Gravity knife?

[Blerv]

There is some interpretation.

Same reason why some people who are caught speeding and cited for "reckless driving" could have possibly just had a speeding ticket. It comes down to the situation and the people involved.

Avoid breaking the law to begin with or saying, "I know my ____ rights!" and your luck will go up exponentially. Dressing like you don't belong in a line-up would be helpful too.

[2edgesword]

Avoid breaking the law to begin with or saying, "I know my ____ rights!" and your luck will go up exponentially. Dressing like you don't belong in a line-up would be helpful too.

It should not be a matter of luck when it comes to an exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms. Laws and the interpretation/application of those laws should have a foundation in facts, logical and reason rather then happenstance and "luck".

[jackknifeh]

It should not be a matter of luck when it comes to an exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms. Laws and the interpretation/application of those laws should have a foundation in facts, logical and reason rather then happenstance and "luck".

2edgesword, what an appropriate name for this subject. The situation could go either way I guess. Police officers have one of the hardest jobs in the world. If they get too agressive they are charged with brutality. If they aren't aggressive enough, let someone go when they have a gut feeling but no facts that they are guilty of something then we say they didn't do their job and someone got hurt. There should be a set of laws to go by and there are for the most part I bet but in a job like law enforcement I believe we should trust the experience of the officer. On the other hand if we let them go too far it could result in officers behaving any way they want and all people have enough faults that that could be disasterous.

It's a very fine line when it comes to how far an officer should go. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt until they loose that benefit.

Back to the subject though, I believe the issue should be the same when it comes to knives. Citizens should have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to carrying a knife of a 4" blade or less. If they abuse that trust and commit a crime with the knife I think they should be charged with attempted murder even when they don't touch anyone. Over punish the guilty and leave the law abiding folks their freedoms.

Since we don't live in a perfect world and people are far from perfect there never will be a perfect solution. I just wish the people we trust to serve the public (elected officials) would use a little common sense sometimes. Having said that I can't say I would make a good mayor because I'm as imperfect as the next guy.

Jack

[oregon]

Heavy @10.22 oz or 289.9 grams, a gravity knife, the "BUND":

[2edgesword]

[quote="jackknifeh"]Police officers have one of the hardest jobs in the world.[/quoted]

I agree that police officers have a difficult job (numerous friends and family with NYPD) but I think this new interpretation of the law has made their job more difficult. Technically anyone carrying one these knives is breaking the law. Technically the Manhattan DA has taken the latitude for discretion out of the hands of the officer. The officer now is put into the position of ignoring "the law" or doing what he has sworn to do, enforce "the law".

Put aside for the moment the threat of arrest, loss of property (including thousands of dollars in legal fees) and forfeiture of 2nd Amendment rights as a result of an arrest.

Tens of thousands of these knives have been sold to law abiding citizens in NYC. These citizens feel a tremendous obligation to obey the law, even asinine laws like this one. These citizens don't like the idea that they have now been technically made criminals as a result of the broad definition being applied to gravity knives. The idea that these citizens are being denied the right to carry these knives or will have a cloud of doubt hanging over their head if they choose to carry one is a form of soft tyranny.

I fully understand that police officers have some latitude in enforcing the law. Most of the time they may get it right in the exercise of that discretion. But the times they get it wrong can be the ruin of the citizen that happens to the object of the misuse of that discretion.

The idea that ninety-nine criminals should go free rather then one innocent person be imprisoned is a lofty ideal and I realize we don't live in a perfect world (although technically the person carrying this knife is guilty of a crime). If someone could demonstrate to me that this law has a credible foundation in enhancing public safety it would cause me to pause and reconsider my position. Until then I consider this law as I have characterized it above, another asinine law that strengthens the soft tyranny citizens of this state have been forced to endure.

[jackknifeh]

Are there any knives that it is against some rediculous law to own even if it never leaves your house or do the laws apply only to carrying them in public?

Jack

[ChrisR]

In the UK it's not exactly illegal to own a switchblade but the 1959 Act that 'banned' them created a crime of importing, selling, lending or otherwise obtaining a switchblade. So if you had one before 1959 then it is totally legal to own one ... but if you managed to get one after 1959 then you must have committed a crime.

