Assumption of Discretion and Ambiguous Knife Laws

S

SDouglas

Joined
Jan 6, 1999
Messages
605
A statement that I made in another post got me to thinking about why legislatures are so willing to pass Knife Laws with Ambiguous definitions of what is illegal.

I do not believe that any rational person wants to outlaw knives all together. Knives are such a fundamental tool that it is virtually impossible to conceive of life without knives of some type.

Therefore, I believe that there is an assumption that Law Enforcement Officers and District Attorneys will use discretion when applying these laws. As a white, middle aged professional who always carries a knife and has never been hassled I can understand that assumption.

However, I am not comfortable relying on that assumed discretion to protect my knife rights.

How do we explain to Legislators who are trying to address "significant public safety" issues that the assumed discretion on the part of LEO's and District Attorneys is not enough?

------------------
AKTI Member No. A000370
 
SDouglas - Good question. Got any good ideas? Can you help implement those ideas?

sal
 
Let us say I wished to ban knives made for an assassin. These would be small, easily concealed knives that could make it through a metal detector or possibly an x-ray machine. How could I go about banning such a knife?

I do not think you could. Knives do not have the kind of 'features' so popular to ban on guns (Hi-cap magazines, bayonets, pistol grips, etc...), and so many other things in life resemble knives, and can fill the same purpose.

As for the first question, I have seen small polymer and ceramic knives, and some plain plastic ones, meant to make it through a metal detector. Some of these are made only with a point, no blade, and could very easily be replaced by a pencil. And even a felt tip pen can pierce skin if I push hard enough.

I wish I could simply ban weapons from all the bad guys, but I do not believe that possible. I do not pretend to know the answer, but I know it is not simply a law. The answer may include laws, but it is much more than that.

And now I've taken a simple question and made a philosophical debate out of it... Oh well...


Stryver
 
There is an unfortunate lack of objective standards or criteria in the laws of many states regarding knives. Here in Pennsylvania " Prohibited Offensive Weapons " is defined to include switchblades and " other implements for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose " This , by the way comes from the Model Penal Code and accordingly similiar language appears in the laws of other states . While we might all agree on certain " implements"at either end of the blade " spectrum " as having or not having a common lawful purpose , there is way too much room for intrepretation in my view . The response to our lawmakers should be that a vague subjective standard doesn't protect anyone from criminal knife usuage and unnecessarily impairs basic human rights . We have no shortage of laws for dealing with people who commit crimes . Where a criminal motivation exists , a means to carry it out will be found . If its a blade that a criminal seeks,very lethal designs can be found in most kitchens , supermarkets,or the housewares section in a department store .
 
Sal,

One approach would be to document incidents where Innocent people are hurt by bad knife laws or rules and show the Legislatures that discretion cannot be relied upon to protect us.

We could start by documenting the multiple cases of Honor Students being expelled for having knives on school grounds.

When a Legislator hears about one case He or She can easily dismiss it as a Fluke. When presented with a dozen cases in a 6 month period it is a serious concern.

I picked this type of case because so many of them are clearly ridiculous and yet in the wake of Columbine they are occurring frequently.

------------------
AKTI Member No. A000370
 
Dan,

The description; "implements for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose" goes back to the heart of my issue. The intent of the law is to control Knives designed specifically to inflict serious bodily injury.

The legislature is relying on the LEOs, District Attorneys and Courts to accurately determine what they are not able to. Which knives are designed primarily to inflict Serious Bodily Injury and which knives are designed primarily as Tools for Common Lawful Purposes.

We must find a way to document to the Legislatures in a meaningful way the harm that occurrs as a result of this practice.

I believe that if we can show sufficient harm we will stand a much better chance of pushing the Legislatures to focus on Behavior instead of Possession.


------------------
AKTI Member No. A000370
 
It's true that most state knife laws are vague and leave a lot to the discretion of prosecutors and police, but why is this bad? Having very specific, iron-clad laws regarding knives is the problem, not the answer.

Look at the Honor students that got screwed. The rules say "You can't bring knives to school". So, if you bring a knife to school, you get punished. The rule is very clear; there's no room for administrators to use their discretion. I certainly don't want these zero-tolerance rules to be incorporated into state law.

Knife laws with ambiguous definitions of what is illegal are good because you have an opportunity to defend yourself. For instance: state "A" may have a law that says carrying a dangerous knife is illegal, while another state, "B", has a law that says knives with blades over 3" are illegal.

If you're in state "B" and get caught with a knife over 3" in length, you've commited a crime. It doesn't matter if you're a cook with a chefs knife or a painter with a painters knife; you've clearly broken the law.

However, if you get caught with any type of knife in state "A", you will at least have an opportunity to defend yourself. You can say something to the effect of, "My knife is not illegal because it is not dangerous. It's not dangerous because I'm not a dangerous person and I wasn't doing dangerous things. Furthermore, this knife, if it is dangerous, is surely no more dangerous than the steak knives or utility knives used by everyone in America. Etc."

When the knife laws are vague, prosecutors will be much less likely to try the case. They know that you can put up a defense and they might have trouble with a conviction.

