Do we want to keep our knives? Blade’s editorial and Customs.

Heres a scan of the article.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=950012&a=6946693&p=35086874

I hope I don't get anyone mad over copywrites at Blade, if I do, let me know, I'll remove it for enfringement reasons.
wink.gif




------------------
Dave

My collection
 
David2584.....Thanks for posting the article for previewing! Very thoughtful of you. Besides..........it's always nice to read the "real thing" instead of relying on an over zealous interpretation.

Chief Dignitary is absolutely correct! I read the article the week that the mag hit the stands....... I thought that it was an extremely mild article considering what took place.

I'll reiterate......"if a LEO retaliates because of this article.....need not be a trusted agent of the people!

Erikfsn........relax dude ! You can carry your blades without risk of severe beatings from your local LEO's. The article wasn't that bad. Now it may be another matter if you're carrying auto's or blades that are excess to the allowable limits of the state/area that you're in......


 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by CODE 3:

As for LEO's being "untouchable", that is a huge load of BS. LEO's who misuse their power get investigated, and LOSE their careers. Period. The State of Washington, and its Political subdivisions (City & County governments) are extremely harsh on said LEO's, and have a ZERO tolerance policy.
The Feds...now thats another story, but from what I've seen around here, the Feds are pretty careful.

CODE 3....rant mode off.
</font>

One name: Lon Horiuchi.

Regards,

Leo Daher




------------------
"Though the meek shall inherit the Earth, they won't keep it past Saturday night..."
 
After reading the article, I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

------------------
Jason aka medusaoblongata
-----------------------
"I have often laughed at the weaklings who call themselves kind because they have no claws"

- Zarathustra
 
At least with Customs, rule-making isn't a part of their charter, or at least it's not supposed to be. I still beleive that the initial decision that the CRKT shipment had "switchblades" in it was an example of "field rule-making" very similar to the "your blade length can't be longer than the palm of my hand" that's still in use by some street cops despite there being no such rule on the books, *anywhere*.

I didn't know CRKT was forced to sign a hold-harmless. I recently had cause to find out about those; it turns out the California Attorney General inserted one into the state-standard CCW application forms he created last year. Not only did the legislature create no such requirement (and hence the AG wildly overstepped his authority), a "hold harmless" can get you into a horrendous open-ended legal mess of epic proportions. In this CCW case, it means that if you screw up with your gun and somebody sues the agency that issued the permit to you, you're liable for all of their legal bills! The attorney who spotted it was absolutely livid and is planning another CCW lawsuit (SONOMA county residents, EMail me!).

Anyways. The Lon Horuchi reference was exactly on target. A Fed judge ruled that an FBI agent cannot be put on trial for murder by a state prosecutor. That's just sick. More commentary on that mess here:
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000818.html

There are Fed and state-level agencies that *combine* legislative (technically, "regulatory") authority and an armed enforcement wing for their own regulations. I've had cause to study the effects and attitudes of two such, one state and one Fed, that display a number of interesting similarities and I have some theories as to why it happens:
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000828.html

Jim
 
I'll amplify on my above comment. The thing to remember is, the government is the only entity which can legally use force. It makes it fundamentally different from any other other entity. Over the most minor transgression, from a traffic violation to getting behind in your propery taxes, agents of the government, LEOs, are obligated to initate enforcement. It is not optional for them. If you resist, and carry your resistance far enough, you'll be killed, legally. It happens every day. When it's an armed robber or a carjacker, fine. But, when you stand the police off at your door to prevent being evicted from home for not paying taxes, and refuse to be yield, you move into the same category as the bank robber. You've become a felon and if you don't back off, you're going to die - over a traffic ticket or a few hundred dollars in property taxes! Blaming the LEO won't cure the problem. Blaming him is like blaming the knife for it's users lack of care. The founders pounded on the notion of limited government. Sadly, if you talk about limited government today, you'll often be branded as "anti government," or a militia nut. The way to preserve or restore our liberty to continue monkeying with our beloved knives, our firearms, our right to self defence, free speech, (what is political correctness but an attack on free speech), and controlling a government which is snooping into our bank accounts monitoring our e-mail, confiscating our stuff in the name of a "drug war," etal, is not yelling at LEOs, but getting Congress to clip the wings of the regulatory agencies. We need to Limit their authority, limit their funds, limit their power. This is not about knives, guns, speech or whatever, it's about the size and power of the federal government. Our votes must go for people who will limit government or we'll lose it all. Again, my .25 worth.
 
