Kansas Knife Ban Bill Introduced

Critter

Critter

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Messages
1,765
[Post in General approved by Spark]

The enemies of freedom never sleep. While Knife rights continues to work on bills to repeal knife prohibitions in numerous states, unfortunately we also must keep an eye out for bad bills that would cause problems for knife owners. Last week saw just such a bill pre-filed in Kansas.

In 2013 our Kansas Comprehensive Knife Rights Act removed all knife prohibitions in Kansas statutes and enacted Knife Rights' signature Knife Law Preemption. Now, Rep. Vic Miller (D-58) has introduced a bill to reinstate some of the knife prohibitions we worked so hard to get repealed. HB 2442 is ostensibly a "bump stock" ban bill, but without mention in the bill summary it sneakily also would reinstate "dagger, dirk, ... dangerous knife, straight-edged razor, stiletto" as prohibited knives.

Our lobbyist and our friends on the ground in Kansas are keeping a very close eye on this bill and we will let you know if and when we need you to take action.

Knife Rights is Rewriting Knife Law in America™
28 Bills Enacted in 20 States in 8 Years!

Be the first to know. Get the latest Knife Rights updates:





And, sign up for our FREE News Slice™ Newsletter for more news you need to know.



Knife Rights is making a difference!
Invest a modest sum in a Sharper Future™ to protect your tools and rights.
JOIN KNIFE RIGHTS TODAY!

​
 
Wow..."dangerous knife". No way that couldn't be interpreted however the prosecutor felt:rolleyes:

Thanks for bringing this up. If a community wants to decide if a bump stock is legal or an automatic all-around or whatever, that's fine. Put it to an earnest vote. That's not a discussion for this forum. However, I hate it when politicians sneak in hidden agendas in the body of the bill.
 
I fail to understand the motivation behind this proposed ban, given that Kansas is a largely conservative state with very low violent crime rates.

What does this accomplish for either the person proposing it or the people it affects? It just seems like a purposefully-vague (“dangerous knife”) addendum that will only open up channels of abuse for their legal system.

Nonspecific terminology makes it significantly easier for a court to make a biased and overly-situational interpretation of the law. It just brings to mind hypothetical situations where this vague wording is used to essentially fabricate weapons charges against individuals.

Just imagine how easy it would be to get someone to falsely confess that their pocket knife was intended as a deadly weapon. An interrogator asks you if the knife could ever be used in self-defense effectively, so you say yes. The interrogator asks you to clarify that you mean to say you own it knowing it could be effectively used in combat, and you say yes. Boom. That’s enough to convince a jury that you have a “dangerous knife.”
 
Beware snakes in the grass . Or wake up one day to find all of those hard won freedoms are gone ! :mad:

I hate to even imagine what kind of knife remains once you remove the "dangerous " parts ? o_O
 
The law applies to only to "possessing with intent to use the same unlawfully against another"

As usual, the OP forgot to mention that part.

The DA would have to prove intent to use the weapon to illegally kill or wound another person. That's a much steeper burden than simply proving possession of a knife that could be dangerous.
 
Twindog said:
The law applies to only to "possessing with intent to use the same unlawfully against another"

As usual, the OP forgot to mention that part.

The DA would have to prove intent to use the weapon to illegally kill or wound another person. That's a much steeper burden than simply proving possession of a knife that could be dangerous.
Click to expand...
OK ! I guess the bill is just dandy then ? :rolleyes:
 
Twindog said:
The law applies to only to "possessing with intent to use the same unlawfully against another"
As usual, the OP forgot to mention that part.
The DA would have to prove intent to use the weapon to illegally kill or wound another person. That's a much steeper burden than simply proving possession of a knife that could be dangerous.
Click to expand...

So, because it requires "intent," you're good with that? That is the impression I get from your post.

Didn't forget to mention it. I left it out because it is irrelevant to the issue, which is reintroducing a list of banned knives, with no substantiated cause or reason, in a state where we got rid of all the banned knives and which has not resulted in "blood in the streets."

As to your point, it doesn't matter that intent is required. First, that doesn't stop an arrest and we see plenty of folks being harassed and arrested despite intent statutes in other states. Second, it doesn't stop a prosecutor taking a case to court where the accused may or may not receive justice under the law, depending upon the judge, as we have also too often seen. Nor does it stop the prosecutor from seeking and getting a BS plea deal and it being accepted because someone doesn't have the means or desire to go through the legal process, another thing we see way too often. Fourthly, the accused will have to hire a lawyer with money out of their pocket or accept a court appointed lawyer who may or may not be adequate for the job at hand. Finally, even if you beat the rap and then try to get a "false arrest" or "malicious arrest" case going, odds are against success in our experience. "Intent" clauses are NOT the cure-all too many believe it to be. The real world just doesn't cooperate.
 
