# US proposed knife ban could include any one hand opening knives



## cave dave

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned.

From http://www.kniferights.org/



> The U.S. Government is after your Pocket Knives! In a sneak attack, U.S. Customs has proposed revoking earlier rulings that assisted opening knives are not switchblades. The proposal would not only outlaw assisted opening knives, its overly broad new definition of a switchblade would also include all one-handed opening knives and most other pocket knives!



There is currently a very short time period to send snail mail to the Customs (CBP) to comment. Letters must be received by CBP no later than June 21st.

More info and suggestions for letters can be accessed at the kniferights website.

http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=150


----------



## 9volt

Interesting read, but it seems unlikely this would happen.


----------



## 276

Well i don't like that, I recently heard that my friends, friend got arrested for having a one handed opening knife on him and it wasn't an auto or assisted it was a axis lock.


----------



## davidt1

I carry a spydercard in my wallet. That's still legal, right?


----------



## Kiessling

Our new weapon laws in Germany did exactly that. Now any knife that can be opened one-handed is, well, not exactly illegal, but have no right to have it equipped.

So ... don't count on it that it won't happen in your country.

bernie


----------



## Crenshaw

afaik, its illegal to carry any sort of knife in Singapore without a valid reason. And even then. I think its down to individual policemen here to decide. 

Crenshaw


----------



## AncientSword

The whole world is going crazy. Make it illegal for regular citizens to carry any weapon and only criminals will have them. I get it. Why can't "they"? 

If you think this can't happen here, you are sadly mistaken. Speak up for your rights while you still can.


edit. I did write to my worthless reps in washington and the border patrol.... as did my whole family and all my friends.


----------



## cave dave

AncientSword said:


> The whole world is going crazy. Make it illegal for regular citizens to carry any weapon and only criminals will have them. I get it. Why can't "they"?



A pocket knife is not a weapon it is a commonly used everyday tool. If you want to keep em legal you should talk about them as tools. Just a suggestion when you write Customs and your representatives.


----------



## Illum

AncientSword said:


> The whole world is going crazy. Make it illegal for regular citizens to carry any weapon and only criminals will have them. I get it. Why can't "they"?
> 
> If you think this can't happen here, you are sadly mistaken. Speak up for your rights while you still can.



you should see the news article about an old lady whos house got robbed. She squeezed off a round at him and deterred the burgular and later the man sues the old lady for shooting him and supposedly that case didn't get thrown out but was actually processed :shrug:

Heres my opinion: either ban single hand opener knives, or allow EDC of fix blades...thats an either-or deal.

If theres no knives that can only with a single hand in the market it basically turns buying folders into a moot point.


----------



## n_den

great, another stupid ban. f that. i've been carrying knives since i was 10. just read the proposed ban for Hawaii. there's no way i'm gonna stand for this in my home state. thanks for the info!!! n_den


----------



## matrixshaman

That is seriously messed up! It wasn't long ago that Forbes had a list of the 20 most Important Tools of All Time. Guess what is #1 as the most important tool of all time - YES it is the KNIFE. And these morons are trying to make it essentially illegal for any useable knife to be owned or carried?   This has got to be stopped. Do they really think that having a knife that takes two hands to open is going to stop any law abiding whistle criminals from using it in a bad way? And the criminal criminals from using illegal knives? :shakehead What exactly is it they think they are going to accomplish?  I suppose more sheeplizing is their goal.


----------



## Illum

its called politics

policy makers hear out the rich critics on top and take their money while promising a change to the advantage of the critics, they do this by scaring the public and toughening up on regulations that have been guaranteed standards since the day the amendments were written... then do completely nothing about it after they recieve their score of the bargain.


----------



## 270winchester

well there is Change for ya.

Off to write polite letters I go.


----------



## jtr1962

If you read the proposed law it will prohibit the _importation_ of such knives into the US, _not_ their ownership by citizens. Still not a good thing, but not an outright ban as some here seem to think.


----------



## LuxLuthor

That's change you can believe in! :sigh:


----------



## gbleeker

jtr1962 said:


> If you read the proposed law it will prohibit the _importation_ of such knives into the US, _not_ their ownership by citizens. Still not a good thing, but not an outright ban as some here seem to think.


 
That is correct but unfortunately as with everything in this country, one law leads to another one. Whatever the nanny state can do to control what its private citizens do to protect themselves is the ultimate goal here. 

Preventing any such law by calling etc should be what happens. Conceding small losses is a losing scenario for any knife or gun owner.


----------



## gbleeker

cave dave said:


> A pocket knife is not a weapon it is a commonly used everyday tool. If you want to keep em legal you should talk about them as tools. Just a suggestion when you write Customs and your representatives.


 

Knives are weapons too. Why water it down? The fact of the matter is they are unconstitutionally taking away the right to own a knife, weapon, tool whatever you want to call it. Don't bother trying to sugar coat it by refusing to call it a weapon.

Knives are a tool. Knives can be a weapon. And you deserve to own one regardless.


----------



## Linger

There's probably a few other sides to this. I'm not bringing them here, just saying.


----------



## karlthev

Ya know, I think they ought to ban sticks as well! Sharpen the point and ya got yerself one deadly weapon there!:shakehead Sarcasm of course...

I own a fairly large custom made knife collection many pieces of which I suspect would be prohibited with this.....Don't think it can't happen. Due to some misplaced thought many years ago automatic knives were pretty much universally banned because of a few sensational movies in the 50s and 60s. I may live a sheltered life in a small community but I sure don't hear of any knife crime breakouts in the news either....I sure as H___ won't ask, "what next"?



Karl


----------



## Bimmerboy

gbleeker said:


> Knives are weapons too. Why water it down? The fact of the matter is they are unconstitutionally taking away the right to own a knife, weapon, tool whatever you want to call it. Don't bother trying to sugar coat it by refusing to call it a weapon.


This is a correct, and crucial point. Well done, gbleeker.

To only allow yourself to speak within the boundaries set by ban-minded authoritarians is to accept their premises, which will leave you completely defenseless... no matter how much you complain to them about needing your Tailwind assist to open flashlight packages from other CPF'ers. This is an issue of rights, and the continued overstepping of governmental power.


----------



## Beamhead

I have used the whats next?... knife control....crow bar control...baseball bat control argument for decades when talking to anti gun folk.
The bottom line to me is they want us as meek, contained and defenseless as possible but I will *never* oblige them.
People kill people, _unelected_ fascist bureaucratic dweebs kill rights.....


----------



## gollum

as stated earlier this is about politics...
this means that the way to stop this ridiculous reaction by politicians is to 

write to them and say NO I want the right to bear arms etc...
if they think they will win votes by either banning or promoting anything they will do it.

I see USA as a proud advocate of your constitutional rights and would dread to see anything like this taken from you
In Australia we recently had to campaign against a similar proposal to ban ANY knife being allowed to travel in the mail system! 
what a ridiculous thing to have to fight against...

so don't sit back guys .Don't rely on the few active people who gave a hoot enough to do something about it

my2c


----------



## dano

It's NOT a law, it's a ruling (pending) on the importation of certain assisted openers.

Will it lead to a law, which is created by Congress, not CBP? I don't know, but as usual, people are jumping to immediate, illogical conclusions.

The current train of thought is that this ruling will then be followed by the Dept. Of Commerce making a ruling which states that interstate commerce of assisted knives will be prohibited.

Essentially (as I glanced over it), the CBP ruling is re-defining the current definition of "switchblade knife" to include that a blade which opens with mechanical inertia is also switchblade.


----------



## Illum

gollum said:


> as stated earlier this is about politics...



I wonder if I had sealed the fate of this thread by saying that...:thinking:
Some threads that ended up in heavy politics were sent to the UG often just for good behavior:candle:


----------



## matrixshaman

It's bad news for the knife carrying consumer period. I've actually found some fair quality knives lately made outside the U.S. Yes I know a good quality knife and have Strider, Emerson and Benchmades to name a few but I like being able to buy from wherever I want and one thing for sure this 'ruling' or whatever you want to call it will stop that ability to buy most knives from anywhere outside the U.S. IMO any law or 'ruling' that restricts any tool or personal defense device is a BAD law and sheeplizing. Look at what happened in Australia with their gun control law - from factcheck.org:
"It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 
300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, 
the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it." 

Gun control does not reduce crime or make things better for the Sheeple.


----------



## Beamhead

dano said:


> It's NOT a law, it's a ruling (pending) on the importation of certain assisted openers.
> 
> Will it lead to a law, which is created by Congress, not CBP? I don't know, but as usual, people are jumping to immediate, illogical conclusions.


That is my point and what irks me, only our elected officials should attempt to regulate knives. Not some mamby pamby POS bureaucrat.
And it will have the same effect as an outright ban if no knife manufacturers who actually forge and assemble them state side do so, it also could open the market to US made only assisted open knives.
Rulings, regulations etc are what have been eroding what our forefathers bled to give us.


----------



## Bimmerboy

dano said:


> It's NOT a law, it's a ruling (pending) on the importation of certain assisted openers.


I'm sure a number of us understand that already.



dano said:


> as usual, people are jumping to immediate, illogical conclusions.


Help us out then. Which illogical conclusions are being immediately jumped to?



dano said:


> Essentially (as I glanced over it), the CBP ruling is re-defining the current definition of "switchblade knife" to include that a blade which opens with mechanical inertia is also switchblade.


Also easy for most of us to ascertain.

What is the point of your post, Dano?


----------



## Illum




----------



## Beamhead

Illum said:


> I think Dano is trying to tell us that any rule proceeding usually will not follow immediate operation even if it is unanimously approved as bills such as these often have to receive approval from other controls, such as Congress, etc.
> 
> There's the administrative lag, then there's the operation lag [the time it takes for whatever decision made and the actual effects becoming apparent] and often times we assume the worst case scenario and violently up rise against it while history has shown that only occasional bills like this actually have their desired effect.


I think you are seriously confused, you refer to it as a bill and a regulation/ruling, do you know the difference?
Bills are created in the Congress/state houses and regulations/rulings emanate from either unelected bureaucrats or folks in long robes.
What desired effect do you think it will have?
When was the last "violent uprise"?

To borrow from Bimbo/Bimmerboy:wave:...what was the point of your post, Illum?


----------



## Monocrom

jtr1962 said:


> If you read the proposed law it will prohibit the _importation_ of such knives into the US, _not_ their ownership by citizens. Still not a good thing, but not an outright ban as some here seem to think.


 
Incramentalism is an evil thing.

Put a frog into a boiling pot of water, and he'll instantly jump out of it. Take that same frog, put him into a luke warm pot of water, then very slowly turn up the heat... and he'll happily sit there, while being boiled to death.

Same thing here. No politician will try to just outright ban pocket knives. They'll start off slowly... Such as with the prohibition on importation of certain types of knives. That's only step 1.


----------



## Illum

Beamhead said:


> I think you are seriously confused, you refer to it as a bill and a regulation/ruling, do you know the difference?
> Bills are created in the Congress/state houses and regulations/rulings emanate from either unelected bureaucrats or folks in long robes.
> What desired effect do you think it will have?
> When was the last "violent uprise"?
> 
> To borrow from Bimbo/Bimmerboy:wave:...what was the point of your post, Illum?



Well...you are right about me being seriously confused, which makes everything that I said a moot point. 

The point about my post was to state my perceived understanding of what Dano had written in attempt to assist Bimmerboy in understanding Dano's post and creating an ideal platform for you, my dear Beamhead, to critique me.


----------



## Beamhead

Illum said:


> Well...you are right about me being seriously confused, which makes everything that I said a moot point.
> 
> The point about my post was to state my perceived understanding of what Dano had written in attempt to assist Bimmerboy in understanding Dano's post and creating an ideal platform for you, my dear Beamhead, to criticize me.


Critique not criticize, just asking you a question or 2.


----------



## Illum

Beamhead said:


> Critique not criticize, just asking you a question or 2.



odd...thats not the first time my spell checker mistaken critique for criticize...:thinking:


----------



## Monocrom

Illum said:


> odd...thats not the first time my spell checker mistaken critique for criticize...:thinking:


 
Your spell-checker needs a spell-checker.


----------



## Jay R

matrixshaman said:


> Gun control does not reduce crime


 
Number of times that the British police fired a gun in 2008,,,

Seven. 

That's right, 7. In the entire 2008 year armed police over here fired their guns seven times. And that includes warning shots.

And please don't give me all that crap about Guns don't kill people, people kill..... You make it a lot easer to kill people if you let them all have guns. So easy in fact that a three year old can shoot her 2 year old brother in the chest. ( Did you see that one on the news last week.). It never ceases to amaze me that so many Americans can’t seem to associate guns with gun related crime.


Anyway, on knives…

I think we have some of the most sensible knife laws over here.

"It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches."

It also can’t lock open or have any kind of automated or gravity feed opening style.

Why anyone would need to walk around in public with a knife bigger than three inches is beyond me.


----------



## Th232

Jay R said:


> It also *can’t lock open* or have any kind of automated or gravity feed opening style.



I dunno about the others, but this is the part that I disagree with. Can't have a lock, i.e. a safety mechanism. I've heard the stuff about not trusting a lock, treat every knife like a slipjoint and so on, but let's just say that when you're cutting through a material with a tendency to catch the blade, I'm going to prefer a knife with a lock over a slipjoint or friction folder any day of the week. 

On the subject of blade lengths, when you're doing a lot of cutting, especially with very thick items, a longer blade really helps. Out of curiosity, what're the "good reasons" out in the UK?


