British Columbia Knife Laws

[Danke42]

All laws are grey. The government prefers it that way; then if something has to sway one way or the other it can without having to enact new legislation.

 

[beeperboy]

Where does it say this?

It doesn't say that. That is what's wrong with the legislation. The police have to prove you intended to use the knife (or baseball bat, or bear spray) as a weapon. Of course if you blurt out that you carry a knife for protection, then you are making their job way too easy.

 

[gadgetgeek]

The way I understand it, is that Intent is sort of a cornerstone of Canadian criminal law. You can have an act that is of itself illegal, but intent then adds to it, or an act that is Legal, but becomes illegal if the intent is to cause harm. Danke, its not that governments prefer grey zones in law, its that its necessary in that reality itself is pretty grey. Black and white laws leave loopholes, or are unenforcebly restrictive. I see this as an advantage. Yes there are a few people who are collateral damage as it where, but by and large its far easier this way than some other methods. Add to that the language problems (did you know that Canada's laws are not all drafted in english, and sometimes the translation is not quite perfect?)It gets to be a bit of a mess. Which is why there are things like courts, and officer discretion, you have to take the bad with the good.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

It doesn't say that. That is what's wrong with the legislation. The police have to prove you intended to use the knife (or baseball bat, or bear spray) as a weapon. Of course if you blurt out that you carry a knife for protection, then you are making their job way too easy.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2007/2007abpc171/2007abpc171.html

Application of the Test

[81] The Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to use the object to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person. Similarly, The Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to use the object for these purposes. I must then ask whether the object being carried by the accused was designed to be used in causing death or injury to any person, or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person.

[82] In answering that question I must apply the two part test. First, is the object’s design such that it could be readily usable to cause death or injury to any person or to threaten or intimidate any person? The 37 cm Japanese-styled dagger carried by the accused was, as described by the Crown, both sharp and pointy. The object is clearly lethal and would be an intimidating object with which to be confronted. Indeed, instruments very much like this one were, at one time, used in battle and in altercations. I have no hesitation in finding that the object could be readily usable to cause death or injury to any person or to threaten or intimidate any person.

[83] Next, in all of the circumstances, would the carrying of the concealed object cause the reasonable person to fear for his own safety or for the public safety, if he were aware of the presence of the object? As noted already, the object carried by the accused is both intimidating and lethal. Because of the length and sharpness of the blade, I am satisfied, it could inflict serious bodily harm and even death with one swipe or stab. To be brought to the ready, the dagger needed only be drawn out of the loosely fitted scabbard. The blade was concealed in the accused’s front pants pocket and the hilt concealed by his hoody – an easily accessible location. The object was brought onto a public bus.

[84] I believe that fellow passengers would have been alarmed and even frightened had they known that the accused was carrying such an article on his person. The fact that such an object might grace the walls of Japanese restaurants would, in my view, have been of very little comfort to those passengers. Nor, do I believe, would they be sympathetic to his need to transport such an article by bus and in their presence because his father didn’t want it in the house anymore.

[85] I have no doubt that, in all of the circumstances, the reasonable person would fear for his own safety or the public safety had he known that the accused was carrying such an object. As such, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven that the object carried and concealed by the accused was a weapon as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

 

[Danke42]

9.5" blade in his front pocket. I think I know that guy.

Sounds like the quoted case was a typical teenager doing something dumb and the Judge chose to make an example of him by letting him off one charge and finding him guilty on the other.