-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Customs Says "NO EXTENSION!" - They Want Your Pocket Knives NOW!
- Thread starter Critter
- Start date
- Status
Fred Sanford
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,142
Columbrid
Sparky already made this a political issue in his very first post on the issue when he called 'Barackization' or some such crap. That little comment was such a complete turn off for me, that I just ignored the thread.
Look, Spark. OK to have issues with someone, or something, but when you start demonizing your enemy, you let the hate get into you and you end up like the recent shooter in the Holocaust museum.
Sparky already made this a political issue in his very first post on the issue when he called 'Barackization' or some such crap. That little comment was such a complete turn off for me, that I just ignored the thread.
Look, Spark. OK to have issues with someone, or something, but when you start demonizing your enemy, you let the hate get into you and you end up like the recent shooter in the Holocaust museum.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 166
Besides my Senators and Congressman, Levin, Limbaugh & Hannity now know...so do my children and most other folks that are on my regular email list. We need all the help we can muster....and in-fighting only helps our opponents. Please consider that.
timcsaw
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 21,442
If I understand it correctly, it goes into effect after the 30 day period allowed for comments from the public/interested parties... That means it's a done deal as of June 21st, 2009 (6 days from today). Of course that doesn't mean that the fight is necessarily over on the 21st, but as I understand it, that's the "drop dead date".
Greetings: Has anyone other than me read the CBP letter of intent ? I am far, extremely far, from a legal scholar. However, it appears that the new CBP interpretation of existing regulations is not based upon the number of persons who possess or use or manufacture or design or import the knives addressed. The CBP letter, which listed past rulings, seems to indicate that the legality of a knife was determined based upon the design of the knife itself and it's intended usage. If the knife's blade was designed for "utility purposes" and or the mechanism was not as specifically prohibited by the Switchblade Act of 1958 then it was ok to go and not to be regulated. The CBP document cites several court cases (Judges Opinions) and the exact wording of the federal laws as the criteria used to substantiate past Customs rulings.
The CBP now apparently feels that both the past court cases they cited and the specific federal law description of what constitutes a switchblade should not be the basis of their current and future decisions. The blade shape, mechanism or stated purpose of a knife is not of overall importance. Their NEW, (2009), interpretation of the regulations are that decisions should be based upon what congress REALLY INTENDED to prohibit but did not adequately describe in 1958. They now cite different court cases (Judges Decisions) that disagree with the old cases but support their NEW interpretation of what congress really wanted. The following is an excerpt from a 1989 Customs Statement.
".....The Customs position, which has been supported by court decisions, is that Congressional intent was to address the problem of the importation, subsequent sale, and use of a class of quick-opening, easily concealed knives most frequently used for criminal purposes."
It appears that whatever entity is NOW making Custom's decisions has fixated upon what it feels fits the criteria for "A CLASS OF QUICK OPENING, EASILY CONCEALED KNIFE MOST FREQUENTLY USED FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES."
Except for the "Criminal Purposes" just about all folders fit that discription.
I wonder how many times a small, quick opening, easily concealed knife has to be used in a crime before it is, in Custom's opinion, "FREQUENTLY USED FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES" and thererfore should be regulated?
On the other hand, What do I know? I'm old and senile. OldDude1
The CBP now apparently feels that both the past court cases they cited and the specific federal law description of what constitutes a switchblade should not be the basis of their current and future decisions. The blade shape, mechanism or stated purpose of a knife is not of overall importance. Their NEW, (2009), interpretation of the regulations are that decisions should be based upon what congress REALLY INTENDED to prohibit but did not adequately describe in 1958. They now cite different court cases (Judges Decisions) that disagree with the old cases but support their NEW interpretation of what congress really wanted. The following is an excerpt from a 1989 Customs Statement.
".....The Customs position, which has been supported by court decisions, is that Congressional intent was to address the problem of the importation, subsequent sale, and use of a class of quick-opening, easily concealed knives most frequently used for criminal purposes."
It appears that whatever entity is NOW making Custom's decisions has fixated upon what it feels fits the criteria for "A CLASS OF QUICK OPENING, EASILY CONCEALED KNIFE MOST FREQUENTLY USED FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES."
Except for the "Criminal Purposes" just about all folders fit that discription.
I wonder how many times a small, quick opening, easily concealed knife has to be used in a crime before it is, in Custom's opinion, "FREQUENTLY USED FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES" and thererfore should be regulated?
On the other hand, What do I know? I'm old and senile. OldDude1
OldDude this is the crux of the argument. There were 4 rulings in which it was ruled that assisted opening knives were not switchblades; now CBP has decided that they are.