[2edgesword]

Are there any knives that it is against some rediculous law to own even if it never leaves your house or do the laws apply only to carrying them in public?

Jack

I am not a lawyer but in reading the applicable section of the penal code it simply says "possession" so I would interpret it as possession on the street, in your car or in your home.

265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when:

(1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star";...

The only exemption I found is...

"Possession of a switchblade or gravity knife for use while hunting, trapping or fishing by a person carrying a valid license issued to him pursuant to section 11-0713 of the environmental conservation law."

[Pneumothorax]

There is an article on this in Knives Illustrated. The opening page has a big pic of the Sage II, which was one of the knives identified in NY as a gravity knife. On the next page there is a pic of the Urban wharnie noting that Sal is innovative and has developed the Slipit line to get away from locking blade issues. Also in the issue was a little blurb on the Persistance and right next to that was an ad for the Manix 2! Also was a pic of Sal at a knife show. Lots of Spydie exposure in that issue!

[The Deacon]

Is NYC the only place in the country with such strict laws and the enforcement of these laws? For instance I live in a small town and a lot of hunging and fishing enthusiasts live here. You can go into any store and see all kinds of knives on people's belts. I called the police dept. once and at least three people in their office didn't even know what an illegal blade length was. One said as long as you don't run around stabbing people they don't even think about it.

How does the Mayor/DA justify their stand on this issue? I can't help but think there may be other influences than the safety of law abiding citizens. I can't think of what they may be but if it was only an attempt to lower crime, how is that going?

I don't follow the laws very closely, in fact I wasn't aware of NYC being more strict than other places. I heard that on this forum so my knowledge is only as accurate as the info passed about this on this forum. So my question is are they the only place?

Jack

Cities tend to regulate all manner of human behavior more than rural areas. Where you can park, and for how long. How much noise you can make on your own property, and when. Drinking an adult beverage on your front porch. Allowing your dog to run free and use the world as its restroom. Keeping a few chickens or rabbits in the back yard, or a pig for a pet. Discharging a firearm or air rifle. The list is endless. New York City takes that to even greater extremes than smaller cities, and Manhattan to greater extremes than the rest of NYC.

To an extent it's understandable, even if we don't always agree with their rules and regulations. I cannot even begin to imagine what living in a place where the average population density is 70,000 people per square mile. But that's what you get when you pack over 1.6 million residents into Manhattan's 23 square miles. And that's not counting the 1.3 million commuters that work there on an average day. Expecting it to play by the same rules as everyone else might be unrealistic.

For example, even if it were legal, would it be a good idea to ride public transportation that is sometimes so crowded that people are bumping into you almost constantly with a knife hanging out of your pocket? Would you do the same with a $100 bill sticking out like that? In reality, the biggest problem with NYC is not that the written laws are strict, because they're not. For example, NYC has a 4" blade limit, Boston limits you to 2" blades. The problem is that laws which would be reasonably tolerable if enforced as written are being creatively misinterpreted to the point of absurdity.

The rest of New York State is pretty much as you describe your part of Florida and, despite what some folks think, I don't believe there's any rational reason to think that will change. Population density in the county where I live is 300 per square mile. Across the river in Albany it goes up to a whopping 600 per square mile. Hour or so north of me there's Hamilton county where whitetail deer probably outnumber the 3 per square mile human population. No, that's not a mistake, that's THREE people per square mile. Getting a pistol permit in NYC has been next to impossible for at least fifty years and yet it's still pretty easy to get one in the most of the state. NYC has required registration of rifles and shotguns for around forty years, the rest of the state has yet to follow suit. Only time the cops here care what's in your pocket is if you've gone out of your way to gain their attention. I'd imagine that holds true pretty much everywhere.

There is some interpretation.

Same reason why some people who are caught speeding and cited for "reckless driving" could have possibly just had a speeding ticket. It comes down to the situation and the people involved.

Avoid breaking the law to begin with or saying, "I know my ____ rights!" and your luck will go up exponentially. Dressing like you don't belong in a line-up would be helpful too.

Definitely. About eight years back I watched someone turn a simple parking ticket into a felony bust.