Last edited:
Critter said:
So, because it requires "intent," you're good with that? That is the impression I get from your post.

Didn't forget to mention it. I left it out because it is irrelevant to the issue, which is reintroducing a list of banned knives, with no substantiated cause or reason, in a state where we got rid of all the banned knives and which had not resulte3d in "blood in the streets."

As to your point, it doesn't matter that intent is required. First, that doens't stop an arrest and we see plenty of folks being harassed and arrested despite intent statutes in other states. Second, it doens't stop a prosecutor taking a case to court where the accused may or may not receive justice under the law, depending upon the judge, as we have also too often seen. Nor does it stop the prosecutor from seeking and getting a BS plea deal and it being accepted because someone doesn't have the means or desire to go through the legal process, another thing we see way too often. Finally, the accused will have to hire a lawyer with money out of their pocket or accept a court appointed lawyer who may or may not be adequate for the job at hand. Finally, even if you beat the rap and then try to get a "false arrest" or "malicious arrest" case going, odds are against success in our experience. "Intent" clauses are NOT the cure-all too many believe it to be. The real world just doesn't cooperate.
Click to expand...
And besides, assault with a weapon is already illegal everywhere!
 
I don't live in Kansas, but all my grandmothers brothers and sisters as well as their family lives there.
My great uncle is a good ol' boy with a bunch of land...ect and definitely loves him some knives.

Not sure how this would effect him , but in general this really sucks and is totally a step in the wrong direction.

This could easily be used as an example for others to follow suit, I can see it now.
They'll say bringing such bans back somehow stopped some number of crime, and it'll get used as an example.
They'll say " kansas reinstated W knife bans and now X Y Z crimes are low ".
 
Intent is a funky thing. You can't read minds. People with criminal intent do not usually tell the police (unless they are stupid enough to admit it). So intent has to be inferred from actions. That's where intent gets into gray areas. You can have utterly no intent to do something, but if you are acting in such a way as to make someone suspect that you have said intent, then boom, you get charged. So what happens, over the years, is that the courts interpret certain behaviors to be sufficient to prove intent, and those decisions become "case law."

There used to be a section in law of my state about "carrying a dangerous weapon with the intent to go armed." The law mentioned various objects, but then added a catchall clause of "or any other object." Which would cover anything the prosecution wanted. One of the gotchas is that "self defense" is "intent to go armed." So if you were out walking and carrying a walking stick, if you needed it for walking or hiking, you were good. If you were planning on fending off attacks, you are guilty. Baseball bat in the back seat of your car? Better have a mitt and baseball back there too.

That's why the "intent" clause can be an excuse for the state to charge people with a crime that they really aren't planning on committing. I am with Doug on that. If you are going to make it illegal to carry something, then come out and say so, no weasel words, and let the voters and courts have something unambiguous to go by when deciding whether or not to allow that.
 
I see Mr. Ritter remains both the greatest asset and biggest liability of Knife Rights. I appreciate the news updates, but the seeming inability to do it without accompanying political commentary inevitably makes me roll my eyes.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
I see Mr. Ritter remains both the greatest asset and biggest liability of Knife Rights. I appreciate the news updates, but the seeming inability to do it without accompanying political commentary inevitably makes me roll my eyes.
Click to expand...
Where is the political commentary?
 
Insipid Moniker said:
I see Mr. Ritter remains both the greatest asset and biggest liability of Knife Rights. I appreciate the news updates, but the seeming inability to do it without accompanying political commentary inevitably makes me roll my eyes.
Click to expand...
I don't see the political commentary either..

Doug, is freaking awesome and helping knife owners all across the US. Him catching flack here on a knife forum is outrageous.

ETA,I was referring to twin dogs post, but I reread the thread and I still don't see the political commentary, only factual problems that are occurring.
 
Last edited:
shinyedges said:
I don't see the political commentary either..

Doug, is freaking awesome and helping knife owners all across the US. Him catching flack here on a knife forum is outrageous.

ETA,I was referring to twin dogs post, but I reread the thread and I still don't see the political commentary, only factual problems that are occurring.
Click to expand...

