Knife collection in NYC and other states

tom19176 said:
jkarp as long as (for NYC) the blade in under 4", and and for all of NY State it can not be flicked open if it locks then you are OK as long as your stated reason for carry is not for use as a weapon.

hydrasmith, everyone of those I have seen can be easily flicked open, so yes they would be illegal.
Click to expand...

thank you very much, I get the idea now, before I thought only balisongs are illegal.

So NY is one of the most knife - not - friendly States.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
"law abiding" is a hollow and meaningless title to bestow upon anyone.
Click to expand...

You have some good points, but this is exactly the problem. There are so many different laws and regulations it's not possible for a person to obey every single one (unless they are in a coma or something...). I've heard lots of officers say "not knowing the law is no excuse for breaking it" , I say of course it is! How is the average person supposed to know every rule and regulation? They can't! I just think it's a shame that good intentioned people are forced to play this game and possibly be deemed a criminal just so that the county and state can make money. Don't get me wrong, there are some well needed laws out there that I believe do better society, but there are lots of laws out there that aren't necessary and burden honest people. BTW, I would definitely ticket someone who was parked in a handicapped zone, even for a few minutes. My father is disabled and you'd be suprised how hard it is for someone in that condition to get around, especially when they can't find a good parking spot.
 
Here's a question. I've read NY states law on weapons and since I don't want to carry a flickable locking knife and be charged with something would it be better if I carried something like my Benchmade 211 activator (fixed blade, wood handles, blade less then 2 and a half inches). I don't see how it could be considered a dirk or dagger so it seems it would be OK to carry right?
 
As a NY resident dont be fooled at the "written laws".
They mean absolutely NOTHING.
If the NYPD wants your knives- they will take 'em.
They will use the "plain sight" excuse, the "automatic excuse", the "gravity" excuse ect ect.
NY makes laws as they see fit. They DONT abide by federal law.
A case in point:
A motorcyclist is using the HOV lane -(by federal law they are legal). But in NYC if a cop wants to write you up he will. You will go to court and you will LOSE. Thats a FACT because it happened to a friend of mine.
NYC is for the politically connected, illegal aliens and criminals.
Everyone else...just hold on to your wallet.
 
suedeface said:
You have some good points, but this is exactly the problem. There are so many different laws and regulations it's not possible for a person to obey every single one (unless they are in a coma or something...). I've heard lots of officers say "not knowing the law is no excuse for breaking it" , I say of course it is! How is the average person supposed to know every rule and regulation? They can't! I just think it's a shame that good intentioned people are forced to play this game and possibly be deemed a criminal just so that the county and state can make money. Don't get me wrong, there are some well needed laws out there that I believe do better society, but there are lots of laws out there that aren't necessary and burden honest people. BTW, I would definitely ticket someone who was parked in a handicapped zone, even for a few minutes. My father is disabled and you'd be suprised how hard it is for someone in that condition to get around, especially when they can't find a good parking spot.
Click to expand...

your correct, no one can know every law. there are far too many different codes and sections and bureaus, from cities to counties to districts to states, and on and on.

however, the onus is still on us to know and obey. most are common sense, some are obscure.

scarysharp said:
As a NY resident dont be fooled at the "written laws".
They mean absolutely NOTHING.
If the NYPD wants your knives- they will take 'em.
They will use the "plain sight" excuse, the "automatic excuse", the "gravity" excuse ect ect.
NY makes laws as they see fit. They DONT abide by federal law.
A case in point:
A motorcyclist is using the HOV lane -(by federal law they are legal). But in NYC if a cop wants to write you up he will. You will go to court and you will LOSE. Thats a FACT because it happened to a friend of mine.
NYC is for the politically connected, illegal aliens and criminals.
Everyone else...just hold on to your wallet.
Click to expand...

any state, city, or county can pass a law that is more restrictive than a federal law, but not more lenient.

if nyc wants to make it illegal for motorcycles to travel in the hov lane, then they can.

you have little understanding of how the legal system works. save your pointless rants for whine and cheese.
 
hydrasmith said:
thank you very much, I get the idea now, before I thought only balisongs are illegal.