[2edgesword]

Cities tend to regulate all manner of human behavior more than rural areas.... I cannot even begin to imagine what living in a place where the average population density is 70,000 people per square mile...For example, even if it were legal, would it be a good idea to ride public transportation that is sometimes so crowded that people are bumping into you almost constantly with a knife hanging out of your pocket? Would you do the same with a $100 bill sticking out like that? In reality, the biggest problem with NYC is not that the written laws are strict, because they're not. For example, NYC has a 4" blade limit, Boston limits you to 2" blades. The problem is that laws which would be reasonably tolerable if enforced as written are being creatively misinterpreted to the point of absurdity.

I agree that some laws are put in place simply based on the density of population in New York City. Having lived in NYC (Manhattan, the Bronx and Queens) for the first 25 years of my life I understand the reasoning behind some of these laws and regulations. But extending that argument to justify this broad interpretation of gravity knives and banning them is ludicrous IMHO.

First, the knife isn't "hanging out of your pocket".

Second, if I'm carrying a knife I'm aware of where the knife is and who is in a position to take the knife at all times. This is situational awareness and weapons retention 101.

Third, is there any statistical evidence that shows the carrying of these knives by the general public poses a significant threat to public safety?

Again, attempting to gloss over this issue by claiming police officer discretion in enforcing the law misses the point. Our laws should be based in facts, logical and reason. Technically, now that the Manhattan DA has said these knives are illegal, officers do not have the discretion to overlook this transgression. I realize in the real world they can and sometimes do but I do not want to entrust my property and freedom to the discretion of 35,000 police officers that can and do sometimes have a bad day. Their bad day becomes my nightmare.

Based on what I've read otherwise law abiding citizens have already been arrested on weapons charges as a result of this new outlook on gravity knives. Beyond that is the chilling effect it has on citizens that once carried these knives but in their desire to respect and abide by the law will decide not to carry them and forfeit the benefit of these tools provide.

[The Deacon]

I agree that some laws are put in place simply based on the density of population in New York City. Having lived in NYC (Manhattan, the Bronx and Queens) for the first 25 years of my life I understand the reasoning behind some of these laws and regulations. But extending that argument to justify this broad interpretation of gravity knives and banning them is ludicrous IMHO.

No argument there. I was merely trying to give the OP some possible answers to the "why" of these laws, not saying I agreed with Vance's position on this particular issue. Hence my statement "The problem is that laws which would be reasonably tolerable if enforced as written are being creatively misinterpreted to the point of absurdity."

First, the knife isn't "hanging out of your pocket".

Perhaps a bit of hyperbole on my part, but clipped carry often means a significant portion of the handle is exposed to view.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

That, in and of itself, violates a NYC law and should be sufficient reason for a person not to carry a knife even slightly exposed while in NYC. Far as I know, NYC cops don't have X-ray vision, so a knife has to be at least partially visible for them to see it. But, beyond that, I would still suggest that it increases the risk of theft and, what I may be carrying as a tool, could become a weapon in the wrong hands.

Second, if I'm carrying a knife I'm aware of where the knife is and who is in a position to take the knife at all times. This is situational awareness and weapons retention 101.

I think you're deluding yourself, but even if you're able to maintain that state of alertness at all times while out and about, do you really believe everyone who carries a knife is that well disciplined? Half of them? A tenth? One in a hundred? I know I'm not.

Third, is there any statistical evidence that shows the carrying of these knives by the general public poses a significant threat to public safety?

Did I suggest there was? Perception, not reality, is the driving force of many "nanny state" laws, but I don't think this is even about public perceptions, it's a politically motivated publicity stunt. The problem is not that the majority of NYC residents think all knives are a danger, but rather that they have no personal interest in pocket knives and accept Vance;s argument that the knives he claimed to be gravity knives were. I'm sure the average New Yorker's reaction would have been different if Vance had laid out a spread of kitchen knives and called for them to be banned.

Again, attempting to gloss over this issue by claiming police officer discretion in enforcing the law misses the point. Our laws should be based in facts, logical and reason. Technically, now that the Manhattan DA has said these knives are illegal, officers do not have the discretion to overlook this transgression. I realize in the real world they can and sometimes do but I do not want to entrust my property and freedom to the discretion of 35,000 police officers that can and do sometimes have a bad day. Their bad day becomes my nightmare.