----------



## Jay R

Th232 said:


> I dunno about the others, but this is the part that I disagree with. Can't have a lock, i.e. a safety mechanism. I've heard the stuff about not trusting a lock, treat every knife like a slipjoint and so on, but let's just say that when you're cutting through a material with a tendency to catch the blade, I'm going to prefer a knife with a lock over a slipjoint or friction folder any day of the week.
> 
> On the subject of blade lengths, when you're doing a lot of cutting, especially with very thick items, a longer blade really helps. Out of curiosity, what're the "good reasons" out in the UK?


 
 Kind of agree with you there about the lock. What happens is that from about 12 years old, you learn to be careful and don’t let it close on your fingers. Call it natural selection.

 If you are doing a lot of cutting of something, you have probably got a good reason so it’s OK to have a fixed blade. The law relates to carrying a blade in a public place so if you are on your way fishing and have a fishing knife, that’s OK. If you are on your way to a Scuba Dive and have a large diving knife, that’s OK. If you are on the way to Costco and have a large chef knife, that’s a no no.


----------



## gbleeker

Jay R said:


> Number of times that the British police fired a gun in 2008,,,
> 
> Seven.
> 
> That's right, 7. In the entire 2008 year armed police over here fired their guns seven times. And that includes warning shots.
> 
> .


 
I don't buy that for 1 second. You are telling me that in all or Britian only 7 shots were fired? Yea right. And if your media told you that I still do not believe it.

As far as gun control reducing gun crime... look at Florida. Ever since they loosened gun control and allowed concealed carry - crime has dropped drastically in the last 15 years. I wrote a 25 page paper on this - I'll find the study and link it here. 

Don't give me the line that a 3 year old can shoot a 2 year old only *because we have less gun control*. We have accidents because unfortunately America is full of idiots who cannot seem to know when to lock up a gun and when not to. Criminals will get guns whether it is illegal or not. They do not care if there are gun control laws. Sadly, gun control hurts the law abiding citizens only.


----------



## Jay R

gbleeker said:


> I don't buy that for 1 second. You are telling me that in all or Britian only 7 shots were fired? .


 

By police, yes. 
You may not want to believe it but there you are. It was up quite a lot on the previous years. April 06 to March 07 police forces in England and Wales discharged their weapons 3 times. “ Annual Police Use Of Firearms Statistics 2006/07 For Forces In England and Wales ”. Report available from the Home Office website if you want to look. ( or any independent news archive ).

Gun crime is pretty low in England you know. 2008 we had 42 deaths due to people being shot and that includes suicides and accidents. In the USA it's something like 35,000 right ? You are just so used to gun crime that you can’t believe that isn’t a big problem in other countries. Nearly all ‘Gunpoint’ hold ups or robberies here are carried out with fake BB guns and I think even those are illegal now. Fact remains, if guns aren’t sold, people ( including criminals and idiots ) can’t get hold of them.

I wasn’t suggesting that the 3 year old got a gun *only* because of the lower gun control. I agree that it’s *also* because her parents were stupid. On the other hand, if her parents hadn’t been able to buy the gun in the first place it wouldn’t matter how stupid they were, their son would still be alive. 

Gun deaths per capita.
USA = 1 in 9,000
UK= 1 in 1.5 million

Guns=Gun related crime.


----------



## Illum

Monocrom said:


> Your spell-checker needs a spell-checker.



My spell checker needs a STFU prompt box that reminds me at times to shut up, clears the screen, then shut down the computer...because I've been on CPF for too long:tired:

Beamhead is great at times like this


----------



## Monocrom

Jay R said:


> Gun crime is pretty low in England you know.


 
A few years ago, the police force in Britain got fed up with officers having to get permission from a Superior, before they could use their revolvers. Officers would carry sub-machine guns and revolvers in lock boxes in the back of their police cars. Before being allowed to use either weapon, officers would have to radio a Superior, advise him of the situation, and then hopefully get permission before being able to access the firearms in the back of their cars.

What happens if you come upon a situation in which a suspect instantly opens fire? Tough luck. You have to get permission first.

The police officers' union got fed up with that particular bit of B.S.

Their union fought hard to change things. A compromise was reached. Officers could use their revolvers. But the sub-machine guns still required permission before they could be used. (Officers don't have a key to the lock boxes in the trunk. Once permission is granted, a radio signal is sent to the appropriate, individual, box. It then unlocks).

Now if that "7" figure was accurate, do you honestly think their union would have fought so hard for change in policy? I doubt it. It was after several officers were shot, that the policy was finally changed.

Wow, what a concept... Police officers wanted the right to use their guns for self-preservation; at their own discretion.


----------



## Bimmerboy

Jay R said:


> if her parents hadn’t been able to buy the gun in the first place it wouldn’t matter how stupid they were, their son would still be alive.



Ah, I see. If everyone would just hand over their rights to the collective, it would be much harder for the stupid to have accidents. Great idea!

Typical statist argument, displaying neither an understanding of what rights are, nor even a care to try. :thumbsdow


----------



## Jay R

Monocrom said:


> Now if that "7" figure was accurate, do you honestly think their union would have fought so hard for change in policy?


 Fact remains. You can look it up anywhere. No good just burying your head in the sand and tying to ignore facts.
Try Google. Site :uk. Gun fatalities. Choise of hundreds of Govenment, charity, newspaper articles, etc, etc, etc. They will all say the same.

Re: my point about Americans so used to gun crime they can't concieve the lack of it.


----------



## Beamhead

Jay R, I respect your nation's choice to be unarmed so please respect our nation's choice by way of our constitution to be armed.
IIRC your nation attempted to impose it's will on us once and we all know how that turned out (in large part because the farmers were armed).
This thread is about an impending ruling/regulation change regarding knives so can we keep it OT.


----------



## Jay R

Bimmerboy said:


> Typical statist argument, displaying neither an understanding of what rights are, nor even a care to try. :thumbsdow


 

Who said anything about giving up rights ???. Seems to me you are reading into my post things I didn't write. I was talking about the knife law in England and also quoted some gun crime facts. I didn't make any comment on the change in your knife/gun laws, how it affects anyones rights or what I think about it.

Please don't claim I said something that I didn't and then try to criticise me for it.

Fact remains, if you place guns in peoples hands, gun crime goes up. If you don't have a gun, you can't commit a gun crime right ?

Once again, *I'm not commenting on whether I think gun ownership is a good idea or not* so please don't make your own assumptions and claim I'm arguing against it when I didn't make any such comment..


----------



## Jay R

Beamhead said:


> Jay R, I respect your nation's choice to be unarmed so please respect our nation's choice by way of our constitution to be armed.


 
Refer to my post above. I MADE NO SUCH COMMENT.

Also,

I didn't start talking about guns and after a breif comment regarding someone elses post who was, moved onto knife laws as per the post topic so please don't try to blame it all on me.


----------



## Beamhead

Jay R said:


> Refer to my post above. I MADE NO SUCH COMMENT.


 




Jay R said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that so many Americans can’t seem to associate guns with gun related crime.


 


Jay R said:


> Re: my point about Americans so used to gun crime they can't concieve the lack of it.


 
You quoted this from me....
_Jay R, I respect your nation's choice to be unarmed so please respect our nation's choice by way of our constitution to be armed._

I fail to see the respect and exactly what comment do you believe I accused you of making?


----------



## jtr1962

Jay R said:


> Gun deaths per capita.
> USA = 1 in 9,000
> UK= 1 in 1.5 million
> 
> Guns=Gun related crime.


Do you have any statistics for homicides from ALL sources? I'm curious because I suspect that the per capita rate for murder regardless of cause in the UK is way under what it is in the US. Fact is the USA is a violent country compared to much of the rest of the world. Gun deaths per capita may be much higher here, but so are murders per capita period. As to why this is so, there are hundreds of answers. I'd say the biggest one is lack of education and/or poverty. The two often go hand in hand but even in many affluent communties the level of education is atrocious compared to other countries. All one need do is read forums like this. Often foreigers for whom English is a second or third language write better than native-born Americans. IMHO if we get the education level up the problem of gun (and knife) violence will solve itself regardless of whether guns or knives or any other thing which may be used as a weapon is easily available or not.

Getting back on topic, the problem many Americans have with this proposed law or others like it is that it transfers responsibility from the individual to the collective. A minority use something improperly or for uses for which it is not intended and/or illegal. Instead of taking steps to find out what motivates these individuals and to reeducate so they don't repeat their mistakes, instead we just ban said item completely, hurting mainly responsible former owners of it. Some countries find this course of action acceptable. In the USA for the most part we don't. Admittedly, since we've also failed miserably at the "taking steps to find out what motivates these individuals and to reeducate so they don't repeat their mistakes" part, mostly for lack of even trying to rehabilite sociopathic individuals, a complete ban is often seen as the easier path.


----------



## Jay R

Beamhead said:


> _ please respect our nation's choice by way of our constitution to be armed._
> 
> I fail to see the respect and exactly what comment do you believe I accused you of making?


 
You accused me of not respecting your decision to be armed. I made no comment on this decision. I mearly made comment on the fact that Americans don't seem to be willing to connect the fact that if you have gun ownership, you have gun crime. A fact that would appear self evident to most people. Why, do you think this statement is inaccurate ?

I have just stated facts and have at no point made any comment on what I believe on the subject. ( You may be supprised if I had).

Got to go put my son to bed now. If you want to continue to beat me up for something I didn't say, I'll be back tomorrow.


----------



## FredericoFreire

Why North American citizens can't carry a switchblade knife but is allowed to carry a 9mm pistol ?


----------



## gorn

FredericoFreire said:


> Why North American citizens can't carry a switchblade knife but is allowed to carry a 9mm pistol ?



Because we elect idiots to political offices.


----------



## NA8

Jay R said:


> If you are on the way to Costco and have a large chef knife, that’s a no no.



They sell large chef knifes at Costco here.


----------



## Illum

Jay R said:


> You accused me of not respecting your decision to be armed.



Don't argue with Beamhead...its a no-win situation...


----------



## tarponbill

The rage people felt over Bush might look at your library card, where is it now that real freedoms are being taken away? I sure wouldn't say this can't happen, I would sat it is very likely to happen.


----------



## GLOCK18

I live in Mexico 80% of the time, in Mexico I can carry a switch blade but can't carry my 9mm, in the US I can carry my 9mm but can't carry a switch blade. Definition of gun control and knife control should be - take them out of the citizen hands and put them in the criminal’s hands, I have 2 bullets holes in my body I for one will never give up my guns or knifes, if its wasn’t for my 9mm I would be a dead man. For those who think gun control works, take a look at the 6000 deaths this year in Mexico a place were only the military and police are guns - sure.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix

I was actually in Mexico recently. My dad pointed out the Federales Building that was shot up in La Mision. There were over 50 bullet holes patched up. I know that gun control doesn't control guns and knife control doesn't control knifes. Gun and knife control is about controlling people and making them reliant on and subserviant to their government. It also takes your rights away and gives more power to criminals. I live in California, and our state is about to release a lot of criminals early because they don't have the money to jail them. Drug violence in Mexico is spilling over accross our border. I for one am not going to give up my knifes, or any other weapon to a government too broke to enforce any new gun or knife laws and too broke to protect me after they steal my rights and property. Besides, I'm a third degree blackbelt, and if their goal is to disarm me, they're going to have a hard time getting me to comply as I am a weapon as well.

I don't actually own a gun, but I have plenty of knives and karate weapons. I like backpacking and am getting into mountaineering and climbing. Ask any climber and they'll explain the absolute need for a one hand opening/closing knife. I hate it when government tries to restrict the right to have a tool or tells you that you have to have a reason or a liscense stating a reason to carry the tool. We're talking about a knife, one of the ten essentials for hiking and backpacking. I don't carry one for one specific reason that has to be justified to a random government official. I carry one for emergencies, those unknown reasons you carry a knife for just in case. As a law abiding citizen, it is nobody's business to tell me I need an acceptable reason to carry my property or I can't have it. Americans won't stand for the government taking away their constitutional rights. They can't arrest a citizen for owning a knife that was purchased legally before an antiknife law was passed. That would make it an Ex Post Facto law making it null and void. The constitution also says that property cannot be taken away without just compensation. It's theft if they do, and then they're breaking the law. (A good time to make a citizen's arrest.)


----------



## McGizmo

There is an obvious correlation betwen guns and gun crimes. There is also an obvious correlation between knives and knive crimes. Continuing on, there is an obvious correlation between autos and vehicular manslaughter and other crimes on the roads. I suspect if auto ownership were in a minority, we might see legislators and concerned citizens attempt to ban vehicles because they are potentially quite dangerous. If there is a crime commited in a vehicle, it is the criminal who is addressed and dealt with by the law and not his (her) car.

Personally I need and use my car. I also need and use my knives and all of them can be opened one handed and more often than not, when I grab the knife, the other hand is already occupied! I have been in situations where a two handed knife would have been quite dangerous! (first rule on a boat out at sea is one hand on the boat whenever possible; and for good reason)

I own a few tools that I have never needed to use but they are available should the need arise. Within this group but of a rather exceptional nature is a hand gun. It is a right and as long as bad guys have them, it is a right I choose to exercise.

I dare suggest that the number of citizens now that use hand tools and appreciate their value is a minority and as a result things which some of us hold important is open season to a majority should they perceive any advantage. Lawmakers can do their job and make new laws with little fear of reprisal if their action does not effect any large group within society. Don't we all feel safer knowing the difficulty grandma would have sneaking her nail clippers onto a plane? Ban these one handed knives and I just know I will sleep better! 

I am no expert or collector of knives and yet some of the knives I have seen have no apparent useful function beyond being really scary and probably quite lethal in the hands of someone intent on doing bodily harm. By the same token, a #3 phillips screw driver can also kill.