So NY is one of the most knife - not - friendly States.
Click to expand...

ny is one of the least weapon friendly states, not just knives. they like guns even less than california.
 
In other than NYC parts of NY state there have been about five cases that have determined that since butterfly knives do not lock open without additional action taken by the user, they are not "gravity" knives. They are however viewed as "dangerous" knives due to their design for primary use as a weapon.

See the law:

New York - Penal Law Section 265.01. 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

and intent is defined by possession:

... The possession by any person of any dagger, dirk,
stiletto, dangerous knife or any other weapon, instrument,
appliance or substance designed, made or adapted for use
primarily as a weapon, is presumptive evidence of intent
to use the same unlawfully against another.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many real "gravity knives" (German WWII issue) and switchblades (U.S. WWII issue) remain hidden away in the cellars and attics of the widows of WWII veterans living in New York. Just think...these old ladies are technically felons and they don't even know it thanks to stupid anti-knife laws that do absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime
 
i have a real one, I was gonna bring it to the court to show them what a real one looks like but I thought better of it.:D
 
I wonder if the knife companies will one day say "hey, these aren't gravity knives, leave us alone"
 
MORIMOTOM said:
i didn't intend to be confrontational, but rereading im sure that is how it sounds.

i have arrested more than a few people who say they are "law abiding citizens". if that were the case, they wouldn't be getting arrested, at least in that instance.

if one has a case full of items they know to be illegal, how are they law abiding?

"law abiding" is a hollow and meaningless title to bestow upon anyone.

if someone only breaks traffic laws, the least severe of any law (the majority are infractions), are they law abiding or not?

if someone only breaks laws they find unreasonable, are they law abiding? many people feel illegal narcotics should be made legal. that opinion cannot affect whether the laws are enforced.

we may feel that the ny knife laws are poorly written, poorly enforced, whatever the case may be. but thinking the police should not enforce these does not justify one's possession of illegal items. this applies to any law.

if i stop a speeder who thinks the basic speed law is unreasonable, should i not enforce the law for that driver because he thinks it is unfair?

should i not cite someone who parks in a handicap parking space since they were only there for a couple minutes?

i can understand being bothered by an officer who comes at the request of a resident, then "confiscates" illegal items he/she sees. however, should the officer ignore the items when the resident has illegal items on display? where is the line drawn? illegal narcotics in plain view?

and harrassment would be illegal. the police enforcing laws you find unreasonable is not harrassment.
Click to expand...

Moral of the story: if you want the laws changed, the time to do that is when you vote, not when you break the law. Vote out the miserable politicians who put these laws on the books or promote the perverted interpretation of them (Bloomberg). Giving the cop a ration of crap for doing his job is not the right tactic.

That being said, I have a number of locking folders (not autos) in my nighttable drawer, with my wallet, keys, pens, etc. Is that "plain view" since it's not locked?
 
Plain view means just that: it must be visible without any search. That said a officer responding to domestic dispute might be deemed to be conducting a "reasonable" search for checking a nightable draw if it is easliy accessable to one of the two involved in the dispute and that person is close enough to access the unlocked drawer. Two days ago, in Nassau County the police responded to a buglary and saw a credit card coping machine and blank cards. Yes they arrested the home owner.
 
tom19176 said:
Plain view means just that: it must be visible without any search. That said a officer responding to domestic dispute might be deemed to be conducting a "reasonable" search for checking a nightable draw if it is easliy accessable to one of the two involved in the dispute and that person is close enough to access the unlocked drawer. Two days ago, in Nassau County the police responded to a buglary and saw a credit card coping machine and blank cards. Yes they arrested the home owner.
Click to expand...