Sounds good, but in the real world the alternative to police discretion is generally more draconian laws, not greater freedom. Outright bans are much easier to enforce, think "zero tolerance" policies in schools. Plus, what was being talked about was not so much discretionary enforcement as suggesting that a person's dress, demeanor, and behavior can encourage a police officer to take a greater interest in them. Do people who drive red convertibles speed more, or do cops just pay more attention to them?

Based on what I've read otherwise law abiding citizens have already been arrested on weapons charges as a result of this new outlook on gravity knives.

Won't comment on that except to admit that, having worked in prisons, I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to folks claiming innocence. Part of that is because I have a hard time believing that even New York's Finest can spot a knife that's being carried totally hidden from view in compliance with NYC law.

Beyond that is the chilling effect it has on citizens that once carried these knives but in their desire to respect and abide by the law will decide not to carry them and forfeit the benefit of these tools provide.

Or, say screw the law and carry it so it is not visible. Or, if they want to be legal, carry a knife that doesn't fit Vance's creative definition of a gravity knife and carry it so that it is not visible.

[Blerv]

It should not be a matter of luck when it comes to an exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms. Laws and the interpretation/application of those laws should have a foundation in facts, logical and reason rather then happenstance and "luck".

You're right. I bold faced the main problem. :)

Sadly cops like all of us are humans. This means they don't respond to coded entries and return objective answers. Much of their job is reading a situation and making sure that the rest of society (and themselves) are safe. When they are analyzing a situation with an individual who is hostile and carrying a deemed "illegal weapon" adrenalin is likely flowing...don't push the topic.

Law is based on historical interpretation of facts. That's why lawyers always cite instances of, "Bob vs The Supreme Court, 1984". This double-edged sword swings both ways.

I know my rights but part of being intelligent is to act in a civil manner that will prevent you spending a night in jail or having to hire a lawyer to get a trumped charge off your back. If it helps, don't think of it as "being submissive" but rather "being manipulative". :D

PS: I'm not a lawyer or cop. I just don't want to be pepper sprayed, tasered, or have to spend a night in jail before someone bails me out.

[jackknifeh]

Hey Deacon,

Is that picture of the knives in jeans pockets created digitally? Was it a bunch of pockets cut up and sewn back together? If that's the case I'd like to do that and hang it on the wall as a display only with the knives on the outside. If on the other hand it's a real pair of pants altered to be able to carry all those knives, please stay out of NYC or you'll get 5 years in the electric chair!!!

Jack

[2edgesword]

Perhaps a bit of hyperbole on my part, but clipped carry often means a significant portion of the handle is exposed to view.

Nice pictures that clearly show 90% of the handle is hidden from view.

[CENTER][/CENTER]

That, in and of itself, violates a NYC law and should be sufficient reason for a person not to carry a knife even slightly exposed while in NYC. Far as I know, NYC cops don't have X-ray vision, so a knife has to be at least partially visible for them to see it. But, beyond that, I would still suggest that it increases the risk of theft and, what I may be carrying as a tool, could become a weapon in the wrong hands.

As far as concealment is concern, easy answer, conceal it, don't ban it. With respect to an increased risk of theft same answer, conceal it.

I think you're deluding yourself, but even if you're able to maintain that state of alertness at all times while out and about, do you really believe everyone who carries a knife is that well disciplined? Half of them? A tenth? One in a hundred? I know I'm not.

Are you arguing that unless it is somehow demonstrated with 100% certainty that a knife, or firearm for that matter, cannot be stolen that the right to carry that knife or firearm should be prohibited? If that is your argument then police shouldn't carry firearms in NYC.

I'm not deluded. When I'm in NYC I am VERY aware of where I am and who is around me. Am I claiming 100% perfect vigilance? No, but again, if 100% perfection is your argument then no one should carry any weapon. Hold on, that's Bloomberg's argument.

Did I suggest there was?

I didn't say you made that argument. I was just making the point that laws should have a basis in facts, logic and reason. I think you agree.

Sounds good, but in the real world the alternative to police discretion is generally more draconian laws, not greater freedom.

I disagree. Laws that are ambiguous, unclear, open to a wide range of interpretation and arbitrarily enforced, breed confusion and open the door for abuse. The affect of this law is that thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens are criminals if they continue to carry concealed knives they may have been carrying for decades or subject to arrest based on the discretion of a 22 year old NYPD or TSA officer.

