Does it matter whether you consider your knife a Tool or a Weapon

[Nimick]

many places have laws against carrying "weapons" or "dangerous weapons" (including my locality).

many of these laws use intent as a method to determind if something is a dangerous weapon or not. Like if you were carrying a bat to beat someone to death and the DA can prove it, you were carrying a dangerous weapon, but if you were walking to a little league game you are ok.

would it or could it matter in court whether you think of you knife as a tool or a weapon?

this is not simply a "fishing" kind of question.

I ask this because I am a member of the Baha'i faith. one of the tenets of the faith is that we obey the law. Knife laws are often vague and, as posted before, open to interpretation.

I am looking to purchase and carry a karambit. Specifically the Emerson Combat Karambit Folder, I want to carry it because the blade shape is perfect for many applications at my job (Stage Electrician) and it has the wave. I would not be carrying it for any combat purposes, and would be less than unlikely to use it in any type of conflict. I would like to EDC this knife along with my current knife.

as far as I can tell it does not violate any of the laws in my area regarding blade length. there are also clauses stating that if you use a knife that is outside the length limit or other legal restrictions for your work and are Either onsite or enroute to or from that job it is OK (so re-enactors can use swords, etc.).

That said, it is called a "combat karambit" and it looks pretty mean, and I could see how it could be considered a dangerous instrument defined according to NYS law
here:

13. "Dangerous instrument" means any instrument, article or substance,
including a "vehicle" as that term is defined in this section, which,
under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or
threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other
serious physical injury.

The threat could be assumed in the knife's name "Combat Karambit".

carrying a dangerous insturment could qualify as Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree defined here:

S 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth
degree when:
(1) He possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun
gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal
knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, metal knuckles,
chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or
slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or
(2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto,
imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon
with intent to use the same unlawfully against another; or


to ask the same sort of question in a different sense.

in a previous post R.W.Clark posted

The arresting Officer from Brea PD approached J.A. and asked him if he had any weapons. J.A. produced a cheap liner locking folder. The Officer flipped the blade open and arrested J.A. for 653K.

complete post Here

If J.A. had produced nothing, then been found to have the knife on his person. would he have been able to argue that he did not produce it because he did not think it was a weapon.

OR the flip side.

Would/does the fact that he produced it when asked if he was carrying any weapons make it a weapon.

This obviously would have no bearing on the 653K violation J.A. was not guilty of.

in the sense of "intent", would the fact that I would not carry the karambit as a weapon be sufficent to keep it from being a weapon or dangerous weapon?

sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be specific and complete in my thought and question.

 

[R.W.Clark]

Having never studied NY law I am only giving an opinion based upon what I am reading here, but I will give my 2 cents.

It would appear that there are two seperate issues. First under S 265.01 (1), it lists items which are illegal to have under at any time for any reason whether or not your intent is to use it as a offensive weapon. The knife you are talking about would not (by my standards) fit into any of those items.

The second issue is covered by both S 265.01 (2) and "13.", these would be items that would be illegal to have IF you intend to use them as offensive weapons. Your knife could fit into these sections depending on the situation. These types of laws are generally sentance magnifiers added to other crimes to increase sentancing or to give leverage during plea deals (ie. we will drop the S 265.01 if you plea to the assualt).

It is "possible" that by aggreeing that your knife is a weapon (even by default) to a LEO "could" put it into the S 265.01 (2) list of illegal items.

Best way to deal with a situation like this is as such.

Officer : Do you have an gun, knives or other weapons on you?
You : I do not have any weapons on me, however I do have a pocket knife and it is located in my ........... pocket.
Officer : That looks like a pretty nasty knife, what do you need a weapon like that for?
You : Its just a work knife. I work as a ......... and it is perfect for ............... and ............. that I do everyday.

In this manner you are not trying to hide the fact that you have a knife nor are you admitting that your knife is a weapon.

