- Joined
- Apr 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,742
On page 7 of the Senate Committee Reading on 4-03-2001, I found this little snipit.
In addition, this bill adds language to provide that the
exception only applies if opening the knife with one hand
requires that some "resistance" provided by a detent or other
mechanism must be overcome or that "biases" the blade towards a
closed position. However, even if both of those factors are
true, it is arguably possible that even with resistance or a
bias, a blade could still be heavy enough or balances
appropriately so that a "flip of the wrist" could overcome
either or both of those factors? If the real problem is a knife
that can be opened with a "flip of the wrist" would it be best
to add that to the language proposed by this bill, possibly as
follows:
?provided that the knife has a detent or other mechanism
that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening
the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed
position, and that the knife cannot be opened by a flip of
the wrist or gravity alone without thumb pressure being
applied to the blade or the thumb stud.
So, My question is, was that a proposed secondary change to the text that did not get used in the final drafting of the bill? And can this be used to show legislative intent to not outlaw all folders that can be opened with a "flip of the wrist" period?
In addition, this bill adds language to provide that the
exception only applies if opening the knife with one hand
requires that some "resistance" provided by a detent or other
mechanism must be overcome or that "biases" the blade towards a
closed position. However, even if both of those factors are
true, it is arguably possible that even with resistance or a
bias, a blade could still be heavy enough or balances
appropriately so that a "flip of the wrist" could overcome
either or both of those factors? If the real problem is a knife
that can be opened with a "flip of the wrist" would it be best
to add that to the language proposed by this bill, possibly as
follows:
?provided that the knife has a detent or other mechanism
that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening
the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed
position, and that the knife cannot be opened by a flip of
the wrist or gravity alone without thumb pressure being
applied to the blade or the thumb stud.
So, My question is, was that a proposed secondary change to the text that did not get used in the final drafting of the bill? And can this be used to show legislative intent to not outlaw all folders that can be opened with a "flip of the wrist" period?