I have a titanium ice axe that I have found invaluable in my garden and it will last forever with no maintenance requirement. Awesome tool. Now if I were to walk down the street with it hanging from my belt I would imagine it could be cause for some concern and probably rightfully so. :tinfoil:


----------



## Bimmerboy

Jay R said:


> Who said anything about giving up rights ???. Seems to me you are reading into my post things I didn't write.



Applying some fairly simple deductive reasoning, one can quickly conclude that your supposition only holds true in one context; One in which any individual's right to self defense is politically negated.

Is there some other context where someone would not be "able to buy the gun in the first place"?

Adding a dash of inductive reasoning while I'm at it... I've never heard anyone other than those who have a major conflict with the right to private gun ownership, make such a statement as "if her parents hadn’t been able to buy the gun in the first place it wouldn’t matter how stupid they were, their son would still be alive".

Therefore, you're an anti-gunner.

Am I wrong? I'm actually willing to listen.

BTW, since this is more in line with the OP... "sensible" knife laws. What are those? Please explain/define.


----------



## Beamhead

McGizmo said:


> There is an obvious correlation betwen guns and gun crimes. There is also an obvious correlation between knives and knive crimes.


There is also a correlation between gun owners or the possibility of someone being armed and crimes being halted or never even attempted, too bad the pointy heads we employ with our tax dollars don't even attempt to track that data.

Jay R, you may have read more into my post than was intended, I was merely making a point about why our forefathers thought the citizenry of this nation should be allowed to be armed if they choose to.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix

There may be a correlation between guns and gun crimes or knives and knife crimes. However, when you take those weapons away from law abiding citizens, crime goes up, not down because you just made the good citizens defenseless against the armed criminals. Why don't politicians understand that if you make a weapon illegal, you only hurt the people you were trying to protect with the law. Criminals don't follow the laws. If the police enforce the laws on the books, and put more criminals in jail, it will be easier and safer for everyone than stealing guns from the local neighborhood watch group trying to help the police keep the streets safe.


----------



## Sgt. LED

I carry and use whatever I wish.
If I get caught with something or get into trouble I will pay the consequences. I'm 100% fine with that. No reason to give the Police a hard time for just doing their job.

Till then I have what I need with me, whatever I feel it is I need. Laws are all well and good and I properly follow most of them. I also behave myself so there's no reason for anyone to become interested in what I carry. It's worked well for me for a long time. Act like you have sense in public, respect others, and be respectable that way nobody feels the need to search you. 

:shrug: Am I just nuts or what?


----------



## Th232

Jay R said:


> Kind of agree with you there about the lock. What happens is that from about 12 years old, you learn to be careful and don’t let it close on your fingers. Call it natural selection.



True, you learn to be careful. But at the same time, I know for a fact that I'm not perfect, and that lack of perfection can affect me at any time, hence the use of a safety mechanism on my knife. Same reason for other forms of insurance, monetary and otherwise, seatbelts, safety goggles when using class IV lasers, PFDs and so on. Sure I learn to be careful about what I'm doing, I'd be terribly remiss if I didn't, but that in no way implies that I shouldn't use said safety equipment. In case you're wondering, my threshold of useful vs stupid safety devices is set just a bit below the "locks on knives" level.


----------



## Monocrom

Jay R said:


> Fact remains. You can look it up anywhere. No good just burying your head in the sand and tying to ignore facts.
> Try Google. Site :uk. Gun fatalities. Choice of hundreds of Govenment, charity, newspaper articles, etc, etc, etc. They will all say the same.
> 
> Re: my point about Americans so used to gun crime they can't concieve the lack of it.


 
Interesting how your response completely ignored the facts I presented in my other post.

Allow me to clarify... If that "7" was accurate, do you honestly believe that the police officers' union in England would have won the particular victory I mentioned above? I highly doubt it.

You don't get major police policy changes for less than 10, isolated, out-of-the-ordinary, incidents per year. You get such a policy change due to angry officers who are p*$$ed off at being shot at. And apparently at an often-enough basis, that their union's case was strong enough to at least get a partial victory.

I don't need to quote statistics from any website with an obvious bias. I know there's no way in the world that there are about less than 10 incidents per year. And I know it, because I know about the major police policy change that took place just a few years ago; in your country. You don't get *that *type of change without a major problem existing in the first place, with regards to officers being shot at and assaulted.


----------



## PhantomPhoton

I for one am contacting my elected representatives as per the method given on kniferights.org. The fact of the matter is I can make almost any knife open with one hand, including most well maintained SAKs. The verbiage of the proposal is far too ambiguous and as usual out of touch with reality. 

While not a firearm owner myself, I support and stand up for the rights of firearm owners for the most part not because I particularly like guns but because I understand the reality of the present day. And well, when similarly unrealistic proposals go forth about knives, I'm not about to sit quietly either.


----------



## Jay R

NA8 said:


> They sell large chef knifes at Costco here.


 
Ahhh, so you’d be OK coming home from Costco then. (Or going there if you wanted to return it.) :thumbsup:


----------



## Jay R

Monocrom said:


> Interesting how your response completely ignored the facts I presented in my other post. .


Perhaps you don’t understand what a fact is. I presented facts, you presented an opinion based on something which you obviously know nothing about. ( such as the next comment )




Monocrom said:


> You don't get major police policy changes for less than 10, isolated, out-of-the-ordinary, incidents per year.


You do over here. You get major policy changes for a single incident. In fact, anytime an English police officer discharges his weapon, he is automatically suspended from active duty until an investigation is completed by a public organisation independent of the police force. They may then recommend changes to police procedure. You don’t seem to understand the difference between the US and the UK. You make policy changes because something happens lots of times. We make policy changes because it happened ONCE.




Monocrom said:


> You get such a policy change due to angry officers who are p*$$ed off at being shot at. And apparently at an often-enough basis, that their union's case was strong enough to at least get a partial victory.


Hell, it’s like trying to point something out to a blind man. Police in England _don’t get shot at_ because the criminals don’t have guns. We are still talking about a police woman who was shot outside the Iranian Embassy in the 1980’s. Last time I heard of a police officer getting shot dead, it was over a year ago and that was an accident at a police training camp.




Monocrom said:


> I don't need to quote statistics from any website with an obvious bias.


Yes you do, mostly because it’s not a website, it’s every single report ever done by anyone. It’s every single newspaper in England. It’s every single pro or anti-gun group in England. It’s every single anti-violence charity in England.

*THESE ARE THE FACTS.*

Please stop sprouting all this un-informed made-up claptrap and look up some facts. Saying that you are right and that everyone else in the world must be wrong because it doesn’t fit what you believe just makes you look like a fool.


----------



## Jay R

The UK law pretty much narrows down to, if you need to use a knife for a job, you can. If you want to carry one around with you ‘just in case’, it has to be small, folding, non automatic and un-lockable. Seems quite sensible to me.

On the other hand, and this is an argument for all the ‘civil liberties’ and ‘rights’ campaigners, if you were previously allowed to carry locking knives and had that right taken away from you… I can see how that would **** people off. In England because we didn’t grow up with that right, we therefore don’t feel that we have lost anything.


----------



## PhantomPhoton

Jay R said:


> On the other hand, and this is an argument for all the ‘civil liberties’ and ‘rights’ campaigners, if you were previously allowed to carry locking knives and had that right taken away from you… I can see how that would **** people off. In England because we didn’t grow up with that right, we therefore don’t feel that we have lost anything.



Well put.  That is a major component of the issue many of us have. If we allow "them" to take one freedom from us today, what will "they" try to take away tomorrow? Where does it end? What is too much and by the time "they" reach that point will we still have enough rights and freedoms left to tell them "no" ?


----------



## gallonoffuel

Civil liberties are merely affirmations of inherent human rights. Not the least of which is the ability to defend yourself. 

When the government decides how, when, and if you are allowed to protect yourself and your family, because they feel you are not intelligent enough to decide that yourself, you are in a nanny state. When the government decides that only police are allowed to carry and employ a device that levels the playing field with the criminal population, you are in a police state.

I won't argue the facts about US vs. UK. The US does have a higher homicide rate per capita, regardless of the implement. The UK seems to have a rising violent crime rate while the US rate is dropping. The crime problem is not solved by restrictions on how citizens can defend themselves. There will always be those that respect the rights of others and those that do not. Swift and harsh punishment to those that do not play by the rules of rational, civilized societies and respect those rights is merely a deterrent, but a fairly good one. 

If my life is threatened by another, I have no sympathy for that individual, I do not inquire as to where society failed him, to cause him to commit these acts. Instead, I wish violence upon him in the same manner as I have recieved. 

My issue with the governmental control of devices that may be used as weapons is just that, government control. When the government takes something, they do not give it back voluntarily. Big government is the enemy of freedom. You are no longer a citizen. You are a subject.


----------



## Jay R

Well said Gallonoffuel.
 Education and harsh sentencing is the answer. Though UK violent crime is apparently dropping quite fast this year. It’s been a bit fashionable for youths in inner city areas to carry knives for the past few years and knife crime rose as a result. Seems that this year, that has turned somewhat. Mostly I believe due to a big push to educate kids on the consequences of carrying a knife. 
 
 Though always feel wary when someone talks about inherent human rights. I think it should always be followed by the phrase ‘within a society’. In most western societies for example, we have the ‘right’ to freedom of religion. There are a lot of countries where this ‘right’ does not exist within that society and it’s not expected or even, in many cases, wanted. All ‘human rights’ are society based. I don’t believe that you get any automatic rights just for being born a human.


----------



## gallonoffuel

Jay R said:


> Well said Gallonoffuel.
> I don’t believe that you get any automatic rights just for being born a human.



That, sir, is the most disturbing line in this entire thread.


----------



## Jay R

gallonoffuel said:


> That, sir, is the most disturbing line in this entire thread.


Yup. Sad but true.


----------



## gallonoffuel

I would argue that we get *every* right just for being born a human. In the same way a lion has the right to kill its prey, and the prey has the right to defend itself if possible. Society takes away certain rights, or at least imposes consequences to deter the execution of those rights. 

I just realized we have gotten way off track. Sorry mods.


----------



## Monocrom

Jay R said:


> Police in England _don’t get shot at_ because the criminals don’t have guns.


 
I read your post, but singled out this line because it speaks volumes, all by itself. And, is extremely easy to disprove. I've PMed you evidence that criminals in your nation do indeed have guns. However, due to some of the very non-family friendly comments that the video has generated, I won't post the link directly on CPF. (Hopefully, you'll believe your own eyes).

There have been documented cases of police officers being shot at, by suspects. Cases which the police union in your country used as examples, in order to get their officers the right to use handguns at their own discretion. If there are no criminals with guns in your nation, seems extremely odd that the union would have gotten that victory just a few short years ago. 





> *THESE ARE THE FACTS.*


 
Nope. Those are statistics from biased sources which you clearly believe in, with all your heart & soul. And the bold type tells me that when someone comes along, and points out that they are not hard facts; it upsets you. For some odd reason, you honestly believe that an inanimate object can cause decent folks to commit crimes. 

You also make statements that speak for themselves. Such as how _your _facts are supported in _any _news story, website, press-release from a propaganda ministry. (Ok, I'll give you the last one).

Call me a glutton for punishment for trying to point out that you've been lied to. Some folks prefer the lies. Clearly if someone _believes_ that there are no violent criminals in their country who have guns, that person is able to sleep better at night; due to their false sense of security. Wasn't my intent to try to take that away from you.

I'll let the other CPFers decide which one of us has presented facts, and which one hasn't. I believe I've presented an excellent case. They'll look at your statements, and decide for themselves. I'll even let you have the last word... With some of the general, broad, sweeping statements you've made so far (including the one I quoted above); I'm sure whatever you say will just make my posts look even better.


----------



## McGizmo

Beamhead said:


> There is also a correlation between gun owners or the possibility of someone being armed and crimes being halted or never even attempted, too bad the pointy heads we employ with our tax dollars don't even attempt to track that data.
> 
> ......



I just finished an interesting book, Freakonomics and at the very least, it was excellent food for thought. In it, if I recall correctly, they might have questioned this correlation or at least the existence of viable data to support it. However I think they did agree with the premise. They also pointed out the distinction between correlation and cause/effect relationships.

When I said there was a correlation between knives and knife crimes, I meant it in almost a tautology; by definition a knife crime involves a knife. If there were no such thing as a knife then there would be no such thing as a knife crime. There is no indication though that the previous knife crime might not have become a pie cutter or garden shovel crime in the absence of knives. Granted there is perhaps a difference in opportunity but still the point remains and supported if the motive remains.

In the mentioned book, they point out that if a home owner has small children and also owns a gun as well as a swimming pool in the back yard that the probability of harm coming to the children from the gun is way much less than the probability of harm from the swimming pool. In many cases, there may be gun lock laws in place but none regarding enclosures or impediments to keep the children out of the pool. I got the sense that these guys argued that we need to look at actual causes and if laws are written, they need to focus on the causes themselves and not the instruments used in the cause.

In the case of a crime, you have motive, opportunity and ability to carry out the crime. It would seem that the proposed ban is based on the assumption that this would have a meaningful impact on the ability to carry out a crime? It seems to me that:

A) the ban is unlikely to keep these tools, if they really are so great in providing the needed ability to the criminal, from the criminal. They could indeed bring to life additional crime in a black market of supply.

B) Again assuming that these knives are so great as weapons, they are now not available to law abiding citizens intent on having a means of self defense but likely available to those with disregard for the law and intent on criminal behavior.

C) I am confident that the intended crime could be carried out with the use of some other tool in lieu of the banned knife.