Outright bans are much easier to enforce, think "zero tolerance" policies in schools.

Try telling that to the parents of the students that have been killed or wounded in school shootings over the last ten years.

Banning can only be effective if you want to turn our society into a police state.

Plus, what was being talked about was not so much discretionary enforcement as suggesting that a person's dress, demeanor, and behavior can encourage a police officer to take a greater interest in them. Do people who drive red convertibles speed more, or do cops just pay more attention to them?

Actually I think you attempted to minimize the impact of this law with an appeal to discretionary enforcement.

Again, my argument is that law abiding citizens, those that are more prone to obey this law, are feeling the full impact of this law and leaving their knives at home. And those that choose to continue to carry hoping for a pass based on the discretion of a police officer could be in for a rude awakening; some have already experienced that "awakening".

Won't comment on that except to admit that, having worked in prisons, I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to folks claiming innocence. Part of that is because I have a hard time believing that even New York's Finest can spot a knife that's being carried totally hidden from view in compliance with NYC law.

Or, say screw the law and carry it so it is not visible. Or, if they want to be legal, carry a knife that doesn't fit Vance's creative definition of a gravity knife and carry it so that it is not visible.

Three of my brother-in-laws are retired NYC correction officers. I've heard the stories and understand the cynicism. I have no sympathy for the career criminal BUT that's not the issue. The issue is the immediate effect of making all of the law abiding citizens that were carrying these knives criminals if they continue to do so (as mentioned, I'm not clear if illegal possession includes possession in the home) AND the very serious impact if a police officer decides he going to enforce the law as currently interpreted and forgo any latitude for discretion.

The last ticket I got was about ten years ago for no seatbelt. I was pulling onto the highway where an officer was stationed stopping vehicles making their entrance to the highway. I stopped, rolled down the window, provided the necessary paperwork, "yes officer, sorry officer, etc., etc." in a very polite manner. He handed me the ticket and said have a nice day. Unfortunately on that day I wasn't the beneficiary of the officers latitude for discretion :) .

[ChrisR]

The thing is, there's a difference between the law and *policing* the law. The former is carved in stone - and often in such a way as to let LEOs or judges have discretion. The latter is almost always biased by politics - especially in regions which have senior officers who have been elected by popular vote.

[2edgesword]

The thing is, there's a difference between the law and *policing* the law. The former is carved in stone - and often in such a way as to let LEOs or judges have discretion. The latter is almost always biased by politics - especially in regions which have senior officers who have been elected by popular vote.

Chris

Understood.

The problem is we're not talking about something like the degree of tint on your windows or minor issues where the consequences of being on the wrong side of an officers discretion is a ticket. We're talking about very, very serious consequences that extend to the forfeiture of your 2nd Amendment rights (the little we have in NYS, especially NYC), being barred from certain types of employment and having to pay thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer if you decide to fight the matter in court.

Trusting the discretion of an officer with respect to the degree of tint on a window is one thing. Extending that same trust with respect to a weapons charge, given the potential to suffer some very serious consequences, is another matter.

[The Deacon]

Nice pictures that clearly show 90% of the handle is hidden from view.

True, but it aslo shows that, the ones where 90% is hidden are stiill quite visible, thus easy for police officer to spot. If exposed carry is illegal, as it is in NYC, that gives said officer a legally valid reason to examine the knife.

As far as concealment is concern, easy answer, conceal it, don't ban it. With respect to an increased risk of theft same answer, conceal it.

No arguement from me there, it was you that seemed to feel open carry wos a "right". My arguement was simply that, by breaking a law for which there is at least some rational justification in an area where the average daytime population densiity is over one hundred thousand people per square mile, a person sets himself up to charged with violating Mr. Vance's arbitrary and capricious re-definition of a gravity knife and that, conversely, the chances of a police officer discovering a fully concealed knife are extremely remote unless one is violating some other law.

Are you arguing that unless it is somehow demonstrated with 100% certainty that a knife, or firearm for that matter, cannot be stolen that the right to carry that knife or firearm should be prohibited?

No, but if you want to change this from a discussion about carrying genuinely useful tools to one of carrying weapoons then you do need to be aware that NYC decided that was a bad idea nearly 100 years, so tarring all pocket knives with that brush may be dangerously counterproductive.

