Circular logic, is a knife a tool or a weapon in WA State?

Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
201
I didn't see where this had been posted previously. Is a knife a tool or a weapon?


http://www.captainsjournal.com/2016/01/07/knives-and-the-second-amendment/


07 JAN 2016
Knives And The Second Amendment
BY HERSCHEL SMITH
1 week, 4 days ago
Smithsonian.com:

Last week, a divided Washington Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that carrying a paring knife is not a protected right under the Second Amendment. In the court’s majority opinion, Justice Charles Wiggins wrote that a pairing knife “is a utility tool, not a weapon” and so does not qualify as a constitutionally protected weapon.

The question was brought before the Supreme Court after a man pulled over for a speeding infraction​ ​informed a Seattle police officer that he was carrying a paring knife in a plastic sheath in his pocket, according to the ruling.​ Seattle prosecutors initially charged the man with the unlawful use of weapons, ​based on a city ordinance that declares it illegal for someone to “carry concealed or unconcealed…any dangerous knife.” The city’s law defines any knife with a fixed blade longer than 3 ½ inches as dangerous, Levi Pulkkinen reports for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The defense argued that posession of the paring knife was constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment.

The jury ruled in favor of the prosecutor, and the superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Though the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, it did so on different grounds. Wiggins wrote that because a cooking knife isn’t designed to be a weapon, it shouldn’t be protected as one, rendering the defense’s argument, whether or not the ordinance was constitutional, invalid, Munchies reports.

Washington state law does, however, consider things like police batons, billy clubs, dirks and switchblades as “arms.” While Wiggins’ ruling doesn’t specifically mention whether the Second Amendment extends to concealed carrying of these items, it does reinforce that the right to bear arms includes the “right to carry a weapon,” Eugene Volokh writes for the Washington Post.Still, a knife doesn’t necessarily need to be designed as a weapon for someone to use it as one. And while most people might not think to carry a paring knife with them when they leave home, this could be concerning for some professional cooks, many of whom take their personal knife kits with them to and from work.
Other than briefly lampooning the idiotic officer who started all of this and the idiotic jury who allowed it to begin with, we may observe the following about this case.

First step: man is charged with unlawful use of a weapon and concealment of a weapon by police. Second step: Lawyer argues that it’s protected by the second amendment as a weapon. Third step: Judge decides that knife isn’t really a weapon so it isn’t protected by the second amendment. Fourth step: Thus the conviction that the man was carrying a concealed weapon is upheld.

Good Lord. Do lawyers have to take classes in classical logic? No, I’m not even talking about the hard stuff like modal logic. Just simple schoolchild level classes to teach them how to think? If not, they need to.
 
Well if I was a lawyer I'd be arguing that if the paring knife isn't a weapon but a utility tool then the initial charge should be overturned.

Goes to intent of course so why did he have the knife; was he a cook on his way to work or was he a meth head on his way to mug someone.
 
Good Lord. Do lawyers have to take classes in classical logic? No, I’m not even talking about the hard stuff like modal logic. Just simple schoolchild level classes to teach them how to think? If not, they need to.

If you had a law degree you would understand the court was discussing the mode of review of a conviction. There are different standards of review based on whether a constitutional right is involved. See a layman's explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review for laws which do not affect constitutional rights. The court's decision was based on long-standing legal principles involving these types of cases and was logical; perhaps not to someone who has no legal background, but consistent with legal jurisprudence as it relates to issues like this. Defense counsel could have done a better job of presenting and developing the issue at the trial court level, but the appellate court is limited to what is before it and makes its decision on the record that is presented to it.

Edit: The decision is here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/906084.pdf The decision was 5-4 and the dissenting opinion analyzed the case as involving a constitutional right based on the dissenters belief the issue involved a constitutional issue involving the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which required "heightened" or strict scrutiny in contrast to the majority opinion.
 
Last edited:
If you had a law degree you would understand the court was discussing the mode of review of a conviction. There are different standards of review based on whether a constitutional right is involved. See a layman's explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review for laws which do not affect constitutional rights. The court's decision was based on long-standing legal principles involving these types of cases and was logical; perhaps not to someone who has no legal background, but consistent with legal jurisprudence as it relates to issues like this. Defense counsel could have done a better job of presenting and developing the issue at the trial court level, but the appellate court is limited to what is before it and makes its decision on the record that is presented to it.

Edit: The decision is here: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/906084.pdf The decision was 5-4 and the dissenting opinion analyzed the case as involving a constitutional right based on the dissenters belief the issue involved a constitutional issue involving the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which required "heightened" or strict scrutiny in contrast to the majority opinion.

The Washington State constitution has a very strongly written right to keep and bare arms clause in it. I think that was what they were discussing rather than the Federal bill of rights.
 
Last edited:
The defendant argued both Article 1, Sec. 24 of the Washington Constitution and the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The majority decided the knife in question was not an "arm" pursuant to the Washington and US Constitutions. The dissenting opinion states the knife was an arm and was subject to "strict scrutiny" under the Second Amendment, see pages 19 and 20 of the dissent.
 
Back
Top