I just read the article, and I believe Mr. Shackleford should be commended for what he wrote, if anything.

Regards,

Leo Daher

------------------
"Though the meek shall inherit the Earth, they won't keep it past Saturday night..."
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Leo Daher:
One name: Lon Horiuchi.

Regards,

Leo Daher
</font>

Lon Horiuchi was acting in his official capacity, AND under orders from his superiors. As I have stated, it's the superiors who need to be reeled in.I don't want to revisit Ruby Ridge, but I still think if Randy Weaver would have turned himself in, none of that would have happened. Weaver has to take some responsibility for what happened.
I'm not in any way supporting what Horiuchi or his superiors did, but I think both the FBI AND Weaver share responsibility.

I read Shackelford's article. I also think it wasn't too bad, but the derogatory references to LEO's was uncalled for.



[This message has been edited by CODE 3 (edited 12-10-2000).]
 
Originally posted by Jim March:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The Lon Horuchi reference was exactly on target. A Fed judge ruled that an FBI agent cannot be put on trial for murder by a state prosecutor. That's just sick. More commentary on that mess here:
http://www.bladeforums.com/ubb/Forum11/HTML/000818.html
</font>

I happen to agree with the federal judge. He was acting on authority from the Federal Government, while in the official capacity of his job.
Like I said, I don't want to revisit that mess.
Jim, you also seem to have some vendetta against LEO's, and constantly bitch piss & moan about a CCW permit. I have a solution for you.Get the state laws changed to a "shall issue" state. Write your legislators, and get your buddies to do the same, or better yet, follow the thousands of people who were smart enough to get the HELL out of California, and move to more friendly states who allow anyone without a criminal record to carry, as well as the economic advantages. California is becoming too restrictive on everything.I have relatives who live down there, so I hear all the BS.




[This message has been edited by CODE 3 (edited 12-10-2000).]
 
"Just following orders" is something Klaus Barbie and others tried to use as an excuse after World War II. What about individual responsability?
We should also remember that Randy Weaver got acquited on the killing of the deputy US Marshall - in other words, he acted in self-defense. I'm not saying he did everything right, but the feds dealt with the case in the worst possible way.
As for Shackleford, he did bash some LEOs - the ones who deserved to be bashed, IMHO.

Regards,

Leo Daher


------------------
"Though the meek shall inherit the Earth, they won't keep it past Saturday night..."
 
Leo,
you obviously don't have a clue what the LEO's have to follow. It's like the military, you either follow orders, or you're in deep ****. Some of these LEO's, like the Customs agents, or FBI, are TOLD what to do on these type of situations, and any deviation from their orders means severe consequences. Yes, one of these Agents can express his opinion, but it is usually not listened to.
Just imagine if your boss came up to you, told you to do something you totally disagreed with...you expressed your disagreement..and he told you to do it, or kiss your career, retirement, health insurance, and livelihood goodbye. What would YOU do?
This is what these agents face each and every day. Their own personal opinions don't mean ****.

[This message has been edited by CODE 3 (edited 12-10-2000).]
 
Code 3:

Are you saying Horiuchi received a direct order to shoot Vicki Weaver in the head, while she was cradling her baby?
If that was the case (and I don't think it was), I most certainly would say no to my bosses, had they ordered me to do such a thing.

And BTW, just for the record: I do not have a biff with LEOs. As a matter of fact, my dealings with them up to now have been more than satisfactory, even here in Rio, where there's no tradition of respect for individual rights, and cops are poorly selected, trained and paid. And I couldn't agree more when you say politicians are the ones to blame. That's why you should all become members of groups such as the NRA and AKTI, and vote.

Regards,

Leo Daher

------------------
"Though the meek shall inherit the Earth, they won't keep it past Saturday night..."
 
