Double-edged knife in Colorado

[Shmackey]

I've read the official Colorado knife laws front to back, and there's no mention of double-edged blades at all. Essentially, what they do is define anything with a blade larger than 3.5" as a "knife" and state that you can't carry a "knife" concealed.

While they do have specific wording about "switchblades" and "gravity knives," there is not a word about double-edged blades.

Is there any reason to think that it would be illegal to carry concealed a fixed, double-edged knife with a blade of less than 3.5" in Colorado?

Side note: I am officially allowed to carry my 10mm pistol, along with all the ammo I can carry (155 gr @ 1525 for 800 fpe), but I am not allowed to have a 3.6" folder in my pocket.

 

[ARMYOf1]

I pretty sure you can't carry any size fixed blade concealed. So if IT was a folder I think
It would be fine if under 3.5"......

 

[Shmackey]

There is also no mention at all of fixed or not fixed. I believe it's fine to carry a fixed blade concealed as long as it is under 3.5 inches. If larger, one must make an affirmative defense claiming that it's for hunting or sporting. Again, everything here seems to go back to longer or shorter than 3.5 inches.

 

[glistam]

I see your logic for this, but a portion of the law is worth a second look:

(f) "Knife" means any dagger, dirk, knife, or stiletto with a blade over three and one-half inches in length, or any other dangerous instrument capable of inflicting cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds, but does not include a hunting or fishing knife carried for sports use. The issue that a knife is a hunting or fishing knife must be raised as an affirmative defense.

A lot of case law, which is included in the most recent edition of the Colorado Revised Statutes, seems to indicate that if the knife is such an "other" weapon, that intent becomes paramount rather than the object itself:

• Definition of "knife" in subsection (1)(f) is not void for vagueness or overbreadth. Where defendant possessed a screwdriver with specific intent to use it as a weapon, elements of crime defined in § 18-12-108 were present. People v. Gross, 830 P.2d 933 (Colo. 1992).
  
• Defendant's intent to use an object as a weapon is not established by the object's appearance alone, even if the appearance demonstrates that its primary use is as a weapon; this test does not follow Gross and is contrary to the plain language of the concealed weapons statute. A.P.E. v. People, 20 P.3d 1179 (Colo. 2001).
  
• The definition of "knife" in subsection (1)(f) is sufficiently specific to give fair warning of the proscribed conduct and is therefore constitutional. In applying the definition under § 18-12-108, the prosecution must prove that one of the intended uses of the instrument by the defendant was as a weapon. People v. Gross, 830 P.2d 933 (Colo. 1992).
  
• Defendant could not be convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without the prosecution proving that defendant intended to use this short-bladed knife as a weapon. While the characteristics of an instrument may be an important factor in determining the intended purpose of an instrument, the language of the concealed weapons statute and established precedent establishes that a knife's design does not, by itself, prove that the person carrying it intended to use it as a weapon. A.P.E. v. People, 20 P.3d 1179 (Colo. 2001).

Short answer: Yes technically it looks like a dagger under 3.5 inches would be legal to carry concealed, so long as in the unlikely even that a police officer questioned you, you answer that you use it to make holes in raw hides and opening mail, and the words "self-defense" never cross your lips. Catch my drift?