D) if this ban is as wide in scope as assumed and discussed here then the retractable box cutters and folding box cutters should be included. If that were to be the case, I expect there to be more harm among the population by accidental and self inflicted wounds resulting from exposed and sharp blades in the work areas. More blood may flow and more harm resulting because of the ban.

To anyone curious about the mentioned book, I won't get into it here as it is likely a topic for the underground but these guys make a strong case (indirectly) for the consideration that Roe VS Wade has had much more impact on the crimes this ban is addressing than any ban on knife design is likely to have!


----------



## Bimmerboy

Jay R said:


> Though always feel wary when someone talks about inherent human rights. I think it should always be followed by the phrase ‘within a society’. In most western societies for example, we have the ‘right’ to freedom of religion. There are a lot of countries where this ‘right’ does not exist within that society and it’s not expected or even, in many cases, wanted. All ‘human rights’ are society based. I don’t believe that you get any automatic rights just for being born a human.



And another layer peels away to begin revealing the true nature of the collectivist.

This mentality is beyond disturbing. It's grotesque, and gives rise to monsters.


----------



## Beamhead

McGizmo said:


> When I said there was a correlation between knives and knife crimes, I meant it in almost a tautology; by definition a knife crime involves a knife. If there were no such thing as a knife then there would be no such thing as a knife crime. There is no indication though that the previous knife crime might not have become a pie cutter or garden shovel crime in the absence of knives. Granted there is perhaps a difference in opportunity but still the point remains and supported if the motive remains.


 
In most peoples minds an "(insert the inanimate object here) crime" would include an act of violence or threat of it using said object, if this ban is passed via bureaucratic fiat then the term can include a person who owned a banned item prior to said ban or any that purchase one after, no longer meeting the standard in which motive/means/opportunity would matter?

As for viable data, just think whenever most idiots who go on killing sprees are stopped it is from 1 of 2 ways, suicide or when someone else armed shows up.
If they knew in advance of the possibility that 50% of the people at the point of attack may be armed sure they may still be stupid/insane enough to carry out their crime but there more than likely would be far less casualties.


----------



## jtr1962

Beamhead said:


> If they knew in advance of the possibility that 50% of the people at the point of attack may be armed sure they may still be stupid/insane enough to carry out their crime but there more than likely would be far less casualties.


I've been saying exactly this for years whenever someone brings up the subject of taking _any_ means of self defense out of the hands of citizens.


----------



## jtr1962

Bimmerboy said:


> And another layer peels away to begin revealing the true nature of the collectivist.
> 
> This mentality is beyond disturbing. It's grotesque, and gives rise to monsters.


What I think Jay R is alluding to is that you give up the ability to do certain things you might do "in the wild" if you choose to live in society. For example, if I see an attractive person of the opposite sex on the street I can't just grab them and do whatever the heck I please with them. Prior to civilization and laws I could (although granted such an encounter wouldn't have taken place in the streets because there were none). With civilization it's a simple matter of finding the balance of which and how many things you make illegal as the price for keeping our animalistic instincts from making civilization uncivilized.

Relating this to the subject at hand, some countries choose to effectively take away the means of self-defense on the premise that those means are also kept out of the hands of would-be criminals. Flawed thinking in my opinion, but _not_ for the reason usually given (i.e. criminals will obtain said weapon anyway because they obviously have contempt for the law). Rather, it's flawed thinking because _somebody else can make money selling them said weapon_, or in simpler terms somebody else gains something. So bans just succeed in creating black markets. We've seen exactly that with guns and also with recreational drugs. Now in a society where there was no money or equivalent, there would be no incentive for anyone to set up a black market for a banned item as there would be no gain for them by selling it. Hence, by banning it, taking it away from those who already own it, and preventing its manufacture you could reasonably assume that you'll mostly get rid of it. Now how to get from today's society to one where money, or the concept of wealth, is effectively obsolete is a discussion in and of itself but not for this thread. IMO we'll get there, but likely not in the lifetimes of most of the posters in this thread.


----------



## Monocrom

jtr1962 said:


> ... Now how to get from today's society to one where money, or the concept of wealth, is effectively obsolete is a discussion in and of itself but not for this thread. IMO we'll get there, but likely not in the lifetimes of most of the posters in this thread.


 
Not ever going to get there. People want wealth. Whether they work hard for it, or spend every penny on lottery tickets. It's just basic human nature. If I held a raffle, and the winning prize was a bag full of money; do you believe anyone would refuse the prize?


----------



## jtr1962

Monocrom said:


> Not ever going to get there. People want wealth. Whether they work hard for it, or spend every penny on lottery tickets. It's just basic human nature. If I held a raffle, and the winning prize was a bag full of money; do you believe anyone would refuse the prize?


They want wealth because the wealth allows them to obtain material things. Now envision a society where robots produce all of the goods or services, and also make and repair themselves. In such a society there is no longer any need to exchange money for goods (what will robots do with money anyway?), hence money is pointless. Each citizen would essentially get what they want by simply asking for it to be produced. Naturally, there would need to be some total limit to what one could ask for based on either energy usage or raw materials and the total population. Even if you don't use all of your allotment you wouldn't be able to transfer the surplus to someone else (or that would essentially be like money is today). I imagine in such an advanced society with completely automated production that this allotment might well put everyone far beyond what is today considered a decent standard of living. In other words, there would be no incentive (or means for that matter) for anyone to do anything to acquire more as they already can have whatever anyone could reasonably want or need. Now you might say you'll have no billionaires with huge estates and yachts and so forth in such a society as those things would be well beyond their allotment. That's true, but IMO acquistion of material things to that extent indicates a pathology even if today it's considered socially acceptable. Why have goods and wealth beyond what you'll need or use in 1000 lifetimes? From what I see being super rich never seems to result in any more happiness. Usually the opposite is true. The material things become a burden. Granted, this is all pretty far-fetched but given the exponential growth in robotics and AI it's not hard to imagine such a society 100 or 200 years from now.

But like I said, I really think we should discuss this in another thread.


----------



## StriderSMF

Dont be surprised when the put a ban on forward clickies with over 200 lumen's :mecry:


----------



## TITAN1833

I have been around the UK long enough to see my rights eroded on a yearly bases,the fact is once I could carry lock knifes actually most weapons.

A few examples back in the eighties I carried daily Nunchaku,and quite often I would practice out in the open with out fear of arrest! try that now and I would certainly end up in jail :shakehead

Also at around the same time and prior to 1988 any knife including lock knives were allowed with one exception flick knives/gravity knives,I believe these were banned back in 1959! try carrying a lock knife in public and you will 100% end up in jail :shakehead

I could go on but! this statement will suffice,try carrying any sharp object in public and you could end up in jail BTW this includes multi tools,screw drivers and nails :laughing: the only exception is a folding pocket knife with non locking blades and with a blade under 3"

Do I feel my rights have been eroded "hell yeah" I just wish we in the UK stood up to those who impose such erosions but! sad to say this will never be the case, so alas the damage is done oh! and one more thing be careful in the UK if you carry a tactical pen it's a grey area.

So yes I'm with the US guys on this,keep fighting for your rights guys :twothumbs


[edit]I have to add this important information,most knife attacks in the UK are likely to include a kitchen knife FACT!


----------



## Illum

its like the laser pointer incident...

Sometimes I feel safer having my rights pulled knowing that there won't be idiots out there causing trouble because they don't know what to do with their rights and decide to exploit it:shakehead


----------



## TITAN1833

Illum said:


> its like the laser pointer incident...
> 
> Sometimes I feel safer having my rights pulled knowing that there won't be idiots out there causing trouble because they don't know what to do with their rights and decide to exploit it:shakehead


True but! the idiots exploit people like you thinking you are safe why! well they know that you will most likely not be carrying anything to defend yourself with "especially" as that right gets "slowly" eroded.


----------



## Beamhead

Illum said:


> Sometimes I feel safer having my rights pulled knowing that there won't be idiots out there causing trouble because they don't know what to do with their rights and decide to exploit it:shakehead


 
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin


----------



## Guy's Dropper

Oh lawdy, Another proposed ban? WTF?:shakehead


----------



## McGizmo

The right to defend ourselves is certainly not one to allow to be eroded as many have commented on. This is especially the case when for many of us the perceived enemy or potential enemy is within our borders. For some it may be the wingnuts on the right for others, the wingnuts on the left. For many, the criminal element alone is cause to be ready to defend.

In regards to the UK comment about a non locking 3" blade knife, I think one of the most dangerous tools I ever used was just such a knife! :green:

One of the key ideas I picked up from that book I mentioned was the notion that "conventional wisdom" is not necessarily logical, based on truth or deserving of being held as wisdom or by convention. There may be conventional wisdom in support of this knife ban but that alone does not justify such a ban but will the law makers question this? :shrug:

I wonder if common sense should also be questioned although most of us doubt there is much of it prevailing these days, anyways.


----------



## Lightraven

I've pulled a lot of knives off criminals and their cars. Most were California-legal folding or fixed blade knives. Maybe just the population I deal with tends to carry the legal (but garbage quality) stuff.


----------



## TITAN1833

McGizmo said:


> In regards to the UK comment about a non locking 3" blade knife, I think one of the most dangerous tools I ever used was just such a knife! :green:


 I agree and I have the scar to prove that, however the very worst are craft knives "snap ouch!" LOL if only my fingers could speak :mecry: 

Haha! maybe allowing non locking 3" knives is our governments way of disabling us all :green:

And I see it now very soon we will have to wear boxes as gloves when out in public :candle:


----------



## Bullzeyebill

Thanks Titan for the encouragement to keep the fight up and defend our rights: we certainly need to do that. Sounds like you and your fellow citizens need one of those little "tea parties" we had a few years ago, and see if you can get some guaranteed citizen rights down in writing, and we (US citizens) need to do what we can to protect our Bill of Rights from the little encroachments such as this proposed ruling on one handed opening knives.

Bill


----------



## TITAN1833

Bill the thing is this "try it at your peril" you have kids right? slowly take away their rights and see where that goes,it's no different with adults! something will CRACK! in the end.

I really believe in this: tools "which includes any knife",fire, water and food is a human right that should never be taken away :twothumbs


----------



## Beamhead

McGizmo said:


> The right to defend ourselves is certainly not one to allow to be eroded as many have commented on. This is especially the case when for many of us the perceived enemy or potential enemy is within our borders. For some it may be the wingnuts on the right for others, the wingnuts on the left. For many, the criminal element alone is cause to be ready to defend.


 
Don't forget the right to defend ourselves from tyranny in government.
Right wingnut here.:nana:


----------



## cave dave

I think this thread has gotten off topic and into the realm of emotional responses. And frankly whining ain't gonna get us anywhere.

I wonder how many people have actually taken the time to read the proposed Customs ruling document? It is simply full of bad logic and poor definitions. I think the way to overturn this proposed action is to point out all their mistakes.

examples:


> it is necessary to reassess our position regarding knives with spring-assisted opening mechanisms as 1) there are no judicial decisions interpreting, other than in the ontext of balisong knives (discussed above), 15 U.S.C. § 1241(b)(2) and the second clause of 19 Part CFR 12.95(a) (discussed below) and 2) CBP has issued inconsistent rulings, of which HQ W116730 is one, regarding the issue of whether knives with spring-assisted opening mechanisms are admissible or prohibited from importation into the United States.



I believe this is incorrect and that there have been judicial decisions. People mention them but we will need to send them actual case numbers if we want to reference them.



> The Customs position, which has been supported by court decisions, is that Congressional intent was to address the problem of the importation, subsequent sale, and use of a class of quick-opening, easily concealed knives most frequently used for criminal purposes.



Umm, now they are saying there have been court decisions, I would assume some attempt at interpretations during these. :thinking: 
I agree that was probably the point of the original legislation and why I cautioned against using the term "weapon". However I think one would be hard pressed to prove that the millions of one hand folding knives sold at Walmart, sporting good stores and online are most "frequently used" for criminal purposes. 

They spend a lot of the document defining words (sometimes incorrectly) and yet they fail to define the word "primarily" even though they use it a lot to say certain knives are primarily not intended for utilitarian purposes, and implying they are primarily weapons.




> the type of gravity or ‘‘flick’’ knife
> which is indisputably within the statute requires some human manipulation in order to create or unleash the force of ‘‘gravity’’ or ‘‘inertia’’ which makes the opening ‘‘automatic.’’



If it requires human manipulation it isn't "automatic". 

The force of gravity can't be created or unleashed, it is always present. 



> The knives at issue open via inertia – once pressure is applied to the thumb stud (or protrusion at the base of the blade), the blade continues in inertial motion (caused by the combined effect of manual and springassisted pressure) until it is stopped by the locking mechanism of the knife.



Inertia is simply defined as an "object in motion stays in motion", manual and spring assisted pressure can not cause inertial motion by definition.

Seriously these folks need to be sent back to High School Physics class.

The writers of the document seem also to have difficulty understanding the legal definitions of "and" as well as "or". They seem to want to build cumulative cases where the sum of the logic adds up to more than the whole, when the intention the original legislation wasn't additive. They seem to understand that when they say that utilitarian switchblades are still illegal. But seem to want to combine hand pressure + spring + inertia to = switchblade.



> On October 24, 1970, notice was published in the Federal Register (35 FR 16594) of a proposal to prescribe regulations to govern the importation of articles subject to the so-called Switchblade Knife Act, sections 1 – 4, 72 Stat. 562 (15 U.S.C. 1241 – 1244). Importers or other interested persons were given the opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of relevant comments, suggestions or objections. *No comments were received from importers or other persons.* 36 FR 18859.



