First no Onion, now no Onions!

I found a copy of the ruling in Thomas v. Texas on another forum via google.

edit: use the link in the post below

It's the Thomas v. State.pdf file.

Here's a gem of an excerpt:
At the bench trial, Officer George Ortiz testified the knife had a lever on its side and applying pressure to the lever automatically opened the blade.

Well, it has like a little button. It's a lever that's on the blade. And all you have to do is barely just touch it and it opens ... any time you can just go like this and it opens, it has a spring and that springs it into action and that's what makes it prohibited.

He demonstrated the use of the knife for the court, showing that it was a pressure sensitive knife which is resistant to closing. Moreover, during cross-examination, he explained "what makes this knife a dangerous knife is because you can open a knife so quickly and go into an assault."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
joe-bob said:
The case cited will not help them because it was a sham. Noone from any knife company or any defense expert testified. The female judge(s) were entirely in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the problem is she apparently set the precedent. If there's caselaw that defines a Leek as an illegal knife, then it's an illegal knife until someone with more authority says otherwise.

This is where we need one of the lawyers on the forum to start a test case...

[EDIT]

Wow, just read the decision. The appellate court even finds that a Kershaw leek is a switchblade. Any of you lawyers wanna chime in? As far as I can tell, the Kershaw assisted openers are illegal in Texas...
 
Last edited:
The ruling is all based on what the judge's idea of what a "reasonable" person's opinion of a switchblade is, which is not the law! At one time in this country a lot of "reasonable" people thought that black people should be slaves, so does that mean the 13th amendment didn't really mean anything in 1865? It's good to know that the Law of the Land in Texas amounts to nothing more than some random person's opinion.
 
Yeah, Wood, I hear you, but the problem is that the law is what the judge says it is. The question now is how do we go about getting our Kershaw Leeks back, 'cause right now even the appellate court says we can't carry one.

I can't believe Kershaw didn't so much as try to file a "friend of the court" brief, considering they're about to lose a bunch of business...
 
I live in Perth Western Australia. Recently there has been a huge beat up fostered by "conservative" politicians and therefore the right wing leaning media, about young "ethnic type" thugs carrying on them large kitchen knives and knives generally.
The newly elected Liberal state government, which represents the conservative political spectrum, has been actively canvassing their push to make carrying any knife illegal and punishable by huge fines and/or imprisonment. This includes box cutters, SAK's and Leatherman type tools.

The state government, stuck with it's outdated attitude and leadership, in a state that is run and controlled by old money society and predominantly conservative in attiitude, will probably have its way.
As far as I am concerned they can stick this proposed law.

I thought that the Republican Party in the USA is grounded in the ethos of the "right to bear arms" principal, so none of this makes sense. I would have thought that in a state like Texas, run by good ole boys like Bush and his type would never entertain making carrying a knife illegal.
Heck most people in the USA pack lethal hand guns, so how ironic is this latest development?

Guns and knives are not the problem - old way thinking is the crux of the issue and the sooner the world dumps the conservative ultra right wing political disposition the quicker society can more forward.
 
The ruling dramatically ignores the limitations of the statue, which is pretty specific regarding what constitutes a switchblade.

There's a legal definition that's being disregarded and replaced with something else.

This needs to be litigated further up by someone with deep enough pockets to afford decent attorneys.
 
I read an article the other day about the Sikh and the Kirpan they carry -- a large cermonial knives their prophet tells them to always have to defend Justice, the Weak, cute little fluffy bunnies, etc. Since this is a religious precept, they can enter schools, courts, federal buidlings, etc. armed, lest we deny them the right to practice their religion.

And then I think, hey, if Scientology is a recognized religion, and a religion can also be merely a Philosophy of Life, such as the Christian Scientists...

Why can't we begin the Church of the H.O.S.E? The Holy Order of the Sharpened Edge? Or go with a classic and follow Crom and preach the Riddle of Steel?

I mean, Life is Holy, and Tools stand in the service of Life, so Tools are Holy, so when I carry my tools, I am exercising my Freedom of Religion.

Oh, come on, it's a lot less ridiculous than an ancient intergalactic rape put Thetans in our head, or whatever crap it is Tom Cruise and Travolta believe....

Couldn't we forge some "Right to bear tools..."?
 
Last edited:
You know, one the major philosophical failings of the way such law is enforced is that, either for defense or utility, there always seems to be this inclination in the legal system that you have to have some kind of immediate, foreshadowed purpose (work, threats against oneself).

Haven't they ever heard of the being prepared, and having something "just in case you might need it?"
 
That's interesting. I hope that it dosen't gain momentum since we have the same laws here too.

There is a Canadian Customs Ruling letter posted in the Canadian community section that gives speed safe the OK an why.


assistopen.jpg
 
victorstoikov, your understanding of Americsn terminology, society, and politics is so far off it's funny. Stick to discussing what you know, and don't confuse the issue.
 
JCaswell said:
In 23 they say,

"All Kershaw knives that incorporate the Kershaw SpeedSafe technology open or release the blade from the handle or sheath by the application of centrifugal force."

This is also untrue. What centrifugal force? It actuates by DIRECT PRESSURE upon the thumbstud, not centrifugal force.

If there is case law, it will have to be addressed. Seems like very strong grounds to challenge such a determination.
Click to expand...

Is it possible to open and lock the blade by holding the Kershaw knife by the handle and flicking it hard? If the answer is "yes" then that's the centrifugal force they are talking about.
In NYC that knife would be an illegal "gravity knife". Looks like NYC-style laws are coming to Texas.
 
