Feds ban Assisted openers and Flick knives

Status
Not open for further replies.
Esav Benyamin said:
IF it saves just ONE CHILD ... :rolleyes:
Why do they "have" to show anything?

According to the wording, they aren't doing anything really new, only going by what they see as the original meaning of the law.
Click to expand...

They have to show it works for it to remain in effect. If the law fixing the problem it's helping it along. Take gun ownership for simplicity sake. If you know that a certain class of people (criminals) disregard the law to obtain a handgun, what's the point in restricting handgun ownership? Such a law only takes handguns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while doing nothing about the handguns possessed by criminals.

Sure they are doing something new. They are interpreting the law differently. They've decided that the law covers any knife opened with inertia, gravity, spring of any sort, or pressure on the blade in any form. Basically, any knife. "Knife that opens via inertia or gravity induced by pressure on the blade of the knife." Okay, I'm giving the blade inertia by opening my Buck 110, and putting pressure on the blade with my fingers...."

Now maybe my wording is a bit off, and yes maybe that's ridiculous to assume I'm "imparting inertia on the blade via pressure," but all you have to do for proof is look at NYC. Any knife that even opens fast can be confiscated. I'm basically only going to carry my UKPK there from now on.

These laws do what? Laws are meant to restrict an action or require action as needed to create a better functioning society. What do these laws prevent or discourage?
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is, they do not have to give you a cost-benefit analysis.
They are following the law in its original form.

Laws on the books stay on the books. There is no precedent in our legislative or judicial system for laws to be re-evaluated because someone thinks they are counterproductive. You need to do the process from the start, get your representatives to make a new law that supersedes the old law.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
What I'm saying is, they do not have to give you a cost-benefit analysis.
They are following the law in its original form.

Laws on the books stay on the books. There is no precedent in our legislative or judicial system for laws to be re-evaluated because someone thinks they are counterproductive. You need to do the process from the start, get your representatives to make a new law that supersedes the old law.
Click to expand...

They don't, but they should be required to.

Just to note, this is all my opinion, I wasn't saying that they are required.

Laws that simply rest in dust are worthless. Look at a simple google search for "laws still on the books" and you'll get countless sites listing the most dumbfounding of laws that are still legally enforceable. Make a law come up for review every third year or something.

Businesses market and thrive on statistics and records. Why won't our government do the same? Our government needs to prove it's worth to us. I want to know some very specific reasons. It's our government, not the other way around.
 
Josh K said:
Make a law come up for review every third year or something.
Click to expand...

I think you are getting exactly what you are advocating. Customs is reevaluating their enforcement of the switchblade act to, in their opinion (as misguided as I think it is), better fit the current situation.

I dont think repealing the switchblade act is going to happen. I think the better argument would be to ask to keep the current interpretations and not throw them all out.
 
I agree. Law is supposed to be evolutionary. Tossing around big surprises makes it impossible for business to know what to plan for. In that sense, this change is confiscatory.
 
I think if they want to try and put more limitations on knives then they need to stop messing with the "switchblade" act. As soon as an ignorant person sees/hears switchblade it gets their sheeple sense tingling. If they just out right change the name of what they're proposing, then I think it'll make those in favor of this new law think twice.

But it would probably make their job harder so they throw around the term "switchblade" whenever speaking about knives to get the response they want. I really think there needs to be a strong reeducation on knives to those individuals that classify them as deadly weapons whenever they see them. It really is ridiculous.
 
I live in Hawaii, a state with one of the most strictest gun laws in the nation. I have seen our laws being slowly chipped away over the right to private gun ownership. It always started with just talks/proposals which over time slowly slipped into legislation/law (once the topic is breached it never goes away). I don't care if they exempted AO knives (for now), the simple fact that they are talking about it, which IMHO means it will happen! I guarantee you Hawaii (pathetically liberal)will be one of the first states to legislate this. We have no heavyweight lobbying org. like the NRA backing us, which leaves us to pretty much signing petitions which in all honesty has minimal impact with our elected body, All of whom have their own agendas. This whole thread's topic is very depressing as I view it as "just another brick in the wall".:mad:
 
Josh K said:
They don't, but they should be required to.

Just to note, this is all my opinion, I wasn't saying that they are required.

Laws that simply rest in dust are worthless. Look at a simple google search for "laws still on the books" and you'll get countless sites listing the most dumbfounding of laws that are still legally enforceable. Make a law come up for review every third year or something.

Businesses market and thrive on statistics and records. Why won't our government do the same? Our government needs to prove it's worth to us. I want to know some very specific reasons. It's our government, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this is that the only end result would be an increase in taxes to cover all of the expensive and worthless analysis that would happen. I am sure the entire federal gov't would love to get paid to pore over foolish laws like not being able to spit on the sidewalk on Sunday or being able to hang someone for stealing cattle. Nobody would actually benefit from this. If the law is there, though archaic, it is not costing any money. Put a bureaucrat in charge of determining which laws should be repealed, removed, re-worded or whatever and you have just cost the taxpayer many more millions...
 
p_mcmanis said:
I think you are getting exactly what you are advocating. Customs is reevaluating their enforcement of the switchblade act to, in their opinion (as misguided as I think it is), better fit the current situation.

I dont think repealing the switchblade act is going to happen. I think the better argument would be to ask to keep the current interpretations and not throw them all out.
Click to expand...

