most knife friendly state

Vermont's pretty wide open. Conceal anything (including a handgun) without permit. Blade limit is 5" though (open carry has no limit).

I'm pretty happy living here in AZ. People are amazed that you can buy switchblades at the freaking mall.
 
Watchful said:
Nope. I didn't reference it because it has nothing to do with knife length.

The "intent" portion of the law, which you cited, refers to basically carrying anything with intent to use it against another. So if I had a knife of even two-inches with the intent of using it unlawfully against another person, it would be illegal to carry.*

The statute I cited sets a maximum length of 3" within the state for legal carry (i.e., regardless of intent). As you know, municipalities are free to set that even lower, although I'm not sure any do.

I interpreted your earlier post to claim that Illinois does not set a length limit for knives, and indeed, the state does.

*The intent law is there as insurance against a guy taking any object and walking around with it as a weapon (a sharpened railroad spike, for one crazy example, or a simple letter opener as a less crazy example).
Click to expand...

Every single LEO (including my county's sheriff) and lawyer (I've only asked about three of them) that I showed the law to (I carry a copy of Illinois knife laws in my wallet) interpreted it as I (and many people on this forum) do: You can carry any blade length, any time, anywhere (as long as there is no local ban), as long as there is no intent on your part. If they can't prove intent, they've got no case, whether your blade is 1 inch or 10 inches.

An interesting note, is that if you are found in possesion of a knife over 3" in blade length while in the process of commiting a crime, even if the crime is non-violent, they'll tack on a weapons charge in order to hit you harder.
 
Last edited:
Gunfucius said:
You can carry any blade length, any time, anywhere (as long as there is no local ban), as long as there is no intent on your part.
Click to expand...
What is their interpretation of 720 ILCS 5/33A-1 (b)? It's pretty much right there.

An interesting note, is that if you are found in possesion of a knife over 3" in blade length while in the process of commiting a crime, even if the crime is non-violent, they'll tack on a weapons charge in order to hit you harder.
Click to expand...
Agreed: that's covered as part of Illinois Criminal Code 720 ILCS 5/24-1, which you highlighted in red in your reply to me. I agree that your scenario (in process of committing a crime) is covered by the intent clause.
 
Colorado's pretty wide open, unless you happen to be in one of the major incorporated cities (Denver, Colorado Springs, Aspen, etc.).
 
So driving across America you'd need to go for presliced bread or be a real fundi on knife law.

From the outside looking in it is very difficult to understand why are some states so very very anti? The type and history of crime? Or is there a cartel of lawyers onto a good thing?
 
Tim-Gabz said:
So driving across America you'd need to go for presliced bread or be a real fundi on knife law.
Click to expand...
Correct. It gets worse, because as you drive through towns and cities, their laws can change again on you. It's just as complicated with firearms in some locations.
Tim-Gabz said:
From the outside looking in it is very difficult to understand why are some states so very very anti? The type and history of crime? Or is there a cartel of lawyers onto a good thing?
Click to expand...
That's a great question. What follows is my own sociological opinion. I base it on nothing other than what I can figure out.

It depends a lot of whether there are large urban populations, multiplied by the economic history of the state.

Large older populations based in manufacturing areas (New England area, Detroit, my own Chicago, etc.) tend to be the most anti-weapon, because they have large, densely packed populations.

Smaller communities, being less densely packed, have more agreeable laws. This makes Vermont an exception to my "New England" cluster, above.

Younger (by which I mean "Statehood in the last 150 years") also tend to be easier on knives because the frontier history of the state means knives were essential. Everybody from the Western Plains over to the Rockies, for example.

And states whose economic history is more agricultural than manufacturing also tend to be easier on knives because, again, they were essential tools. Most of the South, Southwest, for example.

Bottom line: the more dense the population (especially if the majority of the state's population lives in 1-2 old cities), the more likely they will be anti-knife and anti-gun.
 
Tim-Gabz said:
So driving across America you'd need to go for presliced bread or be a real fundi on knife law.

From the outside looking in it is very difficult to understand why are some states so very very anti? The type and history of crime? Or is there a cartel of lawyers onto a good thing?
Click to expand...

Although Watchful answered this quite well, I'd like to add that some areas have, in the last few years, become havens for liberal, hippie, soccer-mom types who are out to "civilize" the residents, usually by force of law and PC arguments. I think of Colorado, Washington state, Oregon, etc in this category.
Of course, California is the original hippie/liberal haven and very PC/anti-weapon.
A good rule of thumb might be that if it's full of tree-hugger environmentalists, gay-rights activists and 'zero tolerance' school boards, it's pretty much anti-self defense/anti-knife/anti-gun.

I don't mean to start a flame-war here, just the $.02 of a Texan. :D

Edit: Oregon (as mentioned before) may be an exception. However a search of Oregon statutes says it's illegal to carry a switchblade concealed. Also, any knife which is not "an ordinary pocketknife" is considered a weapon. (ORS 166.360)
But the definition of "ordinary' is not stated. ??
 