I'm not deluded. When I'm in NYC I am VERY aware of where I am and who is around me. Am I claiming 100% perfect vigilance? No, but again, if 100% perfection is your argument then no one should carry any weapon. Hold on, that's Bloomberg's argument.

That's not just Bloomburg's argument, It's been public policy in NYC since 1911.

I didn't say you made that argument. I was just making the point that laws should have a basis in facts, logic and reason. I think you agree.

Sure I agree, but I'm enough of a realist to accept that, in the real world, they very often do not. Laws are very often reactions to an anomalous event, the outrage of a small group., or simply a form of backdoor taxation.

I disagree. Laws that are ambiguous, unclear, open to a wide range of interpretation and arbitrarily enforced, breed confusion and open the door for abuse. The affect of this law is that thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens are criminals if they continue to carry concealed knives they may have been carrying for decades or subject to arrest based on the discretion of a 22 year old NYPD or TSA officer.

The NYS law in question has existed for approximately 55 years with minimal abuse outside of NYC. Unlike some other states, courts here even decided that balisongs are not gravitiy knives. While the ideal solution would be repeal of all laws regulating specific categories of knives, that is unlikely, so how would you word a clearer and less ambiguous definition of a gravity knife than the present one?

Try telling that to the parents of the students that have been killed or wounded in school shootings over the last ten years.

You're confusing ease of enforcement with effectiveness. There is no correlation between the two.

Banning can only be effective if you want to turn our society into a police state.

But that's what you seeem to want. You imply that robotic, impersonal enforcement of clearly coded laws is better.

Actually I think you attempted to minimize the impact of this law with an appeal to discretionary enforcement.

Again, my argument is that law abiding citizens, those that are more prone to obey this law, are feeling the full impact of this law and leaving their knives at home. And those that choose to continue to carry hoping for a pass based on the discretion of a police officer could be in for a rude awakening; some have already experienced that "awakening".

Not at all. Again, my argument is, if the knife was totally concealed, how did the police officer know they had it. Carrying a knife fully concealed isn't counting on discretionary enforcement, it's counting on the police not arbiratrilty stopping and frisking you for no reason. AFAIK, even in NYC that is not normal police practice.

For the record, if for no other reason than my penchant for exceeding speed limits, I'd be a hypocrite to consider myself a law abiding citizen.

Three of my brother-in-laws are retired NYC correction officers. I've heard the stories and understand the cynicism. I have no sympathy for the career criminal BUT that's not the issue. The issue is the immediate effect of making all of the law abiding citizens that were carrying these knives criminals if they continue to do so (as mentioned, I'm not clear if illegal possession includes possession in the home) AND the very serious impact if a police officer decides he going to enforce the law as currently interpreted and forgo any latitude for discretion.

True, but once again, the law will only be enforced if the police officer becomes aware of the knife. If it's completely out of sight. how is that going to happen? If it's not completely out of sight, then the person was not really all that law abiding.

The last ticket I got was about ten years ago for no seatbelt. I was pulling onto the highway where an officer was stationed stopping vehicles making their entrance to the highway. I stopped, rolled down the window, provided the necessary paperwork, "yes officer, sorry officer, etc., etc." in a very polite manner. He handed me the ticket and said have a nice day. Unfortunately on that day I wasn't the beneficiary of the officers latitude for discretion :) .

Maybe that's why we look at things differently. I've been driving fifty one years, first three of those very carefully because I was driving without a license. In all that time I've received three tickets but have gotten off with warnings at least a dozen times.

Trusting the discretion of an officer with respect to the degree of tint on a window is one thing. Extending that same trust with respect to a weapons charge, given the potential to suffer some very serious consequences, is another matter.

True, but the weapon only becomes an issue if the officer sees it. Have an old friend from back when we both lived on Long Island. He retired a couple years ago but, before that, worked in Manhattan for over forty years and, for most of them, carried an unregistered handgun.

[ChrisR]

Trusting the discretion of an officer with respect to the degree of tint on a window is one thing. Extending that same trust with respect to a weapons charge, given the potential to suffer some very serious consequences, is another matter.