Excuse me while I call BS on that.

They are doing the exact opposite of my idea. They are taking a law, and without evaluating how it's performing or if it's even doing anything beneficial, deciding to view it differently.

If we don't maintain our laws, how can we hope to grow as a society? If I decide to put a limiter on my car and loan it out, but never check to see that it's working, how will I know that people aren't out, in my car, speeding around?
 
dougo83 said:
The only problem with this is that the only end result would be an increase in taxes to cover all of the expensive and worthless analysis that would happen. I am sure the entire federal gov't would love to get paid to pore over foolish laws like not being able to spit on the sidewalk on Sunday or being able to hang someone for stealing cattle. Nobody would actually benefit from this. If the law is there, though archaic, it is not costing any money. Put a bureaucrat in charge of determining which laws should be repealed, removed, re-worded or whatever and you have just cost the taxpayer many more millions...
Click to expand...

Money? Our rights and freedoms are being impeded and you're worried about how much it's going to cost??

How much did it cost to save GM?

...
How much for AIG?

...
Bank bailouts?

...
Chrysler?

Where is our money going?

This is entirely a seperate issue and I don't want to divert the attention of this thread. Please accept the fact that I'm simply using this to illustrate how bad our government is at managing our money.
 
Josh K said:
They are doing the exact opposite of my idea. They are taking a law, and without evaluating how it's performing or if it's even doing anything beneficial, deciding to view it differently.
Click to expand...

And who are you to say that? The impression Im getting of you seems like if anyone does something you disagree, especially in the area of politics and/or the law, that it is a result of thoughtless and disregard for "reality". To me, they are very plainly doing exactly what you suggested.

Fundamentally, customs is within their rights to repeal their own decisions and chose to enforce the law in a different light if they feel it is more in line with the law itself. I can only hope that they do not.
 
p_mcmanis said:
And who are you to say that? The impression Im getting of you seems like if anyone does something you disagree, especially in the area of politics and/or the law, that it is a result of thoughtless and disregard for "reality". To me, they are very plainly doing exactly what you suggested.

Fundamentally, customs is within their rights to repeal their own decisions and chose to enforce the law in a different light if they feel it is more in line with the law itself. I can only hope that they do not.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that all my thoughts seem to be inline with "reality." :rolleyes:

I'm fully aware that they are within their rights to repeal a previous decision and to reverse or revise that decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

I suggest that you take a law and evaluate it's usefulness and effectiveness. All laws are meant to control something, the question is, are those laws doing their job?

I don't understand what you're argument is, but I have this feeling I may disagree with it. Please get back in touch with reality. :p;)
 
Josh K said:
I'd be happy to read and paraphrase but I cannot download from either of the links posted here. I went to the main page and their link is also broken or nonfunctional.

If what we're reading is true, it's a load of bull. I mean concealed guns, yeah no problem. One hand pocket knives? What are you going to do, stab someone instead of shoot them? I've seen broken beer bottles used as better offensive weapons then pocket knives. The point is they just aren't big enough for the untrained person to be effective with them. Too many variables going into it.
Click to expand...

HAHA...why do they say nothing about fixed blade knives? What a bunch of liberal crap. And dude, broken beer bottles don't make as good of weapons as do a beer bottle to the skull.
Are there gangs roving all over the united states with assisted open knives? Is this why they are trying to ban them? Or is it because gangs in new york have them? I bet the gangs of ny can't even afford them. And the gangs in new york will always have a weapon. If you take their weapons away, they will use their fists. Removing the weapons doesn't remove the violence. :barf:
 
Is there anyway a locked post could be placed as a sticky at the top of all the major sub-forums once a plan of action is decided upon? It would be a shame to loose support just because it was in a forum someone doesn't check.
 
Last edited:
For those wondering what may possibly happen at this point regarding this law and its enforcement:
1. A federal court may end up determining what the correct interpretation of the law is. We can't really predict what that court may hold.
2. Since we're dealing with federal law here, we may end up with different circuits having differing views. If we end up with a large split, the U.S. Supremes will probably rule on it to settle the difference of opinion.

As far as politics go, I wouldn't count on whoever is President to influence what a court might rule, don't worry about it or count on it.
 
zatoichi37 said:
HAHA...why do they say nothing about fixed blade knives? What a bunch of liberal crap. And dude, broken beer bottles don't make as good of weapons as do a beer bottle to the skull.
Are there gangs roving all over the united states with assisted open knives? Is this why they are trying to ban them? Or is it because gangs in new york have them? I bet the gangs of ny can't even afford them. And the gangs in new york will always have a weapon. If you take their weapons away, they will use their fists. Removing the weapons doesn't remove the violence. :barf:
Click to expand...
Exactly. I wish more people would understand this.
 
Get used to it.

In Oz, AO's are illegal
carrying SAK- illegal
Leatherman- gray area, depends on cop
$4000 fine for carrying any knife without a valid reason
$2000-3000 for a lawyer to prove valid reason

When i go to high crime areas, i carry either USMC next Gen, or RTAK2.
what the hell, same punishment for spyderco dragonfly.

Oh yeah,

IN THIS COUNTRY SELF DEFENCE IS NOT A VALID REASON

PS. I cannot own pump action shotgun. Illegal.
I can own lever action shotty, or pump action rifle.(308 remington)

anyone feel safe about that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top