Well, then I'll be sure to be real nice to the wife then. :eek:

As long as the dummies in this state (NY) continue to elect the likes of Hillary, Carolyn McCarthy, Schumer, Sheldon Silver, Bloomberg, etc., they have nothing to complain about. The folks upstate just don't get it: if they don't want to be like NYC, why do they keep supporting NYC-type politicians?
 
tom19176 said:
Locking folders in and of themselves are not illegal, however, if they can be flicked open then they are a gravity knife, and therefore illegal. In all NYS the word possession means that you have control over the item and yes this includes your house ( or anywhere). They go to great pains in the NYPL to state the difference between possessing an illegal firearm in a house as compared to on your person in the street. The basic answer to your question in NY is that if they lock and can be flicked open they are illegal anywhere you have them. The best solution is to obtain a fishing license ($16.50) and some tackle, and then you can legally own them in your house and carry them to and from fishing.....
Click to expand...

Does that mean that all Spyderco folders (liner lock or lockback, spyder drop from holding the blade) are illegal in NYC?
 
MORIMOTOM said:
i have arrested more than a few people who say they are "law abiding citizens". if that were the case, they wouldn't be getting arrested, at least in that instance.

if someone only breaks laws they find unreasonable, are they law abiding? many people feel illegal narcotics should be made legal. that opinion cannot affect whether the laws are enforced.

we may feel that the ny knife laws are poorly written, poorly enforced, whatever the case may be. but thinking the police should not enforce these does not justify one's possession of illegal items. this applies to any law.

if i stop a speeder who thinks the basic speed law is unreasonable, should i not enforce the law for that driver because he thinks it is unfair?
Click to expand...
The reason we give our police officers and district attorneys the right to decide who gets arrested, and who gets prosecuted, is that we want human beings enforcing the law... not robots.

If we discount the concept of laws being written and voted on simply to be re-elected (which applies to most laws), and assume that laws are written for a reason, then we must conclude that possession and carry laws for knives (since we're talking about it at the moment, but applies to all weapons) have been written to protect people.

So here's a question to you. If, as a law enforcement officer, you see that enforcing a particular law, in a particular case, will not result in any benefit for society, and will rather result in an otherwise productive and peaceful person getting into trouble, will you really not think twice about whether or not the law is applicable in this instance?

Because if the answer is "no", then I think that our society will eventually collapse, simply because every politician feels that they need to write new laws to be recognized, and if every law enforcement officer feels the need to enforce ALL of those laws, at ALL times, then we will simply wind up with most of our population in prison. Cardinal Richelieu was right when he famously wrote: "Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."

I hope I am not offending you, because that is not my intention. I have the utmost respect for the very hard profession of law enforcement, and thankful to the men and women who put themselves in harm's way every day.

I am merely talking based on my own experience. My colleagues in the medical profession, will often skirt rules and regulations, if they feel that a particular course of action will benefit the patient... and they actually stand to lose their jobs, and their livelihood, if they are wrong, or if someone reports them. Yet they feel like their ethics prohibit them from doing doing harm. Sort of like "serve and protect"...

The fact that something is legal or illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. At one point, slavery was completely legal. Does that mean that law enforcement officers were compelled to enforce it, regardless? Making the law into something static and unmovable is a scary suggestion.
 
ill try and address your points, if not, feel free to repost any questions or comments that go unanswered.

no, we dont want robots enforcing the law, or in any profession where contact with people is the key to a successful career. this, in and of itself, results in at least two serious concerns.

1. not everyone is going to agree with the way an agency or individual officer performs their duties.
2. people make mistakes. but law enforcement officers are judged not by the end result, necessarily, but how the situation appeared at the time to that particular officer, and whether another officer with similar training and experience would reasonably have acted in the same way.

many laws are selectively enforced, ie, the officer is not legally obligated to cite/arrest. most traffic laws and many misdemeanor or lesser crimes fall under this category.

felonies are "shall enforce" laws. i am obligated to make an arrest when a felony has been committed and i have a suspect detained. but there is even some flexibility regarding felony crimes.

everyone is different, and it takes all kinds to make a department successful. you have the officers who are great at pr, officers who love to enforce traffic laws, narco, swat, etc. most find a niche and work within that framework.

some will arrest on all narco violations, regardless of circumstances. some will arrest on the felonies, but not for marijuana.

there are statistic driven agencies, and there are service oriented agencies. LAPD is stat driven, Fullerton PD is service oriented.

stat driven agencies look at the number of arrests in various categories (including citations), and report their effectivness in that manner. service driven agencies tend to look at stats as a secondary priority, and many calls are pr contacts. they will take reports and sometimes conduct investigations that another agency will not have the manpower to complete; missing weather vanes, damaged lawn gnomes, etc. it depends on the clientele, the number of officers per citizen, and the level of crimes occurring most often within a reporting district.