Bold mine. This part is just plain scary, and in part why we have these stupid regulations today. Of course we didn't have the internet in 1970 to get the word out, so a 30 day comment period was likely to go unnoticed.


----------



## Illum

Beamhead said:


> Right wingnut here.:nana:



Wingnut yes...right or left handed I'm not so sure:thinking:


----------



## Jay R

TITAN1833 said:


> try carrying a lock knife in public and you will 100% end up in jail!


 
Well, you’d get it confiscated and a severe talking to. If you had a bad attitude with the policeman you may end up with an official Police Caution. If you were just in possession of one, you would never end up in Jail.
 



TITAN1833 said:


> try carrying any sharp object in public and you could end up in jail BTW this includes multi tools,screw drivers and nails the only exception is a folding pocket knife with non locking blades and with a blade under 3”


Stab someone to death with a screwdriver and of course you will end up in jail as is only right and proper. No exception for a three inch knife.
 



TITAN1833 said:


> [edit]I have to add this important information,most knife attacks in the UK are likely to include a kitchen knife FACT


 True, true. Usually domestic arguments that have gone big time.


----------



## Jay R

Jay R said:


> Police in England _don’t get shot at_ because the criminals don’t have guns.





Monocrom said:


> I read your post, but singled out this line because it speaks volumes, all by itself. And, is extremely easy to disprove .


 
As I’d already established in earlier posts that a very few criminals do have guns, it’s quite obvious to anyone who speaks English as a first language that statement was meant as a generalisation. And finding a few, widely spread cases, only proves my point further.




Monocrom said:


> There have been documented cases of police officers being shot at.


Yes there have been, but not many which is the whole point I’m making.




Monocrom said:


> For some odd reason, you honestly believe that an inanimate object can cause decent folks to commit crimes.


There you go again. Claiming that I said something that I didn’t and then trying to criticise me for it. I never said anything of the sort and would not because it is a stupid statement.




Monocrom said:


> Clearly if someone _believes_ that there are no violent criminals in their country who have guns


No, really, it’s like you are just making stuff up now. Nobody said that. I certainly didn’t.

Look, I don’t mean to be rude but you don’t read my posts properly, you obviously don’t understand what I’m saying and you keep trying to criticise me for saying things which I never said. On top of that you seem to believe that every single news/report in any media format, pro or anti gun from England is lying because it doesn’t match what you believe. 

I give up. There’s none so deaf as those that will not hear.


----------



## McGizmo

> The Customs position, which has been supported by court decisions, is that Congressional intent was to address the problem of the importation, subsequent sale, and use of a class of quick-opening, easily concealed knives most frequently used for criminal purposes.


This intent makes sense to me on the face of it. If there is a knife that has little or no utility beyond its use as a weapon then perhaps it can be identified and banned if that is deemed necessary or prudent. However, what data has been compiled to show the frequency of use of any of these knives for that matter or are presumption and assumption adequate in identifying the frequency?

I also find it a bit ironic that there is concern for easily concealed knives in light of my understanding and my admitted assumption that longer or larger knives are in some cases not allowed to be carried and the consideration that an exposed and visible knife on a person brings with it its own set of problems and issues.

Would the laws have any less "real" effect if they addressed the criminals themselves and removed _their_ right to carry a knife as I believe they now disallow a criminal access to legal possession of a firearm?

My gut tells me that a law abiding citizen having a knife on his (her) person might be in a position to deter a crime against their person but in actual defense, I wonder how well being armed with a knife would aid the citizen in warding off an attack?!?! Regardless, IMHO, the citizen who has not broken any law has the right to carry tools of utility as well as defense and should not suffer limitations based on what a criminal might accomplish with the same tools.

Making possession a crime puts an otherwise law abiding citizen at risk of being seen and processed as a criminal and actually a pretty easy mark for those held to enforcing the law. The law abiding citizen will likely respond to the law and avoid conflict by removing any illegal items from their person and carry items; the utility of defense as well as more benign tasks are no longer available to the citizen in the now absence of this device. Will the criminal comply with the law and also no longer have possession? Less the likelihood, I would guess.

I am probably ahead of the situation here because the subject is about a proposed ban and I assume this may not necessarily imply an additional law against possession?

If a ban can effectively remove a criminal device from society and if this device has only criminal merit then it would seem to be worthy of implementation. However the "ifs" really need to be honestly addressed.

If a law is designed to target a criminal but only effects the law abiding and worse, even limits their abilities, then the law is ill conceived and hopefully not passed. :shrug:

Anymore, it seems that too much of what our government and legislators do is all about appearance and not actual positive effect, correction or change. 

IMHO, we have some laws that have created criminals where there was no _real_ crime before. If the intent of law is to reduce and deal with _real crime_, how effective has it been?


----------



## TITAN1833

Jay R said:


> True, true. Usually domestic arguments that have gone big time


Interestingly the kitchen knife is about to change,soon they will no longer be pointed look here


----------



## McGizmo

TITAN1833 said:


> Interestingly the kitchen knife is about to change,soon they will no longer be pointed look here



I want to see their redesign of an ice pick or are those already illegal?


----------



## Kiessling

I'd say since Basic Instinct they better be


----------



## Sgt. LED

I wonder about my swords........................:devil:


----------



## Beamhead

I just received an email alert from a US knife manufacturer regarding this idiocy, what follows is from said email...


....U.S. Customs proposes to bypass Congress and expand the switchblade definition to include all knives that open with one hand. These include multi-tools, traditional pocket knives, one-hand openers, as well as assisted-openers.

Statistics to consider about the knife industry and the possible effects of this ruling:

* U.S. Sporting Knife Industry has a $5.9 Billion Economic Impact on U.S. Economy
* 3,881 direct U.S. Employees at 61 Companies
* 35.6 Million Households Own Pocket Knives; 24.8 Million Own Hunting Knives
** Assisted-opening and one-hand-opening knives are 80 % of All Knives Sold *
* 30-40 Million Public Safety, Non-Issue Military, Construction, Recreational Users 


_Material compiled and provided by AKTI_​ 

The majority of Americans who carry and use one-hand-openers every day need them for their jobs. They use them to save lives as well as for scores of recreational activities.

If U.S. Customs succeeds, it could lead to effectively banning all folding knives from interstate commerce.



........emphasis added by me.


----------



## McGizmo

Beamhead said:


> I just received an email alert from a US knife manufacturer regarding this idiocy, what follows is from said email...
> 
> 
> ....U.S. Customs proposes to bypass Congress and expand the switchblade definition to include all knives that open with one hand. These include multi-tools, traditional pocket knives, one-hand openers, as well as assisted-openers.
> 
> Statistics to consider about the knife industry and the possible effects of this ruling:
> 
> * U.S. Sporting Knife Industry has a $5.9 Billion Economic Impact on U.S. Economy
> * 3,881 direct U.S. Employees at 61 Companies
> * 35.6 Million Households Own Pocket Knives; 24.8 Million Own Hunting Knives
> ** Assisted-opening and one-hand-opening knives are 80 % of All Knives Sold *
> * 30-40 Million Public Safety, Non-Issue Military, Construction, Recreational Users
> 
> 
> _Material compiled and provided by AKTI_​
> 
> The majority of Americans who carry and use one-hand-openers every day need them for their jobs. They use them to save lives as well as for scores of recreational activities.
> 
> If U.S. Customs succeeds, it could lead to effectively banning all folding knives from interstate commerce.
> 
> 
> 
> ........emphasis added by me.



Beam,

This is really beyond belief! I went to the link in the first post and caught a reference to the proposed bill for Hawaii. I quote:



> ..Any person who knowingly manufactures, sells, transfers, possesses, or transports a pocket knife in the State shall be guilty of a misdemeanor....


Well if this law passes then I am automatically a criminal I guess.  

Reading further, it becomes clear that the senator who wrote the bill does not personally support it nor does he feel that it would ever actually come to a vote. He wrote it at the request of one of his constituents. Politics! 

If a constituent wanted a law passed that would outlaw pink bowties, would the senator keep his voter happy and write such a law? :duh2:

I suppose if by some unseen miracle, all of the _existing_ pocket knives were somehow removed from the population, law abiding citizen and criminal, the criminal would just give it up? What if instead they opted to carry cordless chainsaws and gas powered nail guns? I guess I should get one each of these, before they are not allowed....


----------



## Monocrom

McGizmo said:


> If a constituent wanted a law passed that would outlaw pink bowties, would the senator keep his voter happy and write such a law? :duh2:


 
Now you know he would... If the constitent was rich enough to donate several hundreds of thousands of dollars to the senator's re-election fund.

That's what politics boils down to. 

If the senator at least believed in it, that would show some integrity on his part. Rather than his puppet-master... er, I mean "constituent;" wanting such a bill to be proposed.


----------



## Beamhead

McGizmo said:


> Beam,
> 
> This is really beyond belief! I went to the link in the first post and caught a reference to the proposed bill for Hawaii. I quote:
> 
> Well if this law passes then I am automatically a criminal I guess.
> 
> Reading further, it becomes clear that the senator who wrote the bill does not personally support it nor does he feel that it would ever actually come to a vote. He wrote it at the request of one of his constituents. Politics!


I am surprised you have not yet heard of your states proposed ban. I can accept a law being passed by elected officials of whom answer in some way directly to the body politic but this insidious redefinition of a regulation by a bureaucrat(s) is beyond the pale.

I thought pink bow-ties were banned already.:tinfoil:

EDIT: I just found and read the senator's response and I will give him a small amount of benefit as it appears he has written bills as a courtesy to constituents with no intent of ever supporting them many times prior.
It does look goofy at a minimum though, perhaps you should ask him to write a bill banning political parties as a courtesy to you, being a constituent and all. SB5150 or is it *BS*5150 the McGizmo political party ban act of 2009, just think of the email alerts that would generate. :devil:


----------



## Sgt. LED

Time for deep pocket carry!


----------



## Monocrom

Sgt. LED said:


> Time for deep pocket carry!


 
Something already practiced by many here in NYC. 

Forget the tell-tale clip, and just slip your favorite folder completely into a pocket.


----------



## carbine15

Monocrom said:


> ... just slip your favorite folder completely into a pocket.



Then my wave wont function as its intended.


----------



## StriderSMF

carbine15 said:


> Then my wave wont function as its intended.


 If you know how to use it you should have no problem. being in the pocket doesnt take the wave off the blade does it.


----------



## 270winchester

The danger with this ruling is that since the Customs is a federal agency, state and local agencies will use it as a ruling precedent to make patch work of bans and regulations. There doesn't have to be a federal ban, state bans are just as effective as federal bans to law-abiding people.

The Customs just denied an extension to the June 21st date so looks like they already made up their mind on this issue.

And sorry to see how Off Topic Jay R has taken this thread.


----------



## Jay R

270winchester said:


> And sorry to see how Off Topic Jay R has taken this thread.


Hey ! Fairs fair, it takes two to Tango.
 



TITAN1833 said:


> Interestingly the kitchen knife is about to change, soon they will no longer be pointed look here





TITAN1833 said:


>



Strangely enough I saw this just before logging onto CPF and was going to post the same link myself.
 
 The anti stab kitchen knife eh? How long do you think that the same design will become compulsory on folding knives? Come to think of it, the file on my Leatherman has a similar shaped end. All they would have to do would be to make the blade from the same mould and sharpen the straight side.
 
 Now I hate living in a Nanny state (UK) and because of that I would certainly disapprove if they tried to make it law that all kitchen knives had to be constructed like that. On the other hand, if it were to work just as well as a normal kitchen knife ( and having been a chef for 7 years in the past, I’d want to try it for myself ) I have to consider, if it does work as well, why not make it law? In the long run, it doesn’t do anyone any harm and it saves lives.
 I see it the same as compulsory seatbelts, sure people complained about the loss of liberties, rights and freedom to choose but 20 years later most people think it was a great idea and wondered why we didn’t do it earlier.


----------



## Lightraven

I just skimmed the text of this revocation of prior rulings at CBP.gov. Fascinating look into the legal/bureaucratic mind when dealing with something as real as use of a blade against another person.

Anybody closer to the situation might reference crime reports, emergency room doctors, autopsy results, and tactical experts in the matter of attacks using sharp weapons.

The proposed ruling, by comparison, makes numerous trips to the dictionary and prior legal text. The author seems to assume that once the item is defined as a switchblade, that it is therefore a weapon of the criminal exclusively. Those who have some logic training are aware there is a fallacy and could probably name it. I just know that not all switchblades are weapons, and not all weapons are the exclusive tools of criminals--most are not.

It is pretty clear to me that CBP ("Customs") is extending the term "switchblade" to include spring assisted opening knives, not all one hand opening knives. That would be most of them, nowadays (The 80% figure? I can believe it.) CBP doesn't have that kind of juice, even if they did want to ban all one handed knives which I doubt. 

I do believe that CBP is technically correct, that AO's are switchblades and therefore illegal. But, I think the law is flawed in banning a class of personal defense weapons to all persons. Knives are particularly suited to women/girls defending themselves against rape/murder.

California has even more restrictive laws in regards to knives, so it's nothing new here.


----------



## Jay R

Something else that hasn’t been considered yet. We are all here, you must admit, men who like their gadgets and we therefore have a somewhat biased opinion about a possible law stating that we aren’t allowed to carry a locking knife without good reason. ( And remember, that’s not what this law is.)
On the other hand, I suspect that if you were to go up to an average person in the street, especially a woman, and suggest a law that bans people from carrying flick knives in public, they would probably be quite happy about it.
As we already have that law in England, it is purely guesswork on my part that most female and many male US citizens would look favourably on such a law so I leave it to you to decide if the last paragraph a fair statement.


