Canadian Knife Laws

[Jack Reynolds]

The concept of INTENT is very important in Canadian Knife Laws.

The obvious intent of these laws is to save lives, however even that has its complications. You can most certainly use a knife to save your life or that of another person, but in many, many cases possessing a knife is illegal in Canada.

The use of marijuana for recreational purposes is now legal in Canada. Drivers are no more likely to avoid driving after using marijuana, than after drinking alcohol. Many will do both. This will obviously cost hundreds of Canadians their lives, yet the Liberal Party of Canada feels that people should be permitted to use pot. Justine Trudeau in his infinite wisdom believes that knives are always weapons and must be banned. Canada's new knife laws may indeed save 5-10 lives per year. Canada's new marijuana laws will result in hundreds of deaths annually.

The wisest thing to do would be to take Justine's pot away from him. Consideration should be given to limiting his use of his smartphone too. He's clearly not as wise, or deserving of trust as his Father was.

 

[Lapedog]

The concept of INTENT is very important in Canadian Knife Laws.

The obvious intent of these laws is to save lives, however even that has its complications. You can most certainly use a knife to save your life or that of another person, but in many, many cases possessing a knife is illegal in Canada.

The use of marijuana for recreational purposes is now legal in Canada. Drivers are no more likely to avoid driving after using marijuana, than after drinking alcohol. Many will do both. This will obviously cost hundreds of Canadians their lives, yet the Liberal Party of Canada feels that people should be permitted to use pot. Justine Trudeau in his infinite wisdom believes that knives are always weapons and must be banned. Canada's new knife laws may indeed save 5-10 lives per year. Canada's new marijuana laws will result in hundreds of deaths annually.

The wisest thing to do would be to take Justine's pot away from him. Consideration should be given to limiting his use of his smartphone too. He's clearly not as smart as his Father was.

First of all weed hasn’t actually been legalized for recreational use yet. Justin keeps missing the date it was supposed to happen year after year.

Secondly from what I have seen the states that legalized recreational weed use saw no increase in fatal car collisions. It’s not like a bunch of people who don’t smoke weed and drive already are suddenly going to start. Most people who want to smoke weed are already doing so. The subset of those people who want to drive while high are already doing that.

If they weren’t willing to break the law and smoke weed in the first place what makes you think they will break the law and drive high when or if weed is ever legalized? Driving high from weed will still be illegal.

Lastly we aren’t supposed to discuss politics on this forum. There is a special section of bladeforums dedicated to political discussion.

 

[Jack Reynolds]

First of all weed hasn’t actually been legalized for recreational use yet. Justin keeps missing the date it was supposed to happen year after year.

Secondly from what I have seen the states that legalized recreational weed use saw no increase in fatal car collisions. It’s not like a bunch of people who don’t smoke weed and drive already are suddenly going to start. Most people who want to smoke weed are already doing so. The subset of those people who want to drive while high are already doing that.

If they weren’t willing to break the law and smoke weed in the first place what makes you think they will break the law and drive high when or if weed is ever legalized? Driving high from weed will still be illegal.

Lastly we aren’t supposed to discuss politics on this forum. There is a special section of bladeforums dedicated to political discussion.

So your point is that people are already smoking pot and drinking before driving, so normalizing that behaviour is OK? My point is that making it illegal to acquire or carry any of 80% of the folding knives made today is a bad idea. The issues appear to be too complex for Justine Trudeau. Furthermore, I believe that use of a smartphone while driving is treated far too lightly in Canadian Law. Anyone who ever harms my daughter, while texting and driving should note that I own a very large Gurkha machete, that is perfectly LEGAL in CANADA.

 

[Lapedog]

So your point is that people are already smoking pot and drinking before driving, so normalizing that behaviour is OK? My point is that making it illegal to acquire or carry any of 80% of the folding knives made today is a bad idea. The issues appear to be too complex for Justine Trudeau. Furthermore, I believe that use of a smartphone while driving is treated far too lightly in Canadian Law. Anyone who ever harms my daughter, while texting and driving should note that I own a very large Gurkha machete, that is perfectly LEGAL in CANADA.

No I’m saying that people who would not break the law by smoking weed illegally will also likely not break the law by driving under the influence. So we will not see a sudden rash of new people driving high. Again the statistics I have seen for the states that legalized recrational weed use saw no rise in fatal collisions.

As for texting and driving laws I think a problem is that since it has been made illegal people now text in their lap and look down to do so. Previously they would text at steering wheel level. You just can’t make laws to legislate against stupid.

Btw the knife laws haven’t changed, it is only the border import rules that have changed for some odd reason.

 

[Jack Reynolds]

It is not just the border laws that are changed. The new Canadian legislation makes it illegal to ACQUIRE items that are prohibited. Previously you have to both POSSESS a prohibited item and use it in a manner unacceptable to a law enforcement officer. Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) has already seized a knife that I bought from a Chinese seller.

The aspect of these issues that I dislike the most is that throughout the history of mankind, we have always had the right to defend ourselves using reasonable means. Canadian legislation now clearly takes away that right.

We have never had the right to use marijuana or engage in activities that place the lives of other people in jeopardy. I do not care if people smoke pot, or send text messages on their phones. However if people are permitted to do so and people are harmed or killed as a result, then the disincentives must be real. A $500 fine for texting while driving is not a real incentive. Having to deal with a potentially armed and angry Father, as was usual case 100 years-ago, would be a more effective means of curtailing people's behaviour. Laws should preserve our way of life, without taking away our rights.

