Critter
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,780
This past Friday, Knife Rights filed its response to New York City's Motion to Dismiss in our Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit against New York City and District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. As with the DA's earlier motion, the City's motion was expected and is pro forma in a case such as this.
Much of the City's motion simply aped the DA's, but they did manage to come up with their own ludicrous interpretation and expansion of the New York state statute on gravity knives, claiming that somehow the fact that these knives do not require two hands to open is part and parcel of the statute: "If a person is in possession of a knife that can be opened with centrifugal force and locks in the open position by means of a device without the use of the other hand, it is a gravity knife,..." (emphasis added).
As before with the DA's motion, the Knife Rights legal team, led by attorney David Jensen, have sliced and diced the City's absurd arguments, laying waste to their arrogant, ill-conceived and baseless motion.
To quote from the introduction: "The City seeks judgment on the pleadings for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. To do so, the City embarks on a fanciful journey that selectively ignores the extensive evidence...Plaintiffs have provided..."
"This is an unconstitutionally vague application of the gravity knife law. The gravity knife law does not provide adequate notice that knives that are designed and intended not to open by gravity or centrifugal force might be prohibited, and the operative test employed by the NYPD is entirely subjective. It is literally possible for one knife to be simultaneously legal and illegal, and a person has no means of conforming his or her conduct to the law's expectations.
The two documents make for interesting, perhaps even entertaining, reading:
Knife Rights Response in Opposition to New York City's Motion to Dismiss
New York City's Motion to Dismiss
Much of the City's motion simply aped the DA's, but they did manage to come up with their own ludicrous interpretation and expansion of the New York state statute on gravity knives, claiming that somehow the fact that these knives do not require two hands to open is part and parcel of the statute: "If a person is in possession of a knife that can be opened with centrifugal force and locks in the open position by means of a device without the use of the other hand, it is a gravity knife,..." (emphasis added).
As before with the DA's motion, the Knife Rights legal team, led by attorney David Jensen, have sliced and diced the City's absurd arguments, laying waste to their arrogant, ill-conceived and baseless motion.
To quote from the introduction: "The City seeks judgment on the pleadings for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. To do so, the City embarks on a fanciful journey that selectively ignores the extensive evidence...Plaintiffs have provided..."
"This is an unconstitutionally vague application of the gravity knife law. The gravity knife law does not provide adequate notice that knives that are designed and intended not to open by gravity or centrifugal force might be prohibited, and the operative test employed by the NYPD is entirely subjective. It is literally possible for one knife to be simultaneously legal and illegal, and a person has no means of conforming his or her conduct to the law's expectations.
The two documents make for interesting, perhaps even entertaining, reading:
Knife Rights Response in Opposition to New York City's Motion to Dismiss
New York City's Motion to Dismiss