----------



## TITAN1833

Jay R said:


> Hey ! Fairs fair, it takes two to Tango.
> 
> 
> Strangely enough I saw this just before logging onto CPF and was going to post the same link myself.
> 
> The anti stab kitchen knife eh? How long do you think that the same design will become compulsory on folding knives? Come to think of it, the file on my Leatherman has a similar shaped end. All they would have to do would be to make the blade from the same mould and sharpen the straight side.
> 
> Now I hate living in a Nanny state (UK) and because of that I would certainly disapprove if they tried to make it law that all kitchen knives had to be constructed like that. On the other hand, if it were to work just as well as a normal kitchen knife ( and having been a chef for 7 years in the past, I’d want to try it for myself ) I have to consider, if it does work as well, why not make it law? In the long run, it doesn’t do anyone any harm and it saves lives.
> I see it the same as compulsory seatbelts, sure people complained about the loss of liberties, rights and freedom to choose but 20 years later most people think it was a great idea and wondered why we didn’t do it earlier.


Well I doubt those hell bent on doing harm would buy them let alone give up what they already own,so for me that knife is a gimmick IMHO and why would any law abiding citizen want one after all we as law abiding are safe with any knife,yet it seems we cannot choose for ourselves any more :thumbsdow

So if they did outlaw the common kitchen knife,then my views on the knife laws of this country would further recede LOL that's low enough already


----------



## Sgt. LED

Will they outlaw steel, benchgrinders, files, and sandpaper?
We can just keep rolling our own.


----------



## Monocrom

For those who'd rather carry their favorite folding knife in the upright position, without using the tell-tale clip; there's _this _option....

http://magills.com/index.php?tpl=search&search_val=Inside+pocket+knife+holster&submit=search

Here's a review of it:
http://www.themartialist.com/0903/aftkholsters.htm

A useful accessory for those who live in areas where carrying a knife is still legal, but you don't want to be hassled; due to an exposed pocket clip.


----------



## McGizmo

Jay R said:


> .... On the other hand, if it were to work just as well as a normal kitchen knife ( and having been a chef for 7 years in the past, I’d want to try it for myself ) I have to consider, if it does work as well, why not make it law? In the long run, it doesn’t do anyone any harm and it saves lives.....



If if does work well then it will be accepted on it own merits and no need for a law!?!? I too see some merit to such a knife design in many applications but not in consideration that it would be a less effective weapon in my kitchen!?!

Now I could see the cutlery industry get behind such a law because the implications are that there would be a whole new mandatory market and boon to sales as every household turns in their illegal knives and goes about buying replacements.


----------



## TITAN1833

I'm waiting for the redesigned meat cleaver which BTW is no less effective than a pointed knife in the wrong hands


----------



## TITAN1833

It seems SOG tools are getting worried also.I relieved an email today asking for support hmmm! looks like the US is going to follow the UK ruling very,very bad news


----------



## Beamhead

There is an action alert on the front page of CRKT.
http://www.crkt.com/ I'll be hanging on to all my Carson flippers.


----------



## TITAN1833

Ah well!! world wide ban on knives Hmmm :thinking: not bombs tho! LOL


----------



## cave dave

Lightraven said:


> It is pretty clear to me that CBP ("Customs") is extending the term "switchblade" to include spring assisted opening knives, not all one hand opening knives. That would be most of them, nowadays (The 80% figure? I can believe it.) CBP doesn't have that kind of juice, even if they did want to ban all one handed knives which I doubt.
> 
> I do believe that CBP is technically correct, that AO's are switchblades and therefore illegal.



If the logic CBP applies defines AO's as switchblades then using the same logic will make any knife that can be flicked open (and that is almost all of them) a gravity or inertia knife. Both gravity and inertia knifes are illegal under current law. 



> *Switchblade Knife Act set forth in 19 CFR §§ 12.95–12.103*.
> ...
> § 12.95 Definitions.
> (a) Switchblade knife. . . . any imported knife, . . . including ‘‘Balisong’’,
> ‘‘butterfly’’ . . . knives, which has one or more of the following
> characteristics or identities:
> 
> 
> (1) A blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to
> a button or device in the handle of the knife, or any knife with a
> blade which opens automatically by operation of inertia, gravity,
> or both...



See the problem is there are no new laws being created. CBP will create legal precedence in re-interpreting the law that has been on the books since the 1950's. Basically 80% of the knives we own now were made illegal in the 50's we just didn't realize it. 



Lightraven said:


> But, I think the law is flawed in banning a class of personal defense weapons to all persons.



Agreed!
+1


----------



## TITAN1833

Well interestingly as in the UK you will not be allowed to defend yourself's :shakehead


----------



## cave dave

TITAN1833 said:


> Well interestingly as in the UK you will not be allowed to defend yourself's :shakehead



I was more worried about not being able to hold a rope with one hand and retrieve knife, open and cut the rope with my other hand.



I thought this was a very interesting read:

*History of the Federal Switchblade Act*


> ...Representative Sidney R.
> Yates of Illinois testified, "Vicious fantasies of
> omnipotence, idolatry... barbaric and sadistic atrocities,
> and monstrous violations of accepted values spring from the
> cult of the weapon and the switchblade knife is included in
> this"....
> "Minus switchblade knives and the distorted feeling of
> power they beget -- power that is swaggering, reckless, and
> itching to express itself in violence -- our delinquent
> adolescents would be shorn of one of their most potent means
> of incitement to crime."



Wow I hope the law makers don't find out about the "distorted, omnipotent, reckless feeling of power" I get from powering up 500 lumens of throw! Muu Haa Haa!


----------



## TITAN1833

cave dave said:


> I was more worried about not being able to hold a rope with one hand and retrieve knife, open and cut the rope with my other hand.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this was a very interesting read:
> 
> *History of the Federal Switchblade Act*
> 
> 
> Wow I hope the law makers don't find out


well the thing is! law makers are not like us! in fact they have no way! on earth knowing about knife laws,if it wasn't for the like's of us, where would they use a knife? except the kitchen, and that would be to stab each other lol


----------



## Lightraven

CaveDave, 

You might have a point. I forgot that many folders can be opened with a wrist flick, making them inertia/gravity knives although they are never called this.

The new rule proposal doesn't mention this, but the logic does extend this way.


----------



## Sgt. LED

***** **** **** **** ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## McGizmo

cave dave said:


> I was more worried about not being able to hold a rope with one hand and retrieve knife, open and cut the rope with my other hand.




If any of these law makers or concerned citizens intent on pushing forth such legislation had ever been in such a situation as described above, they might realize the legitimate and indeed necessary need for such a function!! They might also be able to fathom the safety inherent in being able to quickly and with one hand, fold the knife back closed once a sharp blade was no longer needed or a good idea in the "work area". A fixed blade in a sheath is fine provided the sheath is handy, in view and easily and safely accessible; not always the case.

As deterrents or a means to establish proper conduct, laws are only obeyed by those who are aware of them and willing to comply. A criminal, by definition, is not of a mind to necessarily comply. When it comes to knives and blades, I would guess the horse left the barn sometime in the bronze or iron age; at any rate, a long long time ago. 

In concept, I can understand the desire and value in banning any type of knife that is strictly a tool of bodily harm and having no additional utility. However, I would imagine this would be more in regards to the blade and edge shape and form than the means of deploying the blade and safely retracting the blade. In the real world, there are situations where quick access and quick return to storage of a sharp blade is critical and even life saving. Does the potential harm from a criminal who will not comply with the law anyway, not to mention the potential of a black market, dictate availability of tools to those who need them and can make valuable use of them? For the hard liners, the mere right to defend oneself would even include blades only suitable for bodily harm.

Can't any laws directed towards these knives be more specific in regards to where and when such a knife may not be allowed and not so comprehensive in a state of complete banning of them? Perhaps heavy penalties for the use of knives in crimes and this should include kitchen knives and craft scissors for that matter! 

Do the law makers really believe that they will disarm the criminal and avoid crime by banning these knives?


----------



## Beamhead

McGizmo said:


> Perhaps heavy penalties for the use of knives in crimes and this should include kitchen knives and craft scissors for that matter!


Ah hah, you have hit upon the true point, people control not weapon control.
Use a weapon to kill/murder someone should equal death, use a weapon to harm someone during a crime 25-life, use a weapon during the commission of a crime with no one harmed 15-25 years. These have been long held policies of many weapons rights groups.

The lawmakers have lost sight of what truly is a deterrent, death is for certain, a dead murderer never murders again.
Lawmakers are not the ones who are pushing through this redefinition, its bureaucratic dweebs.

My way means less criminals via death, long term incarceration and eventually deterrent, their way means more criminals as some refuse to bow to their insane regulations to the point of being the antithesis of a deterrent.....but logic is the antithesis of politics/power.


----------



## 276

This whole thing is really pissing me off since knives are my first hobby and use one at work everyday even the tactical looking ones which i like more.


----------



## McGizmo

Beamhead said:


> ..... These have been long held policies of many weapons rights groups.
> 
> .....



And certainly logical and understandable. In the proposed ban here and given the assumed slippery slope it puts us on, this goes even beyond weapons rights and into tool and safety rights as well. 

I don't like to wish ill will upon someone but it would be poetic justice should one of these ban proponents find themselves in a situation where had they a folder available to themselves or somone close by, they could have safely been freed from a predicament they found themselves in. A predicament either premeditated by an ill doer or some accidental entanglement.


----------



## Beamhead

McGizmo said:


> I don't like to wish ill will upon someone but it would be poetic justice should one of these ban proponents find themselves in a situation where had they a folder available to themselves or somone close by, they could have safely been freed from a predicament they found themselves in. A predicament either premeditated by an ill doer or some accidental entanglement.


 
More often than not they continue to be able to own/carry/hire at our expense the very things they deem we are not evolved enough to own/carry......
I too would wish no one ill will but agree with your premise.


----------



## TITAN1833

It's a sad case here in the UK were expected to believe that we're totally safe with knife bans in place,absolute BS IMO 


In fact people have drowned because of it trapped in their cars and not being able to cut a seat belt that has jammed :shakehead


----------



## kaichu dento

Beamhead said:


> Ah hah, you have hit upon the true point, people control not weapon control.
> Use a weapon to kill/murder someone should equal death, use a weapon to harm someone during a crime 25-life, use a weapon during the commission of a crime with no one harmed 15-25 years. These have been long held policies of many weapons rights groups.
> 
> The lawmakers have lost sight of what truly is a deterrent, death is for certain, a dead murderer never murders again.
> Lawmakers are not the ones who are pushing through this redefinition, its bureaucratic dweebs.
> 
> My way means less criminals via death, long term incarceration and eventually deterrent, their way means more criminals as some refuse to bow to their insane regulations to the point of being the antithesis of a deterrent.....but logic is the antithesis of politics/power.


+1


McGizmo said:


> And certainly logical and understandable. In the proposed ban here and given the assumed slippery slope it puts us on, this goes even beyond weapons rights and into tool and safety rights as well.
> 
> I don't like to wish ill will upon someone but it would be poetic justice should one of these ban proponents find themselves in a situation where had they a folder available to themselves or somone close by, they could have safely been freed from a predicament they found themselves in. A predicament either premeditated by an ill doer or some accidental entanglement.


These posts really go to the heart of the matter. I don't wish ill upon anyone, but when they kill or attempt to kill I think they have made the decision that life is not precious and nor do they deserve it. When murderers go to the gallows, it is their own hand that seals their fate.


----------



## gallonoffuel

So amongst all this talk, who has actually sent letters to the CBP and their senators and representatives? Hardcopy letters speak louder than emails. I sent a personalized letter to the CBP and something closer to a form letter to both senators and 13 reps in NJ.


----------



## Patriot

Beamhead said:


> I have used the whats next?... knife control....crow bar control...baseball bat control argument for decades when talking to anti gun folk.
> The bottom line to me is they want us as meek, contained and defenseless as possible but I will *never* oblige them.
> People kill people, _unelected_ fascist bureaucratic dweebs kill rights.....




Well put Beamhead. 

Not only would they like to see every citizen disarmed for the sake of direct power, there's also the aspect of implied power. They'd like us to be in the habit of being "pushovers" when it comes to legislating anything which empowers themselves and takes control from the people. Historically, governments don't just "kill rights," they're also the all time leading cause of death among peaceful, innocent civilians. Although this notion may sound absurd to a Westerner, many societies have literally changed overnight from a relative democracy to totalitarianism. Another knife law, or in this case, import rule, is just one ten thousandth of the puzzle but nevertheless a piece that's not conducive to a free society. The worst part is that many of the power grabbers have an agenda while "joe & jane twelve pack" are generally clueless to government's inclinations toward Marcism.


----------



## Patriot

karlthev said:


> Ya know, I think they ought to ban sticks as well! Sharpen the point and ya got yerself one deadly weapon there!:shakehead Sarcasm of course...
> 
> I own a fairly large custom made knife collection many pieces of which I suspect would be prohibited with this.....Don't think it can't happen. Due to some misplaced thought many years ago automatic knives were pretty much universally banned because of a few sensational movies in the 50s and 60s. I may live a sheltered life in a small community but I sure don't hear of any knife crime breakouts in the news either....I sure as H___ won't ask, "what next"?
> 
> 
> 
> Karl







Funny Karl, just last night I watched about half of the original 1971 Dirty Hairy movie. Clint was on his way to way to exchange the city's ransom money with the Scorpio killer for the life of a buried girl who was running out of oxygen. In preparation he asked the Lieutenant for some scotch tape so that he could secure an old school switch blade of Chatellerault style to his ankle. In a classical example of demonizing the device, the ignorant Lt. says, "It's a disgrace that an policeman should know how to use such a weapon" I thought to myself, 'I wonder what part of using the switch blade was disgraceful, the pressing of the release button or pushing the knife forward pointy end first? It's no more complicated or inherently discraceful than a ball point pen. The Lt's irrational thought process seems so typical of many today who fail to conduct their thoughts in a logical fashion. Instead of seeing the device as something that can be used for good or evil, they mistakingly attach the notion of evil to the object. While laughable to people like us, it's sad that so many were never taught to extrude a thought process to a logical conclusion. Instead they let an emotional response guide their ideas.


