I see a few potential options to the legality of knife carry (or the law in general):
1.) Do whatever you want and don't scrimp on the attorney(s): If you have the money and get in trouble, it won't matter because your 3 attorneys at $500 per hour will get the charges dropped unless you did something extremely stupid.
2.) Pick another form of carry defense that is legal in your area: concealed weapons permit and gun, OC spray, large mean dog, etc. There are quite a few options available. No defense method is a "instant win" button so knowing some means to defend yourself will always help. Even if OC doesn't work on the target (rare) you just spray painted his face red and have a visual advantage. If you can't discharge your gun or can't get a good aim on it, it sure makes a great club if you know how to fight.
3.) Deal with the law on knives: Compliance is the easiest/cheapest route and lets you carry what you really want to carry. In the world of meat tests and tacti-kool knives some have underestimated the damage a 2.5" blade can do if sharp. ****, a $20 Subclaw or boxcutter can leave a gash that looks like someone received on an African safari. I know a handful of people who could eviscerate me in 5 seconds with a bottle opener because they are well trained. Most people with knives are flailing idiots anyways...a 4.5" blade just gives you more flailing range.
In the end, training > all. It will make whatever you carry that much more useful and hopefully whatever you carry is on you every day. The only thing better than training is avoidance because it's the only 100% chance of survival. :)
Boston Municipal Code 16-45
Deacon:
A cricket would have done all those tasks perfectly!
In Australia though, the law is not dependent on size of the blade, it simply states "for lawful purpose". As it was a weekend and I was going out to open air exhibitions in the centre of town, and not engaged in my usual daily work activities that may have required some sort of EDC, I had no lawful excuse at the time of setting out for carrying a blade - and hence, being a law abiding citizen, did not do so.
I like it when laws follow common sense (which is anything but common, sadly):
If a person is going to get drunk or take drugs they should not drive a car, nor carry / use any weapons, nor perform a host of other tasks whilst their judgement is diminished.
Hence, carrying any weapon whilst under the influence of drugs/alcohol in a public place is a law I would support fully. The logical extension of such a law would be that no person should carry weapons in places where there are drunk people too - e.g. no carrying of weapons in licensed premises by any patrons.
Furthermore, I think prohibiting carrying weapons by persons under the legal age in any public place where they aren't in the company of an adult would also be a good, common sense law.
Prohibiting everything by anyone is just **** stupid. Tying it to parameters such as length, breadth, weight, steel type, gravity... that;s also a ticket to nowhere in my view.
My (limited) research seems to point the finger of irresponsibility with blades/weapons in the direction of underage youths and/or people affected by drugs and/or people in nightclubs / licensed premises. These seem to be the routine incident parameters.
It would appear to me to be common sense to equip the law to deal with the routine incidents, surely.
A cricket would have done all those tasks perfectly!
In Australia though, the law is not dependent on size of the blade, it simply states "for lawful purpose". As it was a weekend and I was going out to open air exhibitions in the centre of town, and not engaged in my usual daily work activities that may have required some sort of EDC, I had no lawful excuse at the time of setting out for carrying a blade - and hence, being a law abiding citizen, did not do so.
I like it when laws follow common sense (which is anything but common, sadly):
If a person is going to get drunk or take drugs they should not drive a car, nor carry / use any weapons, nor perform a host of other tasks whilst their judgement is diminished.
Hence, carrying any weapon whilst under the influence of drugs/alcohol in a public place is a law I would support fully. The logical extension of such a law would be that no person should carry weapons in places where there are drunk people too - e.g. no carrying of weapons in licensed premises by any patrons.
Furthermore, I think prohibiting carrying weapons by persons under the legal age in any public place where they aren't in the company of an adult would also be a good, common sense law.
Prohibiting everything by anyone is just **** stupid. Tying it to parameters such as length, breadth, weight, steel type, gravity... that;s also a ticket to nowhere in my view.
My (limited) research seems to point the finger of irresponsibility with blades/weapons in the direction of underage youths and/or people affected by drugs and/or people in nightclubs / licensed premises. These seem to be the routine incident parameters.
It would appear to me to be common sense to equip the law to deal with the routine incidents, surely.
-
Clawhammer
- Member
- Posts: 480
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:28 am
- Location: Australia
Feeny, It (the law) already does!feeny wrote: It would appear to me to be common sense to equip the law to deal with the routine incidents, surely.
These new laws to stop Outlaw Biker Gangs, public drunkeness, paedophiles etc we see these days are completely needless. The police already have wide ranging powers. If you're doing something wrong the cops can arrest you and charge you under a wide range of laws. (Being convicted is another thing with a recent report detailing 80% of Qld Police Service charges failing in the courts :p )
The Aust. council of civil liberties (and myself for that matter) are at a loss as to why police services are lobbying for these new laws !!!