Absolutely - I'm 100% with you on that - I was mentioning it for the other poster really, with regard to 'vague' laws and the way politics creeps into legal matters. :)

Here in the UK we theoretically have the right to carry a locking folder - if we have a good reason. But the vagueness of the good reason and the fact that falling foul of that law has such terrible consequences means I will only go out of my house with a SLIPIT 99% of the time. If I do carry a fixed-blade or a locker at any time then it is only with 100% certainty that I have a *need* for it right there and then.

The way innocent laws are being deliberately misinterpreted is crazy ... but I just keep telling myself it's not the hard-working police who are to blame - it's the system and the people higher up who pull the strings

EDIT: Just as a point of law for those here who know the way the law is being interpreted in NYC ... I understand 3-inch slip-joints are legal to carry but can you still be arrested for 'brandishing' (exposed carry) of a slip-joint knife? Conversely is concealed carry of a 3-inch locker allowed or is it just by virtue of the fact that what the police don't see, they won't worry about?

[2edgesword]

True, but it aslo shows that, the ones where 90% is hidden are stiill quite visible, thus easy for police officer to spot. If exposed carry is illegal, as it is in NYC, that gives said officer a legally valid reason to examine the knife.

Again, easy answer, conceal it. Although even fully concealed you're not immune from a potential problem.

No arguement from me there, it was you that seemed to feel open carry wos a "right".

Seemed to argue? What words did I used that seemed to argue for open carry?

No, but if you want to change this from a discussion about carrying genuinely useful tools to one of carrying weapoons then you do need to be aware that NYC decided that was a bad idea nearly 100 years, so tarring all pocket knives with that brush may be dangerously counterproductive.

My point wasn't to change the discussion but to point out the irrationality of the idea that if you can't provide 100% security for a weapon (firearms carried by police) it is unrealistic to require 100% security for a tool that might also be used as a weapon, and then further make the claim that lacking that 100% security this tool should therefore be banned. This appeared to be one of the points you were trying to make with respect to the slight exposure of a knife carried using a pocket clip.

Also, I am aware of the ban on any type of "weapon" in NYC and the ludicrous phrase "dangerous knife" in the NYS penal code. Even before the broadening of the definition of gravity knife the citizens of NYC were living under the soft tyranny that existed with respect to ANY knife being carried that could be construed as "dangerous".

The NYS law in question has existed for approximately 55 years with minimal abuse outside of NYC. Unlike some other states, courts here even decided that balisongs are not gravitiy knives. While the ideal solution would be repeal of all laws regulating specific categories of knives, that is unlikely, so how would you word a clearer and less ambiguous definition of a gravity knife than the present one?

The concern is the broadened interpretation of the law and expanded enforcement as a result of the edict by the Manhattan DA.

You're confusing ease of enforcement with effectiveness. There is no correlation between the two.

Let's back up a minute. You said it is easier to ban an item, sighting zero tolerance with respect to schools. If effectiveness in preventing crime is the object of creating and enforcing laws then effectiveness is the critical component.

But that's what you seeem to want. You imply that robotic, impersonal enforcement of clearly coded laws is better.

What I want are laws that have a foundation in facts, logic and reason that are clearly understandable by the average American and LEOs. And then I want those laws to be enforced.

Not at all. Again, my argument is, if the knife was totally concealed, how did the police officer know they had it. Carrying a knife fully concealed isn't counting on discretionary enforcement, it's counting on the police not arbiratrilty stopping and frisking you for no reason. AFAIK, even in NYC that is not normal police practice.

There are 101 ways (legitimate and bogus) that officers can justify a patdown, search of bag or search of vehicle.

For the record, if for no other reason than my penchant for exceeding speed limits, I'd be a hypocrite to consider myself a law abiding citizen.

And for the record I can almost guarantee you that I, you and just about every other member of this forum has or will violate some provision of some law, knowingly or unknowingly given the tens of thousands of laws and regulations on the books.

O.k. Deacon, I think we beat this one to death :) . I know from reading your post that on this issue we agree on much more then we may disagree. I've been using this thread to vent my frustration with the situation in NYS with respect to knives, firearms and even my darn rattan Eskrima sticks.

I do believe that most LEO's exercise reasonable discretion when enforcing the law. Unfortunately I've read enough horror stories from folks that have been arrested, in addition to having to address the issue with my students that live in the city, that my frustration with the situation in NYC is very high.