----------



## McGizmo

I received an e-mail from a vendor/ friend who's company manufactures some components for the knife industry. It was a forward from CRKT. In it were some viable links as well as an offered "canned" letter to be sent to a representative.

I opted to compose my own on line message to my representative:



> In lieu of pasting a "canned letter" I will just make a few comments on my own. I have been in the marine (boating) industry for about 30 years and have worked in and managed boat yards as well as managed a marine supply distribution company. I presently am self employed and design and assemble LED lighting, custom high end LED flashlights and accessories used with lights, knives and other personal items. I have worked with my hands and machine equipment throughout this time period. I have and use folding knives on a daily basis as a legitimate tool. I have been in the ocean on kayaks and sail boats and a good one hand folding knife was the one tool I always had readily available as it could mean the difference between life and drowning.
> 
> I understand that there is a criminal element who use similar type knives as a tool in crime. As criminals, they are likely to ignore any ban or restriction on these knives anyway and if need be, a new black market could develop to serve their demand. In the mean time, this broad sweeping ban and restriction would deprive a very significant number of honest citizens from a tool they have need for and have been using. Should these citizens ignore such a ban (frankly my personal intent) then they will become guilty of a crime themselves! I have friends in the industry who are involved in the manufacture and distribution of legitimate knives which provide real utility. These friends will suffer significant economic loss should this proposal come to pass.
> 
> On so many levels, this proposal is ill advised and contrary to logic as well as citizen's rights. As my representative, please let my thoughts and concerns be heard by those who feel a need to make decisions on my behalf.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Don McLeish



I figure if I am willing to take the time to discuss this issue here among friends on the forum I can also take the time to compose a message to my representative. It would be foolish to assume that my representative can represent me without having a notion of my feelings on the matter!!


----------



## cave dave

Don, the ban would be on imported knifes, not domestically manufactured knives. It would also not directly affect the legality of buying, selling or carry such knives. The problem here, of course, is that one thing could lead to another. 

Still, I'm a little annoyed that Doug Ritter is using FUD to push his agenda, even though its an agenda I believe in.


----------



## McGizmo

Dave,
I have been led (perhaps falsely) to believe that the ban would include interstate transport of the knives, regardless of origin and including transport by the end user/ owner. 

From the forwarded e-mai (CRKT being the origin) I quote:



> Dear CRKTCustomers and Industry Friends,
> 
> We need your immediate help as the Obama administration, acting through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has proposed to ban all assisted opening knives.
> 
> In a lengthy ruling, CBP arbitrarily reversed itself, and rescinded all its rulings which agreed that assisted opening knives were *not* “switchblades” and could be imported. They have now determined that they are going to treat all assisted opening folders, regardless of size or blade shape, as prohibited “switchblades.”
> 
> Obviously, assisted opening knives are one of the most popular categories of folders being sold today for “utilitarian use”, and such a ruling will have a devastating affect on the knife industry in these difficult economic times. Many millions of assisted openers have been sold by the knife industry over the past 11 years. If you are a retailer, distributor, manufacturer’s representative, designer / custom knife maker or supplier and we lose this market, it will affect your income!


Now if this message has some spin on it that takes the proposed ban beyond its actual scope, damn! I don't know what the various agendas may be but if folks can't stick to the heart and truth of matters then where are we? One thing I found unsettling in this e-mail was that the subject of the e-mail started with _Obama admin. proposing to ban_... Now is there an implied partisan element here where it is not really the case or germane? :shrug: Was this initiated by Obama?


If the ban is strictly in regards to import and domestic manufacturers will be free and clear to manufacture and distribute these knives, then is it nothing more than an embargo on offshore production?!?!


Now I feel more confused than ever. I understand that one thing can lead to another and yes, all herion users started with drinking milk. Is the thinking that these knives are bad and therefore customs will not allow them into the country but they are only bad if imported and any domestic supply and manufacture is not a concern? Or is the concern not in the scope of Customs and they leave it to others to handle the domestic inventory of these knives? If the latter, then I can see the concern of one step leading to another. Is there any underlying unified feeling about these knives among the various departments of law enforcement and domestic protection?


Plain and simple, if say a Boker folder with a thumb tab or a Spyderco folder will no longer be importable as a result of this ban, I am against it and wish for my representative to know this. I get the impression that that could easily be the case. Yes? No?


Is the proposed ban so vague that everyone is justified in giving their own and _varying_ interpretations on it?


----------



## Lightraven

Yeah, it is confusing. The U.S. government can ban something completely such as marijuana, or merely the international or interstate movement of something.

With switchblade/butterfly/gravity/springblade knives, it would seem that U.S. law regulates international and interstate movement, but not the domestic manufacture or ownership of such knives. I know that the military and federal law enforcement agencies are exempt from this law--including CBP. 

That seems to be the entree into the switchblade market, as it would seem that retailers don't check federal LE or military credentials too closely. In theory, federal LE agencies could sting various knife retailers, if it was that important to them. I'm guessing it is not. Consider the team of special agents brainstorming a sting. A quarter of the guys might have switchblades themselves. Are they so hypocritical as to shut down retailers where they themselves might buy knives? Not exactly bragging rights at the office compared to cocaine or military arms smuggling or kiddie porn cases.

So it may go for the AO market--domestic manufacture resulting in higher labor costs. Add to that the risk of selling the AO over state lines to an unknown buyer--you need a premium for that--and the AO's could easily double in price.

And again, California law currently bans the carrying of switchblades, butterflies, daggers and dirks. AO's don't seem to be on the state radar. . .yet.


----------



## 9volt

TITAN1833 said:


> In fact people have drowned because of it trapped in their cars and not being able to cut a seat belt that has jammed :shakehead



These can cut a seatbelt. Are they illegal?


----------



## TITAN1833

9volt said:


> These can cut a seatbelt. Are they illegal?


Yes they are if you carry it in a public place a car BTW is deemed a public place reason they give LOL the blade can be locked out.





[edit]The reason I mentioned it in the first place is because most people in the UK are not sure what they can carry,but unlike them I know I can carry say a spyderco UK penknife or similar so hopefully that situation wont happen to me or my family.


----------



## cave dave

McGizmo said:


> ...Now if this message has some spin on it that takes the proposed ban beyond its actual scope, damn! I don't know what the various agendas may be but if folks can't stick to the heart and truth of matters then where are we?...



Don, 
KnifeRights.org and others have definitely been spreading false information about the proposed ban. :tsk: Now, whether they are doing that on purpose to promote an agenda or by accident because they simply don't understand the laws is unclear. The laws are very, very confusing, but you would hope the only knife right organization we have would have a better understanding of the law than myself for instance, and yet I have found the info on kniferight.org chock full of errors and mis-information. The various forums discussing the topic are even worse.
I have no law background, but do deal with gov't bureaucracy on a daily basis, so am used to reading and interpreting gov't rules and regs.

I think the proposed law would be similar to the current Butterfly knife situation. It is illegal to import a butterfly knife into the USA because of the Customs interpretations of Federal switchblade act. However it is legal for domestic manufactures to make butterfly knives if their state laws allow. Individuals can also buy and carry them if their state and local laws allow.

Here are two links that help clarify the current knife laws and the applicability of state vs federal laws.

from BERNARD LEVINE's - http://www.knife-expert.com/
and specifically "Switchblade Legacy;" history of the 1958 U.S. federal switchblade ban 

partial quote, read the entire text, good info at both links:


> ....It is not within the constitutional authority of the United
> States to ban manufacture or possession of a class of item,
> although the individual states have almost unlimited
> authority to do so. What the federal government may do,
> according to Article I, Section VIII, Clause 3 of the
> Constitution, is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations,
> and among the several States..."
> Using the authority of this "Interstate Commerce" clause,
> Congress did the very next thing to banning switchblade
> knives.


----------



## McGizmo

Thanks Dave.
I do wonder at the motivation, reasoning, origin and intent of this proposed ban. 

On one hand, I can understand customs installing bans and restrictions on incoming items to "mirror" and be in concert with regulations and bans within the United States. This proposal though seems to be something on the other hand or off handed or perhaps simply out of hand?!?!


----------



## cave dave

Well my own pet theory, involves bureaucratic laziness.

Basically, I figure some low level bureaucrat got sick of having to individually evaluate ever single variation in knife design and try to determine if it was or was not a switch blade, said bureaucrat may have also got into trouble because his office was being inconsistent in their interpretations, letting some knife through while other virtually identical ones pass. So what is the easiest thing to do? Just make all assisted knifes illegal and you can use the form letter to deny it each time. 


Don, I think you will also enjoy this read from the site above.

"Oppressive Knife Laws;" essay by Bernard Levine (c)1998 

segment:


> ... On one side of the divide were the agrarian republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with their foundation stones of equal creation, personal freedom, and the inalienable rights of every citizen. Theirs was a republic of innate virtue, where crime and vice were nothing more than aberrations
> ...
> On the other side of the divide were the puritanical republicans... These men believed all citizens to be innate sinners, irresistibly driven to dastardly deeds unless rigidly restrained by the State... Countless detailed laws and regulations were devised, and then constantly revised, in order to eliminate every possibility of straying...


----------



## Benson

McGizmo said:


> Thanks Dave.
> I do wonder at the motivation, reasoning, origin and intent of this proposed ban.
> 
> On one hand, I can understand customs installing bans and restrictions on incoming items to "mirror" and be in concert with regulations and bans within the United States. This proposal though seems to be something on the other hand or off handed or perhaps simply out of hand?!?!



In my understanding, it's not so much a proposal of a new ban, as an expansion (by re-interpretation of definitions) of the 1958 ban on importing/interstate-commercing switchblades, to include at least spring-assisted openers (as a type of auto-opener), and apparently (though I'm unclear on this point) Carson flippers and the like (as inertia or gravity knives). It's not at all clear why they suddenly "realized" they'd been interpreting it wrong, but given the timing, the most obvious explanation is that it reflects policy of the new administration. The timing seems remarkable if it's really an overworked desk-jockey's idea, and I expect the fact that it overturns substantial precedent required approval from rather high places in CBP

Bluntly, while I don't _like_ it, I do think that spring-assisted openers _can_ be included or excluded from the definition of a switchblade with equal legitimacy, but the others clearly aren't included, and I think this new reinterpretation (hinging on a rather loose understanding of "automatically") is overly broad. (And since there's an established precedent for the interpretation which permits assisteds, there's a strong argument for leaving it alone rather than changing it, if both readings are within the vagueness of the law: Chaos isn't actually a good thing.)

Of course, it would help if, back in '58, Congress could have paused in their rush to "do something" just long enough to write a decent definition. It's bad enough that they pass laws, knowing they'll be ineffective, to be seen averting a manufactured crisis, but you'd think the least they could do is make them clear enough that those who _want_ to comply can, as more recently with the '94 AWB. (The overall similarities, incidentally, are striking, but the clarity of definitions in the latter is commendable.)


----------



## Lightraven

I just watched a video news link out of Australia, where knife paranoia is tracking the British lead. You see young victims of knife assaults displaying stab wounds while talking about "nearly dying." Ironically, one kid displays a massive scar from the surgery above the tiny stab scar. Then you watch videos of totally unprovoked stabbings in Britain. One victim lifts up his shirt and blood is running down his chest in a torrent. 

It's enough to scare the crap out of anybody and it's no surprise that legislators are responding to the media sensationalism--if it bleeds, it leads. In 1958, it was unlikely most people had ever seen a knife attack. Now, with ubiquitous video cameras and the internet, anybody can see dozens of real life knife attacks. That only strengthens the urge to "ban those weapons."

The interviewer in the Aussie piece talks to a somewhat disreputable looking youth who admits to carrying a knife for self protection. When asked about the laws, he replies, with street logic that he'd rather break the law than be killed. There's no arguing with survival--people will do whatever it takes.


----------



## 2xTap

Gentlemen,

All speculation and theories aside, take it for what it is.......and all you have to do is look at the history of Firearm restrictions in this country to figure out where this will lead.

Whether or not you believe there is a spin on one side or another, or what groups are playing to a agenda, the simple matter at hand is a organization within the government is trying to limit or restrict something that has been legal since day one and categorize them as "evil and deadly weapons that serve but one purpose". Playing on fears of those who don't know any better, just like they have done repeatedly with so called "Assault Rifles" and the like.

They take incremental steps, taking little by little, until there is nothing left. They leave it broad to allow any interpretation they deem fit to come out of it. Now they are speaking of A/O's, next it will be any knife that can be opened with one hand, then it will be any tool that has a blade of any kind that can be opened with one hand, then it'll be any knife or tool with more than one blade, or any knife with a certain length, etc, etc.

Don't look into it to hard, if you try to rationalize any part of it then you are playing right into their hands. Like they have been doing for decades with Firearms, so they will with anything else they deem a weapon. If you value knives......be it for your profession, your hobby, your pastime, or for the simple fact it is one of mankind's first tools.......any restriction by our Government in any form should be taken seriously. Because once you give them a inch......they will take a mile!