For those CONUS members, over this past weekend, there was a joint New Zealand/Australian crackdown on public drunkenss in city nightclub districts. Police claimed that the 'operation' was to address community concerns about the behaviour in our cities during the weekend nightlife.
I say, What a load of 'cr@p'. 'Special Operation?' That's just community policing 101 !!!!...
if they hadn't been turning a blind eye to the outrageous behaviour in the first place the community would feel safe in the streets and they wouldn't need weapons laws. (Boston here being a case in point).
Obviously because they never saw Taggart, Sweeny or anyone on The Bill struggling with watchouse paperwork & drunks...these coppers don't want to do it either. They obviously haven't learned that 90% of policing is the lowest common denominator...petty offenders have to be addressed or you have a fearful community (which I guess is what the police want to maintain their usefulness).
End of Rant :o
See, here's the thing... How do you know ahead of time you won't need a knife doing any given task? I mean seriously... I carry a knife 100% of the time and find that such needs arise many times each day. Some of these needs I might have forecast but many were not possible. Since I had my knife on me, I used it. Not all tasks "required" a knife but were just easier.feeny wrote:As it was a weekend and I was going out to open air exhibitions in the centre of town, and not engaged in my usual daily work activities that may have required some sort of EDC, I had no lawful excuse at the time of setting out for carrying a blade - and hence, being a law abiding citizen, did not do so.
By example, my son and I stopped by the local coffee house to play a game of chess this weekend. I got us a couple coffees and a small bag of these cookie type things which came in a small bag tied with a ribbon. I tried untying the ribbon but it was in a hopeless knot and the bag was one of those indestructible plastics :rolleyes: so I sliced it open. Could I have eventually worked the knot off the end or something? Probably. But slicing it open was much more expedient.
I agree with this in theory but one person's common sense is not a universal. Sure there are things "most" people would agree on but there are many where they would not, like my coffeehouse example. I'm sure many people would have found that to be unnecessary use of forcefeeny wrote:I like it when laws follow common sense (which is anything but common, sadly):
.This come down to intent. I carry a knife as a tool not as a weapon. I never leave the house thinking 'I have something I can cut someONE with'. I leave thinking 'I have a tool that can cut/slice things if the need arises'.feeny wrote:Hence, carrying any weapon whilst under the influence of drugs/alcohol in a public place is a law I would support fully. The logical extension of such a law would be that no person should carry weapons in places where there are drunk people too - e.g. no carrying of weapons in licensed premises by any patrons.
If I'm drunk and I use a knife to slice the end off a cigar, why should you care? OTOH, if I use it to stab you (barring self defense) , the law should have issues with that whether I was drunk or not.
Again we come to differences in "common sense". I can find a farm kid who's 8 years old and has been using knives as tools his whole life or an 8 year old city kid whose only view of a knife is that it's a weapon. It's intent and you really can't know someone's intent until they take action.feeny wrote:Furthermore, I think prohibiting carrying weapons by persons under the legal age in any public place where they aren't in the company of an adult would also be a good, common sense law.
And what constitutes a weapon? I have friends who could kill me with a pencil where as I would have real problems killing a person with a Mili. In this case, the pencil is a weapon and the Mili is not. Does that make sense?
On so many levels!whkento wrote:Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Ken
玉鋼
Those are becoming more difficult to find every day. Our law makers are out of control trying to constantly find the least common denominator. You can't prevent everything. You can only prescribe penalties for doing bad things.LorenzoL wrote:Hem, what about: Live in a knife & gun friendly state/city?
There will always be criminals and they will always find ways to commit crimes. You just CAN'T set up a free society that totally avoids risk of any sort.
Ken
玉鋼
Such a wonderful forum *and no, Im not being sarcastic about the forum or about my lack of sarcasm - Im being genuine!*
I wish I could carry my cricket or phoenix with me all the time - because I too never know when I may need it for 100 things in a day (none of them violent)... but I have laws here that prohibit me from doing so. Im trying to understand where those laws might make 'common sense' - that is be easily understandable, practical and applicable - likely not to everyone - because not all laws make sense for each individual - but to "most" - representing all people.
Now, to use an analogy, I know people who can drive without issue - in fact better than most people drive - when they are well over the legal limit - yet the law for drink driving applies to them too.
See laws are drafted to apply to what is "common". I agree with this - laws should be understood by everyone - not individualised - and in plain english ! That means, say in the case of drink driving - one number, on limit for everyone - even though some people cant drive after a sip of cherry - yet are within the legal limit - and others are quite capable after a keg...
Some tools can certainly be misused - some are more easily misused than others. Pliers can be lethal but would require more skill than a blade to harm... for example. Knives are amongst the most easily lethal tools - and easiest to misuse too - and misuse starts with accessibility, followed by intent.
