You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pennsylvania switchblade carry laws
- Thread starter Tony3222
- Start date
Switchblades are illegal to own the state of Pennsylvania. The only exception is for items kept as curios at home.
No state in the US has an exception for having one arm with regards to switchblades. This a myth that resulted from from a line in the federal statute 15 USC § 1244 which only applies in areas of US land that are not part of the 50 states (i.e. Puerto Rico or Guam).
No state in the US has an exception for having one arm with regards to switchblades. This a myth that resulted from from a line in the federal statute 15 USC § 1244 which only applies in areas of US land that are not part of the 50 states (i.e. Puerto Rico or Guam).
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 255
We can own switchblades for collecting purposes in PA. Sadly, there are no exemptions allowing someone with one arm to carry. I don’t think there’s even an exemption for law enforcement (though there is an exemption that allows them to carry blackjacks).
Why would you need an auto knife when the vast majority of knives sold now are one handed?I am a left arm amputee and was wondering if anyone knows if there is an exemption permitting me to carry a switchblade in Pennsylvania. Ty
Why would you need an auto knife when the vast majority of knives sold now are one handed?
My apologies for first making a detour from the OP's original question, but I must protest whenever someone requires a justification for someone to carry or do something (the "why would you need..." question). The main issue is whether it is ok to say that someone else can or can not do or own something. To that point, "need" is simply the wrong standard because:
1. It implies a double-standard. There are many thinks that one could argue that are not "needed", at least in a strict sense: alcoholic drinks, tobacco, etc... We don't apply the "need" standard to those, so why should it be applied to other things?
2. The way I see it, the whole point of the constitution, and the bill of rights in particular, was to create a county where people were allowed to live their life peacefully while agreeing to disagree on many aspects. Therefore, unless someone's owning or doing something is per se a violation or infringement on someone rights, liberties, or general ability to live their life according to their terms, lets all please stay out of it and let each other live.
Unfortunately, there are many laws across the country that violate these principles. Frankly, the vast majority of politicians, across the political spectrum, seem to not abide by these ideas. Unless these things are, hopefully, corrected in the law or flushed out in the courts, it is prudent to be aware of what the laws out there are saying. Hence, the OP's question is entirely pertinent. Hence, even though I have ZERO interest in carrying an auto knife, I fully support the right of people to do so. Moreover, just to answer the "need" question nonetheless, I could see how closing a knife one-handed is hazardous; an auto avoids that hazard.
My apologies for first making a detour from the OP's original question, but I must protest whenever someone requires a justification for someone to carry or do something (the "why would you need..." question). The main issue is whether it is ok to say that someone else can or can not do or own something. To that point, "need" is simply the wrong standard because:
1. It implies a double-standard. There are many thinks that one could argue that are not "needed", at least in a strict sense: alcoholic drinks, tobacco, etc... We don't apply the "need" standard to those, so why should it be applied to other things?
2. The way I see it, the whole point of the constitution, and the bill of rights in particular, was to create a county where people were allowed to live their life peacefully while agreeing to disagree on many aspects. Therefore, unless someone's owning or doing something is per se a violation or infringement on someone rights, liberties, or general ability to live their life according to their terms, lets all please stay out of it and let each other live.
Unfortunately, there are many laws across the country that violate these principles. Frankly, the vast majority of politicians, across the political spectrum, seem to not abide by these ideas. Unless these things are, hopefully, corrected in the law or flushed out in the courts, it is prudent to be aware of what the laws out there are saying. Hence, the OP's question is entirely pertinent. Hence, even though I have ZERO interest in carrying an auto knife, I fully support the right of people to do so. Moreover, just to answer the "need" question nonetheless, I could see how closing a knife one-handed is hazardous; an auto avoids that hazard.
I live in PA and would love to be able to carry an auto sometimes. My question comes from the fact that the OP was asking for a special accommodation, not to change the law to something constitutional. He sounds like the people that claim to need an emotional support animal to get around their landlords no pet rules.
if closing a knife one handed is too hazardous, maybe using a knife isn’t a good idea.
I was trying to be polite about it but since I have to explain it...
I live in PA and would love to be able to carry an auto sometimes. My question comes from the fact that the OP was asking for a special accommodation, not to change the law to something constitutional. He sounds like the people that claim to need an emotional support animal to get around their landlords no pet rules.
if closing a knife one handed is too hazardous, maybe using a knife isn’t a good idea.
I was trying to be polite about it but since I have to explain it...
I too generally oppose special accommodations. Specifically, I would find the "emotional support animal" claim is mostly bogus because, considering that pets make noise that disturb neighbors who are locked in on a contract, is an infringement on the neighbors ability to make their own choices. If the person does need it, he/she has the choice to find a place that does allow it...
Anyway, perhaps I misinterpreted your original intention, in the same way that it is possible that you misinterpreted the intention behind the original question. Either way, I assume that we agree that the fundamental problem here is these laws are written by people with a mentality of control rather pragmatism and constitutionality in mind. My remark was because I think that simply asking the question about need legitimizes that approach, making it seem like it is ok to impose that standard. What happened to what you do or want in your life, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights and freedom of others, in no one's business?
To put it another way, the "why do you need it" is the standard that certain people are trying to use to take certain things from us, to prevent us from living our lives, or doing things, the way we want, for no other reason that it doesn't fulfill their "need" standard. (Yes, the same hypocrites that then ignore that standard for the things they want/care about.) Hence, I that standard should never, ever be used, if not for any other reason than to prevent adding precedent to it.
Regarding having a "special accommodation" for an amputee is clearly not ideal, but at least it could get people to discuss the issue a bit more and maybe less afraid of knives in generally. Who knows, one can hope this would be a step toward getting us rid of these stupid laws.
I don’t think we disagree. There is absolutely no good reason for auto knives to be illegal. Especially when there are exceptions made for military and first responders here in Pennsylvania. I wonder if I will be allowed to carry an auto when I join SAR?
There is a huge list of stuff the government has decided to protect us from that doesn’t have any effect aside from filling up prisons and giving cops something to do.
There is a huge list of stuff the government has decided to protect us from that doesn’t have any effect aside from filling up prisons and giving cops something to do.