Frankly, now that I think of it, the main reason why I still have a positive opinion of LEOs is because, once, a group of them chose to exercise their discretion instead of blindly enforcing an unfair law (personal experience). Everytime I think of LEOs, I have to remind myself of those fine officers and how nicely they treated me, in spite of their appalling working conditions.
So no, I don't believe cops have no choice but to follow orders blindly. After all, they're human beings, not robots.

Regards,

Leo Daher

------------------
"Though the meek shall inherit the Earth, they won't keep it past Saturday night..."
 
Code and Leo,

In law enforcement, there are rules on the use of force. Among them is the differentiation between an 'unlawful' and a 'lawful' order. Doing something you know to be incorrect or criminal is not justified by a superiors' order.

------------------
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed---then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon the people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property. -Frederick Bastiat
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1390061&a=10375047 [/URL]
 
I have seen the phrase "field rule making" in this post and a couple of other posts about this same topic. I don't understand how you can call what happened to CRKT field rule making. Part of the definition of switchblade from the United States Code simply says any knife having a blade which opens automatically by operation of inertia. Thats what all three of the folding CRKT knives I've owned and all the folding knives I own right now do and if you go by the letter of the law they are all switchblades. Now I am an LEO and I run into to people who are carrying knives on a daily basis. Here in Texas it is illegal to carry a switchblade. Our definition of the switchblade almost mirrors the one that i mentioned earlier. However, I have never arrested any one because I could open their pocket knife with a wrist snap. Everytime I do this I am doing a little "field rule making" . I think that the definition was really intended for butterfly knives but that is just how I use my discretion when I enforce that law. I believe what really needs to be done is that there needs to be a specific definition for switchblade possibly that says a knife designed to be opened by the operation of inertia. As for the concern that the artcile would make LEO's come down hard on people with knives I agree with what has been posted several times and that is that if an LEO would have that kind of attitude he needs to find a new line of work. In a way this mess may be a benifit to the knife community as a whole because if customs took a look at what they did and said that these were not switchblades and gave them back there should not be a repeat of this event and hopefully this will narrow down the switchblade definition a bit.
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by brad1407:
I believe what really needs to be done is that there needs to be a specific definition for switchblade possibly that says a knife designed to be opened by the operation of inertia.

Better yet: they should just do away with the whole switchblade law. I mean, does anyone really believe an automatic folder or a balisong are inherently deadlier than a kitchen knife, or even a sharpened screwdriver?
Alas, I realize this is unlikely to happen...

As for the concern that the artcile would make LEO's come down hard on people with knives I agree with what has been posted several times and that is that if an LEO would have that kind of attitude he needs to find a new line of work.</font>

I couldn't agree more.

Regards,

Leo Daher

------------------
"Though the meek shall inherit the Earth, they won't keep it past Saturday night..."

[This message has been edited by Leo Daher (edited 12-10-2000).]
 
Ok I like Leo's idea better. I haven't been able to ever quite figure out the rationale behide our switchblade laws
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kaos:
Code and Leo,

In law enforcement, there are rules on the use of force. Among them is the differentiation between an 'unlawful' and a 'lawful' order. Doing something you know to be incorrect or criminal is not justified by a superiors' order.

</font>

Thanks, Kaos. That's the way it should be, I guess.



------------------
"Though the meek shall inherit the Earth, they won't keep it past Saturday night..."
 
Kaos
I'm VERY aware of the "rules of force". I'm a firefighter, with Arson investigation duties, and as such,have been trained in the use of force.

Leo
No, I'm NOT saying Horiuchi was ordered to shoot Vicki Weaver. That would be absurd.
What I'm trying to point out is that Horiuchi was only there because his superiors & his JOB required him to be there. He was NOT there just to play "shoot 'em up" with the Weaver clan
What happened to Vicki weaver was unfortunate, and should not have happened. Keep in mind...if randy Weaver would have surrendered when he was asked to, Vicki would still be alive, and the whole Ruby Ridge debacle would never have happened. Randy Weaver stated that the Feds would not take him alive, thereby jeapordizing his entire family because he was stupid.
I said I didn't want to rehash this ****, and I'm now done.

I guess my whole point of this is not all LEO's are bad, and maybe, just maybe, they were following orders. This is especially true for ANY Federal agency. Most local & state LEO's have more leeway in how they handle the laws they have to enforce. The Federal Agents do not have the same leeway.
 
Back
Top