Drugs of all sorts affect judgement - and impaired judgement impacts intent.
This is not a question. Its a statement of fact.
So my thinking is, taking "a something" that is easy to misuse (in this case the ubiquitous blade), that can cause harm if misused, to a place where one proceed to deliberately inhibit one's judgement and potentially muddy one's intent (by getting drunk), where the "something" has no immediate need to be there other than 'just in case' - is potentially asking for trouble - enough so that I personally believe in a law preventing this situation.
Cigar cutters are quite legal :) Even though, if used right, are also no doubt lethal too - but probably would be very hard for a drunk man to kill with a cigar cutter :D
I wish I could carry my cricket or phoenix with me all the time - because I too never know when I may need it for 100 things in a day (none of them violent)... but I have laws here that prohibit me from doing so. Im trying to understand where those laws might make 'common sense' - that is be easily understandable, practical and applicable - likely not to everyone - because not all laws make sense for each individual - but to "most" - representing all people.
Now, to use an analogy, I know people who can drive without issue - in fact better than most people drive - when they are well over the legal limit - yet the law for drink driving applies to them too.
See laws are drafted to apply to what is "common". I agree with this - laws should be understood by everyone - not individualised - and in plain english ! That means, say in the case of drink driving - one number, on limit for everyone - even though some people cant drive after a sip of cherry - yet are within the legal limit - and others are quite capable after a keg...
Some tools can certainly be misused - some are more easily misused than others. Pliers can be lethal but would require more skill than a blade to harm... for example. Knives are amongst the most easily lethal tools - and easiest to misuse too - and misuse starts with accessibility, followed by intent.
Drugs of all sorts affect judgement - and impaired judgement impacts intent.
This is not a question. Its a statement of fact.
So my thinking is, taking "a something" that is easy to misuse (in this case the ubiquitous blade), that can cause harm if misused, to a place where one proceed to deliberately inhibit one's judgement and potentially muddy one's intent (by getting drunk), where the "something" has no immediate need to be there other than 'just in case' - is potentially asking for trouble - enough so that I personally believe in a law preventing this situation.
Cigar cutters are quite legal :) Even though, if used right, are also no doubt lethal too - but probably would be very hard for a drunk man to kill with a cigar cutter :D
Drinking and drugs remove/reduce inhibitions. Drunks and weapons don't mix and the last thing I want to see is drinking and fine motor skills involving knives (past driving that us). Plus, when was the last time you had too many drinks and needed your knife for anything unless if it had a bottle opener on it?
Me too. I'm glad we can discuss issues like these even if we never quite agree.feeny wrote:Such a wonderful forum *and no, Im not being sarcastic about the forum or about my lack of sarcasm - Im being genuine!*
And to me, that is just a shame. I also wish you could. I'd feel absolutely naked without a pocket knife of some sort. I suppose you can get used to anything.feeny wrote:I wish I could carry my cricket or phoenix with me all the time - because I too never know when I may need it for 100 things in a day (none of them violent)... but I have laws here that prohibit me from doing so.
It does but, barring those few (around here at least and mostly like New Years Eve) random searches you usually have to do something that is also against the law to call attention to yourself. Cross the median, weave, hit someone or something. If you're over the limit and you drive home perfectly fine you will likely have no issues with the law. I am NOT advocating driving under the influence and I'm not saying you didn't violate the law. I'm just saying you are unlikely to suffer repercussions. I suppose the same could be said for a knife that stays in your pocket and if you ever used it you would have reason to have carried it in the first place? Dunno how that works....feeny wrote:Now, to use an analogy, I know people who can drive without issue - in fact better than most people drive - when they are well over the legal limit - yet the law for drink driving applies to them too.
I take your point but to me it still comes down to what you actually do and that you can't protect everyone from everything. But our lawmakers seem to think they can. And they will continue to write laws that restrict my freedoms because someone somewhere did something stupid. People need to be responsible and actions have to have consequences.feeny wrote:Some tools can certainly be misused - some are more easily misused than others. Pliers can be lethal but would require more skill than a blade to harm... for example. Knives are amongst the most easily lethal tools - and easiest to misuse too - and misuse starts with accessibility, followed by intent.
Total agreement. Even legal ones. Is it legal to take percocet? Sure. But if impairs me to the point I drive and kill someone, I'm DUI.feeny wrote:Drugs of all sorts affect judgement - and impaired judgement impacts intent.
This is not a question. Its a statement of fact.
And here we differ.feeny wrote:So my thinking is, taking "a something" that is easy to misuse (in this case the ubiquitous blade), that can cause harm if misused, to a place where one proceed to deliberately inhibit one's judgement and potentially muddy one's intent (by getting drunk), where the "something" has no immediate need to be there other than 'just in case' - is potentially asking for trouble - enough so that I personally believe in a law preventing this situation.
Ken
玉鋼