Knife law interpertation

Joined
Jul 29, 1999
Messages
122
I have a question on this portion of knife law in my state.


Alaska - Article 2, Section 11.61.200. Misconduct involving weapons in the first degree. (a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the first degree if the person... (3) manufactures, possesses, transports, sells, or transfers a prohibited weapon... (e) As used in this section, (1) "prohibited weapon" means any... (D) switchblade or gravity knife... a gravity knife is one in which the blade opens, falls into place, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity or by centrifugal force.

- 11.61.220. (a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the third degree if the person (1) knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocketknife, that is concealed on the person.
(b) In a prosecution under (a)(1) of this section, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant was... (1) in the defendant's dwelling... (2) actually engaged in hunting,
fishing, trapping, or other lawful outdoor activity that necessarily involves the carrying of a weapon for personal protection.


In the last section "(2) actually engaged in hunting, fishing, trapping, or other lawful outdoor activity that necessarily involves the carrying of a weapon for personal protection."
Walking down the street is a lawful outdoor activity that could need a weapon for personal protection.
Is this a fair interpetation of this law or do you think I'm stretching it?
Not that I'm considering carrying and illegal knife but could this be possible justification.

------------------
Jake P
Anchorage,Alaska

 
If you review court cases in most any state you will find the results very, very inconsistent. It's not hard to find to virtually identical cases with absolutely different outcomes. It's not like traffic court where there's a list: 65 in a 45 is so many dollars fine for first offense, etc. In criminal court, and especially where weapons law is concerned, it all depends on what your lawyer can convince the jury of.

If you're ever faced with this type of situation, do what OJ did. Use every penny you have to hire the absolutely best lawyer you can and pay for all the jury consultants, experts, etc., he feels he needs.

Sorry to have to say it, but all to often justice is not free. OJ, however, is.


------------------
Chuck
Balisongs -- because it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!
http://www.4cs.net/~gollnick
 
If Alaska courts are anything like the courts farther south, they'll look a lot more kindly upon carrying a big revolver while fishing in bear country than they will upon carrying a boot knife while walking in dubious people country. Never tell a cop you are carrying a knife "for protection."


------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001
 
Back
Top