NYPD has over 20,000 officers. as i understand, they are a combination of service and enforcement. LAPD has under 9000 officers, and one of the most densely populated cities in the country. roughly 15 million people live within their jurisdiction. there is no way LAPD could provide the same type of service as NYPD. simply not enough personnel.

if every law was always enforced, society would not collapse. that's a bit over dramatic. but the jails would be full, the courts will be backlogged, and ultimately that agency would have to start to make different choices about how the service their community. in los angeles, the jails are already full and the courts backlogged. but within the city of l.a., are many of the most violent places in the country. nearly all weapons laws are enforced, without predjudice.

i am given quite a bit of discretion regarding enforcement. it is highly unlikely i would enforce a lower level felony on an elementary school student. that same crime commited by a teenager may require prosectution. cirumstances often dictate the outcome and my personal involvement.


in your profession, you are mostly guided by policy, not law. violating policy or procedure is not the same thing as violating a law. if a doctor feels a particular act, or ommission of an act, is not in the best interest of the patient, their moral dilemna becomes whether or not to violate policy or act, as they believe, in the best interest of the patient.

police officers act in this way all the time, but it is not quantifiable, and no one discusses this. people rarely talk of the positive contacts they have had, but would rather rant about the one negative contact they had, or heard about from some third or fourth party.


The fact that something is legal or illegal doesn't make it right or wrong. At one point, slavery was completely legal. Does that mean that law enforcement officers were compelled to enforce it, regardless? Making the law into something static and unmovable is a scary suggestion.
Click to expand...


this last section is a bit muddled. you've taken something out of context and attempted to apply it to today. slavery was once legal. it was legal to own another human being and basically treat that person as the owner saw fit. culturally, it was seen differently than we see it today.

there was also little law enforcement to speak of. constables, local sheriff's, and the army enforced many laws. organized law enforcement agencies were few until the late 1800's, even then many were basically mercenary types like the pinkertons.

if a slave ran away, he was property and the owner had the right to have that property returned. in that sense, whoever was responsible was obligated to enforce those laws, to some degree. might we view the hypothetical confederate soldier who helped slaves run away as a hero? today, surely we would. in the mid 19th century, he would likely have been viewed very differently.

is that right or wrong? then, per the laws of the various states, it was right. today, and in other states at that time, it was wrong. but, ultimately, comparing eras in history is a slippery slope. many of our early presidents are still considered great men. but many were slave owners, does that make them any less great? we shouldn't force our values on those who lived hundreds of years ago and expect there to be some congruity and have it be meaningful. but the past has great influence on our laws today and the moral/ethical stance we take regarding such issues.

if something is illegal, it is wrong. if you do something illegal, you are in the wrong. no way around that. whether you agree or not is not relevant as far as any court is concerned. while appropriate in some cases, try not to confuse what is legal and what is moral. the two most often dont mix. the simplest example are traffic violations. most are based on the safety of drivers and pedestrians, but many are not. some seem entirely arbitrary. there is no moral/ethical stance for double parking. there is no moral/ethical stance for failing to stop at a stop sign (in and of itself).

your opinion about any particular law will have no influence on whether it is enforced when you commit the violation.

and laws are updated, eliminated, or added constantly. in that sense they are not static or immovable, but they must be clear, and too much change results in unenforceable laws. language to clarify or include additional violations or exceptions is quite common. this has always been the case. im not sure what you find scary, you need to quantify that last statement.


wow, my longest post ever. hope i have cleared up at least some of your questions and concerns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top