 

[stabman]

It is not just the border laws that are changed. The new Canadian legislation makes it illegal to ACQUIRE items that are prohibited. Previously you have to both POSSESS a prohibited item and use it in a manner unacceptable to a law enforcement officer.

Wrong.
Illegal items were illegal to own before.
It was only a matter of getting caught with them; possessing a switchblade was illegal no matter what you were doing with it.

The law has not changed in the country of Canada.
It is only a thing at the Border.
The rest of the country is the same as before.

 

[danbot]

The aspect of these issues that I dislike the most is that throughout the history of mankind, we have always had the right to defend ourselves using reasonable means. Canadian legislation now clearly takes away that right.

Wrong again. We have the right to self defense in Canada. we do not have the right to carry a weapon for that purpose and we do not have the right to defend property with the use of force. Self defense with the use of reasonable force has always been legal, but just like in the U.S.A, YOU must prove that the force you used was justified in defense of yourself or another from imminent bodily harm.

 

[zzyzzogeton]

Wrong again. We have the right to self defense in Canada. we do not have the right to carry a weapon for that purpose and we do not have the right to defend property with the use of force. Self defense with the use of reasonable force has always been legal, but just like in the U.S.A, YOU must prove that the force you used was justified in defense of yourself or another from imminent bodily harm.

Wait a minute..... You mean that if someone breaks into your home and says "I'm not gonna hurt you, I just took a liking to your TV." you have to meekly let them take it? Cause if you do anything to stop them, that would require force.

 

[danbot]

Wait a minute..... You mean that if someone breaks into your home and says "I'm not gonna hurt you, I just took a liking to your TV." you have to meekly let them take it? Cause if you do anything to stop them, that would require force.

Yep! You need to get away from them and call police.

 

[Danke42]

Wait a minute..... You mean that if someone breaks into your home and says "I'm not gonna hurt you, I just took a liking to your TV." you have to meekly let them take it? Cause if you do anything to stop them, that would require force.

This dude is super wrong, has an axe to grind, & happens to be spewing politics all through this.

Recap. He tried to buy a knife from China but it got seized because pot is legal and PM of Canada is a weirdo.

 

[danbot]

This dude is super wrong, has an axe to grind, & happens to be spewing politics all through this.

Recap. He tried to buy a knife from China but it got seized because pot is legal and PM of Canada is a weirdo.

I think you mean Jack Reynolds?

 

[zzyzzogeton]

You are REQUIRED to flee your own home and then WAIT for some police officer to eventually show up????? That's is absolutely insane.

All I can say is that Canadian thieves (or thieves from anywhere else) had best not come down here with the misconception that that tactic will work in Texas.

 

[danbot]

You are REQUIRED to flee your own home and then WAIT for some police officer to eventually show up????? That's is absolutely insane.

All I can say is that Canadian thieves (or thieves from anywhere else) had best not come down here with the misconception that that tactic will work in Texas.

Unfortunately that is the case up here. Unless you can convince the police that you were in fear for your life and were unable to flee.

 

[danbot]

Here's a good read about Canadian self defense laws.
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/ca...hings-you-absolutely-must-know/#axzz5BctF7M00

zzyzzogeton looks like I'm wrong about being required to flee. But I do know that you are expected to if you are able to if you want to avoid being charged.

The defence of house or real property is available where:

1. Where a homeowner has reasonable grounds to believe that the victim was a trespasser[1]
2. the trespasser had reasonable opportunity to withdraw after they ought to have realized they were trespassing,
3. the trespasser did not withdraw
4. the threat of force or actual force must not be more than was reasonable under the circumstances
5. the threat of force or actual force was no more than what the accused reasonably believed was necessary to remove the trespasser

A trespasser can include the police who are not lawfully in the dwelling house.[2]

A dwelling house includes hallways and stairwells,[3] as well as stores.[4]

There is no obligation to retreat when defending a dwelling house.[5]

Any force used that was above and beyond force necessary to defend property is criminally liable.[6]

See also: [7]

 

[Danke42]

I think you mean Jack Reynolds?

Let me tell you what Jack does when the gubmint' steals his Chinese flipper clone,,,

 

[Danke42]

Having to run away is an oversimplification of the law.

The most important thing to remember is the response must be proportionate to the threat. So you can't stab someone 500 times if they cut through your back yard or shoot them from a couple hundred meters because you don't like the look of them. And just like in the USA the rule of better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 applies so if you do defend your life you may wind up in court.

The best advice I can give is to not discuss your self defense plan online prior to the incident. Or if you're really into broadcasting your life after an incident.

 

[danbot]

The best advice I can give is to not discuss your self defense plan online prior to the incident. Or if you're really into broadcasting your life after an incident.

That is some really good advice!

 

[Rollingbcguy]

Wow, this thread was a train wreck from the beginning...

 

[Dr knife]

This is a knife forum why are you talking about weed???.

 

[Dr knife]

For anyone who is wondering the Canadian knife laws are simple. They are pretty much common sense!!!!
If you are carrying a folding knife.
Either in your pocket or in a sheath on your belt. When manually opened; the blade must not be larger than your palm of your hand.
If you are carrying a fixed blade knife.
It must be shown at all times and if it is something ridiclous; you need a sufficient reason for carrying it.
Self defense is not a sufficient reason.
There is no written number of measurement for these laws. So if your carrying a 6 to 8 " buck knife and it is showing you probably won't get bothered.
If your carrying a 16 "Rambo knife
You will probably get questioned.
Prohibited weapons are any knives that can be opened from concealment by one movement or hand.
So this includes switch blades, butterfly, spring assist, even a loose legal folding buck knife. If you can flip your wrist and have it opened it is illegal.
I hope this has been helpful.