This issue is such a big deal because if you go through and read the previous cases they often made determinations that a knife would be considered a switchblade because it could be opened with one hand but then used another part of the switchblade act to say "but its not for this reason" which I agree is extremely worrying because its at best legal dancing and at worst using a law about cheese to control the price of wine.
Of course you can open a slip joint one handed (in fact, youtube has just recently had a ton of videos with people doling it) so theoretically any pocket knife could be covered under what customs has already shown a history of calling switchblades.
While it seems like this should only affect the import of assisted openers (or one handed manual knives) the courts, states and local laws are often based on these previous customs decisions. So far a few states have passed their own legislation or had their own case laws that reitterate custom's previous posistion but its only a few.
Why I personally think this isnt paranoia is because customs has shown a repeated history of doing so. If you go and read my posts I think its pretty obvious which side of the aisle Im on but I still feel this isnt right.
ps this is from the actual switchblade act:
timcsaw
Gold Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 21,442
I read the entire thing also. Like you, I'm no lawyer so it isn't a fun read.
I noticed that the document pretty much shows in their entirety, the original decisions that they are now overturning... they show the original letters (with all of their legal gobilty-gook) to individuals (CKRT etc.) which approved certain knives with different sorts of AO mechanisms... and then they show the LATEST letters to the same individuals indicating that they've changed their minds about those AO mechanisms.
To the best of my ability to cypher through the info, it seems that it is ONLY the AO aspect that they are concerned with (the only thing they have changed their mind on). They do seem to suggest that one of the "problems" with these AO knives is the fact that it can easily be opened with one hand. THIS in itself is the scary part. If a knife that can be opened with one hand is a "concern" to them, then a whole lot of knives could be in trouble, AO or no AO.
Tim, in the letters they often defined one handed opening knives as switchblades regardless of any spring mechanism.
Oftentimes the only reason these knvies were not ruled switchblades was that the spring was actuated by the blade or the spring was biased to close the knife and not open (an a/o knife spring pushes back on the blade like a ball detend and then pushes it forward after a certain point, an automatic is trying to push the blade open and the button releases it from being locked in the handle) or something else "disqualified" the knife from being a switchblade even though they were making the argument it was one.
Ill go paruse through the document again so I can quote some examples.
Without me having to quote the entire letter. CBP decided that an a/o knife was a switchblade because it was under section a(4) of the switchblade act (a detachable blade propelled by a spring, which if you read the original act refers to a ballistic knife lol) but then reversed the decision because it was determined the blade shape was utilitarian and that since it did not open thanks do a device on the handle it wasnt one.
Last edited:
Thanks to all who have attempted to clear this up for me.
I must have the intellect of a deck chair. I thought that customs was just substituting their own interpretation of what defines a switchblade for the actual definition used by the statute law enacted by congress.
Not unlike:
A. Congress enacted a 55 MPH speed limit in order to improve safety and conserve gasoline.
B. Since we, (Customs) feel that congress REALLY wanted to improve safety and conserve gas,
we now choose to Label 45 MPH as actually just 55 MPH in disguise. Because congress was not concerned with
the specific numbers but overall safety and gas conservation.
C. Therefore here is your speeding ticket for doing 50 in a 55 MPH zone.
D. By the way, it is now illegal to import any car that can go faster than what we say 55 MPH really means.
I must be missing something here.
I have already written, faxed and mailed letters to all my reps and customs. OldDude1
I must have the intellect of a deck chair. I thought that customs was just substituting their own interpretation of what defines a switchblade for the actual definition used by the statute law enacted by congress.
Not unlike:
A. Congress enacted a 55 MPH speed limit in order to improve safety and conserve gasoline.
B. Since we, (Customs) feel that congress REALLY wanted to improve safety and conserve gas,
we now choose to Label 45 MPH as actually just 55 MPH in disguise. Because congress was not concerned with
the specific numbers but overall safety and gas conservation.
C. Therefore here is your speeding ticket for doing 50 in a 55 MPH zone.
D. By the way, it is now illegal to import any car that can go faster than what we say 55 MPH really means.
I must be missing something here.
I have already written, faxed and mailed letters to all my reps and customs. OldDude1
Well the federal switchblade act prohibits the importation of automatic knives into the united states and customs is the group that enforces this. Customs is reinterpretting the original congressional legislation to be more in line with what they want to do (prohibit entry of assisted opening knives into the united states). Customs has full constitutional authority to enforce the switchblade act since the the act provides for them to prohibit the entry of the items.
If the 55mph speed limit law had provided that bringing a car capable of exceeding that speed was illegal then customs would be able to prevent that.