Last edited:
SAKowner said:
Is it possible to open and lock the blade by holding the Kershaw knife by the handle and flicking it hard? If the answer is "yes" then that's the centrifugal force they are talking about.
In NYC that knife would be an illegal "gravity knife". Looks like NYC-style laws are coming to Texas.
Click to expand...

Such opening technique is clearly outside the functional limitations of the SpeedSafe system and not mentioned, best I can tell, in the judgment which focused on the unique function of SpeedSafe.

Further, I doubt the knife, as provided by the factory, can be whipped open as described without rather extraordinary effort, and even if it can, such an opening method presupposes the user is NOT using the SpeedSafe system, the evils of which are the centerpiece of the class action.
... So the claim about centrifugal opening seems bizarre just like in claim 21 that the SpeedSafe knife has a button on the handle, which it does not.
 
Last edited:
I don´t know a lot about class action, so perhaps somebody can explain.

Why did Richard Atkins, Oscar Zubiate, Michael Craddock and Theresa McLean (the plaintiffs in this case) even sue? What do they stand to gain from this?

According to the the paper submitted, they bought multiple Kershaw knives with the speed-assist feature. If they were honest citizens, it stands to reason that they did so because the thought the knives had features that made them desirable, i.e. they found the speed-assist feature useful and wanted to use it. So why would they do a 180 and now move to have all knives with this feature banned in Texas?

Or is it a case of a law firm finding a couple of pundits, paying them to go out and buy a couple of knives at wal-mart and sign a paper?

As for the case itself, under "facts" (yeah right), they state:

20. Certain (Kershaw) knives incorporate a blade that has a tang that protrudes above the back hande when the knife is in the closed position.
Click to expand...

Ok, except there is no "back handle" but we´ll let them off on that.

21. (Kershaw knives) open the blade automatically by applying pressure to a device located on the handle.
Click to expand...

Ok. So in two consecutive paragraphs, they state that the tang is part of the blade (20) and that the knives open automatically by pushing a device on the handle (21).

We all know that the device you apply pressure to is, in fact, the tang they talk about in 20, and thus is obviously NOT located on the handle. So how do they try to get out of that one?

Well, behold:

19. (Kershaw knives) include a blade that is located on the handle
Click to expand...

Tadaa. Because the blade is "located on the handle", the tang ist therefore also "located on the handle" and it is therefore a switchblade.

So there you have it. Because, by necessity, the blade is CONNECTED to the handle, some crackpot lawyer now thinks that any device on the blade is also on the handle.

Only way out of this: A judge (or jury if there will be one) with common sense. So essentially, we´re fucked unless they make Penn&Teller judges.

On a sidenote, whenever I watch Penn&Teller, I can´t help myself wishing that those guys were into politics instead of show business.

Edit: Also, prepare for the banning of pocket-clips:

The handle is equipped with a clip in order that the knife can be attached to a belt or the lip of a pocket and be easily accessed.
Click to expand...

from Texas vs Thomas.

"He was clearly a criminal your honour, his knife had a pocket clip!"
 
Last edited:
So the plaintiffs got arrested with these knives and now want to sue because what they bought was illegal?
 
The part that I find so mind numbing is that you can carry a fixed blade knife in Tx. What the hell does it matter how fast you can open your knife if you can carry a fixed blade and not have to open it at all?

It's all a bunch of stupidity on both sides. Were all sitting here complaining about what constitutes a "switchblade".

Who care's?

A speedsafe is for all intents and purposes the same thing as a switchblade.

What we should be fighting is the useless switchblade law. If it's legal to carry a speed safe, it should be legal to carry an auto opener. There's just no need for the law in the first place.

In the mean time, I'll be carrying my new Spec Bump all over Texas.
 
Arkeld,
You are right. The whole thing is a treasure trove of idiocy.

Still, one thing I've learned working with lawyers is that just because a lawyer claims something, doesn't make it so. (That seems obvious, but it's amazing how reading their work gets you thinking it has authority when all they're doing half the time is blowing smoke.)
They can say the blade and handle are the same thing because the two parts share some mechanical relationship, but that's just silliness. (Like saying a tire is the same as an engine because both are attached when assembled into a car.)
This needs to be vigorously confronted in court.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if my Kershaw RAM would be illegal. It has no parts at all that would make it assisted but it opens as fast or faster then the Leek.

On second thought. If the 'button' on the handle is pulled then it could become a knife opened by centrifugal force... Oh Crap.
 
Arkeld said:
Why did Richard Atkins, Oscar Zubiate, Michael Craddock and Theresa McLean (the plaintiffs in this case) even sue? What do they stand to gain from this?

According to the the paper submitted, they bought multiple Kershaw knives with the speed-assist feature. If they were honest citizens, it stands to reason that they did so because the thought the knives had features that made them desirable, i.e. they found the speed-assist feature useful and wanted to use it. So why would they do a 180 and now move to have all knives with this feature banned in Texas?

Or is it a case of a law firm finding a couple of pundits, paying them to go out and buy a couple of knives at wal-mart and sign a paper?
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that too. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but is it possible that these plaintiffs have something to do with NYC Mayor Bloomberg's "coalition of mayors" and his crusade against the 2nd Amendment?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/bloomberg-says-ruling-wont-harm-gun-control-efforts/

Or is the Brady Campaign going after knives now? If a conservative State like Texas begins to adopt NYC-style knife laws how long before NYC-style gun control laws follow? The NRA doesn't seem to pay much attention to anti-knife legislation but perhaps they should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top