My bet is the political comment and accompanied eye roll was in reference to Mr. Ritter’s opening sentence about ‘enemies of freedom’.
I don’t read it as a political statement but I can see how some might see otherwise. Irrespective of that it is ultimately a political issue of sorts as some politician is trying, yet again, to strip away certain freedoms.
Though I don’t live in Kansas I definitely appreciate the heads up and I support the work ‘Knife Rights’ is doing.
 
PNWhovian said:
My bet is the political comment and accompanied eye roll was in reference to Mr. Ritter’s opening sentence about ‘enemies of freedom’.
I don’t read it as a political statement but I can see how some might see otherwise. Irrespective of that it is ultimately a political issue of sorts as some politician is trying, yet again, to strip away certain freedoms.
Though I don’t live in Kansas I definitely appreciate the heads up and I support the work ‘Knife Rights’ is doing.
Click to expand...
Ah, I didn't take that as political commentary but I see your point. I agree with Doug, though.
 
Comeuppance said:
I fail to understand the motivation behind this proposed ban, given that Kansas is a largely conservative state with very low violent crime rates.

What does this accomplish for either the person proposing it or the people it affects? It just seems like a purposefully-vague (“dangerous knife”) addendum that will only open up channels of abuse for their legal system.
”
Click to expand...

Oh, I think it's pretty clear what the *motivation* behind virtually ALL legislation like this is. The lawmakers (and / or their elitist benefactors) want the masses unarmed while reserving that exclusive privilege for them and theirs alone. (as well as the state-sanctioned enforcers under their control)

They WANT the general public to NOT ONLY not own tools such as knives, they also want the general public to be afraid to even consider the prospect of seeking such an instrument out. (regardless of the legality)

They wish to brainwash the general public w/ a slow, repetitive process of psyops, propaganda and legislation into the belief that by & large knives and other cutting instruments are not safe nor socially acceptable to own.

In short, the *motivation* behind legislation like this is to eventually make the USA into Australia or the UK in terms of public attitude AND knife legislation.

One state at a time...small bites. And they're more than happy to take away whatever you'll passively consent to. :(
 
I do live in Kansas, and let me assure you this will never go anywhere.

Kansas is as red a state as you'll find. KCK, Topeka (where Rep. Miller was elected), and Lawrence are blue, but as a voting bloc they are nowhere near a majority, nor do they generate near enough support behind a topic such as this to create any sort of change. Sadly, this state is like many others right now, hyper-partisan to the point of immobilization. The D or R in front of your name determines what legislation moves forward. Regardless of what political idealogy you may prefer, the result is a whole lot of nothing gets done for large swathes of the state. Point being, any legislation even hinting at limiting access to any kind of weapon/tool is a non-starter in KS.

I think it would help give the proposed law (which I reiterate, will go nowhere) some context for those outside KS. KC (both sides of State Line) had a massive spike in homicides in 2017, the highest total in 24 years. This stat reflects poorly on both KS and MO, and one thing Kansans can agree on is that we'd like to see this number go down. Lawmakers are looking for answers, and to a degree, scapegoats. This legislation is to an extent a response to this rise in homicides, although it is nowhere near an agreeable or effective solution, particularly in a state like KS.

Hopefully that was non-partisan enough :)

Personal opinion time, "enemy of freedom" is a bit eye-roll :rolleyes: inducing. Hyperbole to say the least.
 
Warning issued for insults
DocJD said:
OK ! I guess the bill is just dandy then ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Nope. I don't have any idea whether this is a good or bad bill.

I pointed out that Doug Ritter's rabble-rousing post was not correct, as usual. Ritter says: "...but without mention in the bill summary it sneakily also would reinstate "dagger, dirk, ... dangerous knife, straight-edged razor, stiletto" as prohibited knives."

It does not prohibit those knives. That's a lie. It would prohibit possession of those weapons if the person was specifically intending to use those weapons to illegally kill or wound another person. Think of cops stopping a gang of white nationalists carrying guns and daggers while descending on a peaceful demonstration for immigrant rights. In that case, the cops could intervene.

But intent is very hard to prove. Criminal prosecution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Here's a primer:
https://www.americanbar.org/content..._sac/2014_sac/best_practices.authcheckdam.pdf

Ritter does nothing for knife rights. He's just in it for his own personal gain. And he targets conservatives who think liberals are going to take away their knives. So we get: "The enemies of freedom never sleep." Only Ritter can stop the evil liberals, blah, blah, blah. See his website, blah, blah, blah. Send him money, blah, blah, blah. Sign up for more marketing propaganda, blah, blah, blah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top