------------------
Cerulean

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain? - Blake
 
While it is one's right to defend against the legal charges / criminal prosecution that results from reasonable differences of opinion as to a vague law, there are severe consequences for " guessing wrong " . Most of us do not wish to be the " Test Case ". There are some completely objective laws prohibiting any knives in schools , courtrooms etc . Thes are probably unnecessary in any event ,but at least not subject to much ambiguity and cover relatively limited situations . It is vague definitions about what is or is not legal in general that is the problem . The suggestion that examples of how vague laws punish/harm innocent people has merit .
 
Cerulean,

One of my assumptions is that the Legislatures would be very hesitant to pass zero-tolerance laws banning all knives because they are too universal.

Look at the level of dismay shown by the Non Knife media when they report that some poor Honor student is being expelled for accidently bringing a common kitchen knife to school in His/Her lunch. If even Dateline is able to recognize that rules prohibitting ALL knives in school are stupid there is very little chance of a Legislature passing a law banning knives outright.

------------------
AKTI Member No. A000370
 
SDouglas said:
"One of my assumptions is that the Legislatures would be very hesitant to pass zero-tolerance laws banning all knives because they are too universal."

That certainly seems to make sense, but I'm not sure that I would make that assumption. I could just be a pessimist, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a point in the future where carrying any type of knife is essentially illegal.

This may happen soon in England. Laws on knife carrying there were already strict, but after a series of high-profile knife crimes, there was serious talk about implementing some form of knife owner registration. Of course, getting all knife owners to register in some way would be totally impossible. Maybe once they realize that registration won't work, they'll think that simply banning the carry of knives is easier.

Already, you can only carry knives in public in England if the knives are for "work"; you can only carry the knives to and from work and the knives must be used in your work. (I believe this covers folding knives with a locking blade, but if anyone has the specific laws, please chime in.)

I just think that if you press the Legislators to make new knife laws, they'll probably end up making even stricter laws. Of course, that doesn't always happen, as recent victories in CA show, but I think the best plan right now is to just try and prevent new harmful legislation.



------------------
Cerulean

"Every day our newspapers report numerous muggings and attacks, most of them involving knives. Can we sit by complacently and ignore the bloodshed in our streets?" -James J. Delany, 1958
 
Hello,
After reading the article in "Blade" magazine about the student in Minnesota charged with a FELONY for accidentally bringing a Knife to school I began thinking. Since I live in Minnesota, and can legally walk the streets with a knife but if I go into a school or onto school property I can be charged with a Felony I am concerned. The law is vary vague for what is considered a "dangerous weapon" I would like to know what should be considered dangerous. I don't want something radical because I would like to bring this to my State Reps. So what is a "Dangerous Weapon"?? Is it something with a blade length of over 3"? Help me out here, I have this posted in the General forum if you would like to take a look at the law.
Thanks
Eric
 
What is one of the most notorious crimes in recent years was a double murder with one of the victims ( Nicole Simpson ) almost de-capitated by an individual using a knife of some sort . The event and the legal proceedings which derived from it generated a considerable level of " dialogue" on various topics including perceived defects in the Jury system , police procedures administration of justice etc. While I may have missed something , I do not recall any attention whatsoever to the issue of knife availability or a call for more restriction as to knives . Perhaps most of us presume that the instrument of crime was a common kitchen tool. An initiative seeking by legislative action some " relaxation of restrictions on knives is unlikely given the lack of popular demand for such action . Resisting future anti-knife laws from being passed is to a large extent dependant on changing/ increasing the percentage of pro knife people . The problems with existing vague laws can and should be " exposed " examples , anectdotal evidence , and perhaps in the extreme case a friends of the court brief where some innocent person is being prosecutd .
 
The "reason" behind most laws may have genuine concern. For example; The reason "quick access" knives are in question are almost always LEO's at the core. this has been the force behind the law in every country where we have investigated.

The LEO on the street has one of the most dngerous jobs available (yes it is sometimes boring, but the opportunity for danger is always present). His/her fear is that while speaking with a person about whatever, that they have the capability of quickly accessing a weapon and harming them. This can be done SIMPY BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY of the people involved. It is difficult to question someone or hand them a traffic violation without getting dangerously close.

I don't think that LEO's want to ban knives, just protect themselves.

The flaw in the thinking is that a "law" will make a difference.

I have developed an "argument" for gun legislation that is fairly effective (which I will share) but it doesn't provide for a solution.

(A) "There are too many crimes and accidents committed with guns. We should outlaw all guns!"

(B) "Yes that is true. We should outlaw guns, then there won't be any guns". Then we should outlaw rape...then there won't be any rape. Then we'll outlaw speeding..."

I think you can see the direction.

However a solution is still needed and it seems that education (universal) is still the best direction. Beginning with the kids, schools, politicians, etc.

The next target is Hollywood. We desperately need knives to be used in films for positive activity instead of always being negative. "Hero quick draws knife and cuts rope choking heroine".

Anyone have any connections with "Nightline". Might make a good topic of conversation based on; "We need real solutions" and not just begging the question.

sal

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top