The name of the knife as named by the manufacturing company should not be used to define the knife as a tool or a weapon. The key word is "should". A Judge as the "trier of fact" would not be allowed to use a name to establish purpose. However, it could hurt you in a jury trial. This is why it is really stupid of companies to name thier knives in such manners. It may look cool to mall ninjas but it is bad for the industry and knife users as a whole.

 

[SpyderNoir_JHA]

One thing to think about is whether the karambit, regardless of its blade length and regardless of your intent, might be considered a "metal knuckle knife" under S 265.01 (1), and thus, illegal. That is not how I believe the knife should be considered, but I fear that a savvy prosecutor or a wary cop might feel differently.

However, there is finer point here that I fear many who are not adherents to your faith would not consider. Or, if so, only as a point of legal philiosophy, and not as one of theology. What is it to obey the law? Are the written statutes somehow like ideals which we can never truly see, but only approximate (as described of things in Plato's Allegory of the Cave)? After all, despite the 14th Amendment's lofty goal of providing people "equal protection of the laws", the fact is, protection of the laws can only be as equal as the prosecutors' understanding of them is similar. Where understanding of words differs (in connotation and context) protection becomes unequal. This is nobody's fault, it is simply the nature of the beast.

If a statute is vague, and later it is clarified through case law, is one who had been on the losing side retroactively at fault? Or, to further complicate things, imagine a federal law that is interpreted one way in the first circuit, and another way in the second circuit. It has not been addressed by the Supreme Court. You live in the third circuit, so which interpretation do you follow?

Perhaps I've raised more questions than I've answered. In fact, I know I have. Sorry.

 

[bama_lou]

13. "Dangerous instrument" means any instrument, article or substance,
including a "vehicle" as that term is defined in this section, which,
under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or
threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other
serious physical injury.

USED,
ATTEMPTED,
THREATENED,
IS READILY CAPABLE

The first three can be hurdled, but the last can trap you.
IIRC, it has to have a concurrence of act and intent, mens rea and actus reus, for it to be a crime. (I'm no expert, just general info I stocked)
The Wave feature makes the knife "readily capable" if drawn properly. Lucky you if Officer Friendly is completely ignorant of Emerson's innovation.

Why would you even want to reach the courts with this issue? First principles, avoid the chance of being frisked in the first place. Behave and dress accordingly.

 

[R.W.Clark]

By most legal standards a folding knife is only considered to be "READILY CAPABLE" in a open and locked position.

 

[bama_lou]

I agree, but it is a trouble of interpretation with the Emerson Wave feature involved. The knife simply being clipped on the pocket can be interpreted as readily capable of harm, right?

 

[Nimick]

Thank to all

The name of the knife as named by the manufacturing company should not be used to define the knife as a tool or a weapon. The key word is "should". A Judge as the "trier of fact" would not be allowed to use a name to establish purpose.

That is what I was most interested in, and what I hoped to hear.

SpyderNoir_JHA

I had not considered your first point about the metal knuckle knife, but I think that the liners in the folding karambit would make it a hard sell.

Baha'is try to obey the letter and interpretation of the law. the best definition I can give is located in Plato's Apology. when the court finds socrates guilty and sentences him to death. he drinks the hemlock poison despite the unjustness of the sentence and the attempts by others to save him.

If it was made clear through case law at any level that a karambit was a metal knuckle knife I would have to stop carrying it. at this time I can't find any evidence that it has. (and I've looked)



bama_lou

13. "Dangerous instrument" means any instrument, article or substance,
including a "vehicle" as that term is defined in this section, which,
under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or
threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other
serious physical injury.

I think the intent is the key to that definition. If my english professor wants to kill me the pair of scissors in her hand becomes a dangerous instrument. If I want to kill her than the karambit, or the leatherman, or the shoe, or paperweight could be the dangerous instrument. what I was unsure of was whether that intent would necessarily be provided by the name of the knife. My cellphone is readily capable of killing you if I hit you hard enough.

 

[madcap_magician]

approximate (as described of things in Plato's Allegory of the Cave)?

Unrelated, but if we still had a rep system, you'd get chiclets for knowing that.