Using your example lets set up an equivalent scenario:
car A is capable of going faster than 55mph but is electronically limited and can only be modified by the manufacturer (example bmws, mercedes, audis etc) or by difficult and expensive modification by the end user. Customs has for 20 years allowed cars that are electronically limited to enter the country, but as of today they have decided that simply having an electronic limit is no longer sufficient for these cars to continue being legal for importation.
Now, if the car is physically capable of exceeding 55mph, regardless of any software limiter or removable parts, it is now illegal.
So a/o knives used to not be considered switchblades by customs, but now because the 1958 ruling wasnt according to them clear enough (which is straight bs since the law states that the mechanism has to be in or on the handle for it to be a switchblade which is pretty clear to me) or matching its intention or whatever, they are now saying they are.
Thank you P. MCMANUS .
Sounds like a good analogy. I think I've Got it. CBP is now enforcing what they believe the spirit of the law should be instead of the letter of the Law as they did in the past. Customs is using their authority to interpret the law. I foolishly thought only the courts could do that. I'm old and these are changing times. OldDude1
Sounds like a good analogy. I think I've Got it. CBP is now enforcing what they believe the spirit of the law should be instead of the letter of the Law as they did in the past. Customs is using their authority to interpret the law. I foolishly thought only the courts could do that. I'm old and these are changing times. OldDude1
i was talking to my father who was a lawyer in the USCG about thing and said about the courts needing to interpret it and what it comes down to is that a law can be interpreted buy the enforcement agencies as long as its not going out side what the law says. here they are going past that limit how ever if they had said that california cannot get their sum 2 inch switch blades thus null and voiding CA's law, that would be different since it is with in the laws limit.
-matt
just a note my name is a cross between the scottish and irish spellings and its 1 n and an i and not a u D:
anyway Im glad I could help you out in understanding exactly what they are doing. Ive been watching a lot of the youtube videos and people certainly have the right idea but it seems like no one has done a really good defining exactly what is happening. I think part of that is because what they are doing is kind of complicated plus it doesnt sound like that big of a deal when you say it that way. However if you look at CBP's past rulings carefully you see a repeated line of "reasoning" that takes the law way, way beyond what it says (adressing sr_matt as well).
The most offensive thing to me in that whole original document of notice was in the first letter they used the ballistic knives law to try and call an assisted opening knife a switchblade; thats just bull****. They then reversed that decision, but I have a feeling their first order of business will be to redo that particular ruling with the first box of a/o knives they can get their hands on.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 8,968
A lot is going to depend on the judicial interpretation. Yes, it's pretty clear that AOs and one-handers in general are not switchblades as defined in the act. The issue is, what is the perceived point of the act, and how do they feel about it in today's environment with the changes in knife technology. If they think the act is right, because it made fast-opening folding knives illegal to move around, then they will leave things open for new legislation to do the same for AOs and easy-opening one-handers. Several firearms got banned for looks, getting banned for function is quite possible, imo. As well, advances in technology made a lot of laws antiquated with regards to the internet, harassment, copyright infringement, etc., but laws were reinterpreted while changes were made to catch up.
well the law is 51 years old. I think its time that it gets ammended to cover ballistic knives only. I see no reason why autos or german paratrooper knives should be illegal. If the feds really wanted to cut down on crime they should spend more money in the schools instead of trying to educate 10 kids on the budget needed for 1. education cuts crime; the end.
maybe someone who is knowledgable in the laws will know if knife crime laws tend match gun crime laws. make it a BIG deal if you use a knife to break the law just like with guns, educate people that they are to use their knives as tools and that using it as an offensive weapon will get them 10 in the slammer the first time.
Well thats my solution, I know its crazy, but hey I think punishing people who commit crimes and not those who "might" is sort of in the spirit of how we do things in america.
maybe someone who is knowledgable in the laws will know if knife crime laws tend match gun crime laws. make it a BIG deal if you use a knife to break the law just like with guns, educate people that they are to use their knives as tools and that using it as an offensive weapon will get them 10 in the slammer the first time.
Well thats my solution, I know its crazy, but hey I think punishing people who commit crimes and not those who "might" is sort of in the spirit of how we do things in america.
ya i also agree with high punishment for using fire arms/knives/etc in the commission of crimes, using a taser, pepper spray,etc 5-10 year ball park, battons, clubs, knives, there lethal but not extremely lethal weapons in the 8-15 year ball park, firearms, other very lethal weapons 10-20 ball park all on top of the crime's punishment. and restrict what convicted violent felons can own (i specify violent because honestly larceny isnt exactly justification to say some one is to dangerous to own a weapon, now as a punishment ok maybe)
-matt
- Status