example, would mostly be invoked, but could be compelled in a foggy environment).  The number of negative or positive aspects should be adjudicated for your campaign's needs...too much and you run the risk of turning Resources into an uber skill, too little and there's little point in it.  As a rule of thumb, for my game, I tend to keep it 1 aspect at +1/-1 cost on the ladder, then an additional aspect for every 2 after that (3, 5, 7, etc).  This tends to keep them somewhat limited.

So, with your bulletproof vest, the PCs might opt to go for run of the mill bulletproof vests which have no additional modifiers aside from whatever ones would be environmentally or socially appropriate.  (Keep in mind, being set in L.A. you are well within reason to slap "Sweltering" to any given outdoor scene.)  They could opt for cheaper vests that might have "Encumbering" or "Unwieldy", or they could opt for better vests and apply aspects like "Tailor-made", "Concealed", or even the aformentioned "Heavy Armor".

Obviously, this could be applied to any equipment, not just armor.  It has just as much value to vehicles, computers, firearms, clothing, rappelling gear, telephones, etc, etc, etc.

Wow!  That is an incredibly potent character.  Certainly fun to banter about, excellent from the standpoint of "No, no, no" for the power-level in my game...but I also wonder about the "invincibility" of the character.  So far, I have seen no one mention anything about socially embarassing the character to the point of being taken out.  Shamed, taunted, and the like.  There's a massive vulnerability...at least as I read it, on the character that could (and should) be exploited at every possible moment.  Aside from the logistics of not being able to travel most places, you have the simple and direct social attacks to slap aspects like "Egg on the Face" and the like.  Surely, I could see the character getting angry at such antics and opening fire, at which point folks would be well within reason to declare "Enraged" on the character, and then compel it to screw with aiming (and, therefore, hitting) not to mention someone like this would certainly draw the attention of the Blackstaff .

Very interesting exercise in "what if", in my opinion, however.  And, hey, if your group goes for that kind of game, just don't blow up the Earth...for in the immortal words of the Tick..."That's where I keep all my stuff!"

I suppose that a Resources declaration is precisely what I am talking about, so maybe just following those guidelines will work, keep it "in-system" without getting all complicated and unwieldy.  I'll take a look at that and thank you for all of the responses!

I'd have to agree with luminos on this...as well.  Getting the active effects of a power someone else shed refresh for, without even an aspect to back it up, would really take away from the value of the initial power.  And, truthfully, if the character's faith is that potent to begin with, that should definitely be highlighted, in some way, through one of their seven character aspects.  It could even come from their Trouble (Faith Binds), but it should have more presence foe the character than just (and I am not meaning you did this, only this should be avoided):  I should get this because I say my character is faithful!

That would be a dangerous precedent to set, as it could lead to all sorts of abuses in the game.  Of course, also as luminos mentioned, if that's how your game rolls, then so be it!  Have a grand time and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  Personally, however, it would not fly in my game without some additional requirement behind it (refresh or fate point cost).

I was chatting with a player of mine and we were talking about how wonderful aspects were and their applications to oh so many things.  During all of this, the idea of mundane equipment with their own aspects came up...like Laser Sight, or Muscle Car, or Tricked Out Graphics Card, or even "bad" aspects, like Inaccurate or Cheap.

Naturally, this led to the question of how this would be implemented, and this is what I came up with:

Modeling it on the cost of equipment via the Resources skill, you could acquire the item as listed, at the "price" listed, without anything additional.  You could drop a cost level and slap on an almost purely negative aspect (like the aforementioned "Cheap"), or increase the cost and slap on an appropriate and applicable (and now "universal") aspect to represent something "extra".

This would easily allow for things like Armor Piercing, Concealable, Wall of Lead, Sensitive Controls, Reinforced, High-Resolution, Image Magnification, Night Vision, etc.

So, now I have two questions (relating to this, anyway): 

1) How expensive should an aspect be when adjudicating the Resources acquisition increase?

and

2) Is this even a good idea in the first place?  It does allow wealthy characters to, effectively, "buy" some aspects.  Granted, they aren't as "free form" as player-selected aspects, they can be taken away, and "what is good for the goose" and all that, meaning the NPCs could do it, too.

Thoughts from this most excellent and insightful community would be most appreciated...

Doc. 

That's about where my mind was going as well, CMEast.  Thanks for the response!

I think all that I can say at this point is:

(oh lord, it hurts event type it...but here goes)

Hats off to ya!!!

Or!!!

Hats all folks!