2xTap


----------



## Bimmerboy

2xTap said:


> All speculation and theories aside, take it for what it is.......and all you have to do is look at the history of Firearm restrictions in this country to figure out where this will lead.
> 
> Don't look into it to hard, if you try to rationalize any part of it then you are playing right into their hands.


Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes. - Ayn Rand

Outstanding post, 2xTap.


----------



## jch79

Bimmerboy said:


> Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes. - Ayn Rand



"Man's mind will not function at the point of a gun." - Ayn Rand :nana: :laughing:

Rand's thoughts on gun control were actually really interesting. 

:thumbsup: john


----------



## Hooked on Fenix

When a government starts restricting knives, it means one thing. Gun control didn't work. Why can't the government understand that people aren't perfect and are prone to violence? It isn't the tool or weapon that commits a crime, it's the person. You can try to ban every weapon or object that could potentially be used to hurt someone, and people would still be hurting others with their fists, kicking with their feet, throwing rocks, beating with sticks, and inventing new weapons that aren't banned yet. They need to get real criminals off the streets and not making tools illegal and turning law abiding citizens trying to defend themselves into criminals. When my government stops trusting me with sharp objects, it's time to replace those in power with people that will protect my rights instead of taking them away.


----------



## jtr1962

Instead of focusing on the tools used to commit violence, few of our politicians are bothering to ask _why people commit violence_. My guess is that's because it's easier to just take away guns or knives, make up all kinds of petty laws banning everything from laser pointers to sidewalk cycling, and/or just "lock up the bad guys". Weapons control and jail are simplistic solutions which in the final analysis are bandaids. Heck, instead of shorter prison terms where we actually try to rehabilitate criminals all we do now is lock them up for decades with no hope, in the process creating an expensive major problem for both society and their jailers. Rather than the nonsolutions currently in use, we should be asking what aspects of our society cause some small percentage of the population (and it is a small percentage regardless of the fear-mongering politicians love) to decide that violence is the only way of redressing their grievances. Is it the culture of violence perpetuated in the movies? Is it a number of real or perceived social ills? Is it grossly inequitable distribution of opportunity? Is it mental illness of some sort? Is it a culture which worships material things over the spiritual? In all likelihood it's all of these things and more. So it's best to start addressing the root causes of violence rather than focusing on just taking away weapons and locking people up. Neither is an answer. Weapons control just means criminals will find new weapons. Jails are currently just advanced criminal schools as well as very dangerous places for those who work there. We have a record percentage of the population locked up now, many for petty ridiculous things which weren't even illegal 10 years ago, and violence is at lower but still highly unacceptable levels (NYC had around 600 murders last year, down from a peak of over 2000 in the early 1990s but still 600 too many as far as I'm concerned). Of course, the path I mentioned is much harder and the outcome is not predetermined. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And to those who might say it can't be done, there have been societies in the past in which violence or theft were very low, murder was practically nonexistent, and a very small percentage of the population was incarcerated (usually just the incurably mentally ill). Maybe we should try to emulate those societies. An ideal society would be one where any weapons are allowed, but few if any feel the need to have such weapons.

The very definition of insanity is to keep doing things the same way while expecting a different outcome. That's pretty much where we are now. I'm tired of hearing let's ban this or that, and let's put _those bad guys_ in jail. Make enough petty laws and soon you'll become one of those bad guys. Or to paraphrase another famous quote: "First they came for those with guns, but I didn't care because I didn't have a gun. Next they came for those with knives, but again I didn't care as I didn't have a knife. And then they came for me."


----------



## nmos

> I think the proposed law would be similar to the current Butterfly knife situation.


Unfortunately this isn't a proposed law, but a simple change of definitions. 



> It is illegal to import a butterfly knife into the USA because of the Customs interpretations of Federal switchblade act. However it is legal for domestic manufactures to make butterfly knives if their state laws allow. Individuals can also buy and carry them if their state and local laws allow.


Right, but some state and many local laws already make switchblades illegal AND refer to the federal definition of what constitutes a switchblade. Effectively then a change in what the CBP defines as a switchblade could automatically changes what some state and local laws allow.


----------



## cave dave

nmos said:


> Unfortunately this isn't a proposed law, but a simple change of definitions.


Dang, sorry I screwed up on that and I had been trying to be more careful with my wording.



> Right, but some state and many local laws already make switchblades illegal AND refer to the federal definition of what constitutes a switchblade. Effectively then a change in what the CBP defines as a switchblade could automatically changes what some state and local laws allow.



My point was CBP defined the Butterfly knife as a switchblade years ago but it did not "automatically" make Butterfly knives illegal in many states even though switchblades are illegal for concealed carry in all states but 2. There is a difference between Federal law and CBP's interpretation of that law. CBP interpretation does not change the wording of US Code TITLE 15, CH 29

Generally speaking the states use case law to define "switchblade" instead. If the state laws refer to federal law it is usually to the original 1958 Switchblade act, not to any CBP interpretations. It is possible that the states and lawyers will refer to the CBP interpretations in future case law to create a new state definition of "switchblade" but there will be nothing automatic about it, and the lawyers will have to fight against previous case law.

In the case of Maryland and Virginia, there seems to be little correlation between Federal interpretations and state interpretations.


----------



## TITAN1833

I find this very interesting:

In the UK since guns and knives were outlawed crimes with either have risen :thinking: and most of those were against innocents who were unable to defend their selves,so now they are calling for tougher sentencing for offenders LOL.

It seems to me that the tougher sentencing should have been there in the first place and long before any restrictions on those who just want to defend their selves.

Now here's the funny thing,I can disarm a knife wielding person with a good strong stick,later Am'I going to be chastised? and we see a ban on sticks LOL

to all concerned good luck with the trees.
[edit] Sorry if your wondering! knives can be made effectively with wood and free to make also.


----------



## souptree

TITAN1833 said:


> good luck with the trees.



:thinking:


----------



## TITAN1833

souptree said:


> :thinking:


Sorry wood it help if I explained 

Look I was only taking the pee! as I do out of any unrealistic concessions,

My point really is: drive knives underground?
and they will go stealth like,:thumbsup:

(WOOD ) carbon fibre,glass or plastic made knives!!!,

then when? they deny you of that well! :devil:


we can go back to stone/flint


----------



## McGizmo

cave dave said:


> .... even though switchblades are illegal for concealed carry in all states but 2. ......




So it is legal to carry a switchblade if it is obvious and exposed say clipped on your belt?

I recall hearing many years ago of a father who attended a high school basket ball game in Oakland with a six shooter clearly and visibly strapped to his side; cowboy style. I don't recall the particulars but it was something about the fact that it was illegal at the time to carry a concealed handgun without proper permits or some such. I don't believe this man was breaking any law at present beyond the use of common sense and I don't recall what his motivations were. This was before the assault rifle bans and back when there were a number of gun stores doing business in Oakland.


----------



## Bullzeyebill

Don, that was probably about the same time that a kid could take his .22 to school and show it off, though not in Oakland, no doubt, but is some of the rural communities in CA, even Napa. A knife was never a big deal to take to a school campus.

Bill


----------



## cave dave

In some areas, yes it is legal to open carry a weapon including a switchblade or balisong. Non switchblades knives of certain vague characteristics may be not considered weapons and therefore can be carried concealed.

Each state has different rules for what can be carried and owned, they also have different definition as to what is a weapon and what is not. Almost all states say concealed weapons are illegal without a permit and you can't get a permit for knives in most (but not all) states.

Some states have specific rules for schools. In VA the state law for school grounds was knives under 3" are not considered "weapons" so can be carried on school property. However, things may have changed and county and city ordinance may be different. For areas outside of schools in VA there seems to be no length requirement so you can carry anything but switchblades, dirks, daggers, brass knuckles, knunchucks, and a few other things. Pre 2001 we were all allowed to carry sub 3" knives on airplanes.

Almost all the laws are pretty vague and it seems that the police officers who enforce them don't really know the laws either. If they want to arrest you or take away your knife they will, then its an expensive court battle to prove you are innocent.

EDIT
Also in VA it is illegal to have a switchblade, etc, with intent to sell or barter. The mere possession of such an item is considered intent to sell or barter.


----------



## Beamhead

McGizmo said:


> So it is legal to carry a switchblade if it is obvious and exposed say clipped on your belt?
> 
> I recall hearing many years ago of a father who attended a high school basket ball game in Oakland with a six shooter clearly and visibly strapped to his side; cowboy style. I don't recall the particulars but it was something about the fact that it was illegal at the time to carry a concealed handgun without proper permits or some such. I don't believe this man was breaking any law at present beyond the use of common sense and I don't recall what his motivations were. This was before the assault rifle bans and back when there were a number of gun stores doing business in Oakland.


 
I was told by an LEO in the 90's that open carry was legal and most believe it still is in CA. Lots of land-mines to navigate so at least as of this post it still can be done.:thinking:
http://www.californiaopencarry.org/


----------



## nmos

Beamhead said:


> I was told by an LEO in the 90's that open carry was legal and most believe it still is in CA. Lots of land-mines to navigate so at least as of this post it still can be done.:thinking:
> http://www.californiaopencarry.org/



Unloaded only though


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

Bottom of first page hear.

An outright ban on ANYTHING could be hidden in any of these 1000+ page monstrosities that the Dumbos in Washington vote on without ever reading them.

When they make my ____________ illegal then I'll just be a criminal dammit!


----------



## Beamhead

nmos said:


> Unloaded only though


How long does it take you to lock n load?


----------



## Bimmerboy

McGizmo said:


> I don't believe this man was breaking any law at present beyond the use of common sense and I don't recall what his motivations were.


Keeping the refs honest? :nana:

Somewhat shooting from the hip here (pun intended), but I'd be willing to bet his motivation was to protect himself (you did say this was in Oakland ) via his right to keep and bear arms, and in order to ensure legal carry in his locale, the gun had to be exposed. However, my bigger reaction, which I'll refrain from blabbing about at the moment, is in regard to "common sense". I do have a question though.

The way I read your wording, the implication sounds that the individual is guilty of lacking common sense by acting within strict definition of the law in carrying a defensive weapon, yet not paying much mind to those potentially shocked by the idea. Would this be a correct assessment?


----------



## McGizmo

Bimmerboy said:


> .... However, my bigger reaction, which I'll refrain from blabbing about at the moment, is in regard to "common sense". I do have a question though.
> 
> The way I read your wording, the implication sounds that the individual is guilty of lacking common sense by acting within strict definition of the law in carrying a defensive weapon, yet not paying much mind to those potentially shocked by the idea. Would this be a correct assessment?



I used the term common sense loosely and with some reservation because I admit I am not sure what common sense is nor do I know if it is good sense, if it does exist. Whether this fellow possesed it or not I admit I have no idea. I don't recall much about the incident beyond the fact that the open carry was what clearly brought this gentleman's status of being armed to the attention of others and likely the question of need and appropriateness at a basketball game. Bad choice of words and I admit my bad. The guy caused some form of concern and upset and the action made the news. Presumably he was aware that this might be the case and I suppose my implication was that common sense might dictate that this would happen and unless his intent was to make some type of scene or statement.....

Beamhead, 
Thanks for the link and info. I remember once riding my motorcycle down to a pistol range in Oakland with my hand gun in a back pack (unloaded) but concerned that I was guilty of not having the gun in a locked box in the trunk (no trunk of course but perhaps a sidebox would have sufficed had there been one on the bike). I probably would have been legal if I had a holster for the gun and had it clearly strapped on my waist.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> Bottom of first page hear.
> 
> An outright ban on ANYTHING could be hidden in any of these 1000+ page monstrosities that the Dumbos in Washington vote on without ever reading them.
> 
> When they make my ____________ illegal then I'll just be a criminal



Sounds fine to me. If they make everyone a criminal for not giving up their rights or property, nobody will have any incentive to pay taxes. Then maybe the bloated government will starve itself out of existence or at least shrink so the people can have control again. 

If you want to understand our government, watch the Simpsons Movie. It's both scary and funny how acurately they portrayed the government. The movie was made before Congress stopped reading bills entirely before signing them. It was made before the EPA had so much power. The president in the movie said, "I was elected to lead, not to read." That seems like the new government motto. The only thing in the movie that hasn't come true is the government putting us in a giant bubble to protect the "environment" from us. Maybe that will be a "shovel ready" project hidden in a "stimulus" package or maybe that's what carbon sequestration means.


----------



## cave dave

*Amendment Revising Federal Switchblade Act Introduced, Supported by the Administration.
*
Latest news is there is a proposal afoot to amend the switchblade act itself to better define a "switchblade" so it does *not *include one hand openers.


good Job from Doug and AKTI if this one goes through.

I recommend writing your senators now to support this. I popped off two emails in just a few minutes. 

More info at: 
http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=89&Itemid=1

Although there is a better summary by Doug at the spyderco forums:
http://www.spiderco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39075


----------



## cave dave

It is a bit unclear on if it is too late to for the above actions to have any effect. I wish Doug had some deadlines on his posts or webpages.


----------



## TITAN1833

Surely any government disarming it's citizens is complete madness IMHO, and they will end up on tea duty in the next BOSTON TEA PARTY :devil:

And Ironically it's ok for them to arm them when is suits LOL give people with the sense to have what they wish 


I'll bet in a act of declared war! the UK would allow Tesco's to distribute guns and knives,willingly :laughing:


----------



## carbine15

The government works for us. They are our employees. They do what we say. If they ban knives it's because they are doing the will of the people. If they aren't doing the job we sent them there to do, we need to get rid of them. Thank god we can still vote them out so we won't have to start another bloody revolution.


----------



## AncientSword

*[Political rant deleted by moderator. Please take that sort of thing to the u/g.]*


----------