Last edited:
flashlife said:
... I think of Colorado, Washington state, Oregon, etc in this category. Of course, California is the original hippie/liberal haven and very PC/anti-weapon.
Click to expand...
Those fit into my framework.

Denver (the combined Denver, Boulder, Aurora combined statistical area that is) is an old established community that represents half the population of Colorado. More than half the population is in a dense, old city and sets the tone for the less than half.

Washington state is the same way. Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia CSA is over half the population of the whole state. They set the tone for the rest of the state.

Oregon, I don't know how lax or tight they are about knives based on your assessment.

California is very obviously dominated by its metropolitan centers.

Interestingly, Texas is more urban than rural these days, but the growth of the big Texan population centers is a little more recent. Same for Arizona: Phoenix dominates the state, but only in the last 50 years did it become a monster city.

I would not be surprised if, in 25 years, the cities start driving anti-weapon ordinances that eventually work their way to becoming statutes in Texas and Arizona. That's what happened in Illinois: Chicago won out. Ditto for Wisconsin: Milwaukee won out.
 
Watchful said:
Interestingly, Texas is more urban than rural these days, but the growth of the big Texan population centers is a little more recent. Same for Arizona: Phoenix dominates the state, but only in the last 50 years did it become a monster city.

I would not be surprised if, in 25 years, the cities start driving anti-weapon ordinances that eventually work their way to becoming statutes in Texas and Arizona. That's what happened in Illinois: Chicago won out. Ditto for Wisconsin: Milwaukee won out.
Click to expand...

Well, in 25 years I'll be gone, but perhaps all the knives I leave to my sons will be worth something...beside sentimental value.

Texas is still very self-defense friendly. Latest ruling is that one may carry a gun in their car at any time for SD. It used to be an 'affirmative defense" that you had one in the car while "traveling", but traveling was not defined.
And affirmative defense meant that you'd still be arrested, but that you could probably get off in court with your 'traveling' defense.

Texas also recently passed its 'castle doctrine" law, in which one has NO obligation to retreat in the face of a threat, and may use deadly force at home, work, car, etc.

Texas still has a law on the books that lethal force may be used to prevent 'criminal mischief' on your property after dark. This is a throwback to the "night rider' days, when folks would be terrorized at night by barn burners, etc. The law has served to acquit folks who shot repo-men taking their cars, and burglars in their front yard carrying off their TV. But that law is only a defense after dark. Don't shoot the repoman nor the TV carrying burglar before sunset...unless they pose a serious bodily threat, then the castle doctrine kicks in.
 
Gunfucius said:
I'm interested to hear what happened.
Click to expand...

actually since you mentioned the fact of if you commit a crime even if it wasnt violent one that they tack that charge on you anyway it makes more sense. The one thing though i realize is even if your case does eventually get dropped it might not prevent you from a field trip to the jail. It can be a headache to say the least, and i feel it all has to do with the individual LEO you have to deal with at that given moment.
 
Shooting Repo men. Now that is probably why Botswana does not allow hand guns, answering an old question of mine. It would probably be the main cause of death replacing AIDS and drinking/driving.

I am a Quantity Surveyor through my 1st BSc and one of the things was to ensure accurate descriptions of building products, procedures and methods with no ambiguity. Very often a benchmark product was used with "or other approved....". anything wishy-washy was thrown back at you.


Logic and consistency just never applies. At the speed I drive I would need a legal plug in to my GPS. That is an interesting idea ?
 
Watchful said:
What is their interpretation of 720 ILCS 5/33A-1 (b)? It's pretty much right there.
Click to expand...

That the "dangerous weapon" part only applies if criminal intent can be proven, or the person carrying the knife is in the process of commiting a crime. Otherwise, it doesn't apply to non- automatic or double-edged knives. Whether it applies to objects other than knives wasn't discussed. I'm sure, however, that there are officers out there who would try and say that my carrying a knife with an over 3 inch blade was de-facto evidence of criminal intent.
 
Last edited:
Gunfucius said:
That the "dangerous weapon" part only applies if criminal intent can be proven, or the person carrying the knife is in the process of commiting a crime.
Click to expand...
Nowhere is intent mentioned in 720 ILCS 5/33A-1 (b). 720 ILCS 5/33A-1 (b) is *not* ancillary to 720 ILCS 5/24-1. It's an independent statute. You cannot read these as a novel: they have to be read individually, unless specifically cross-referenced.

I'll translate:

720 ILCS 5/24-1: A person breaks the law if he carries a dagger, dirk, club, knife, razor, etc., or anything really, with the knowledge and intention of using it against another person.

720 ILCS 5/33A-1 (b): A LEO will considered you armed and dangerous if you carry a knife with a blade of at least 3 inches in length, or any dagger, dirk, switchblade knife, etc.

Either one applies without support or requirement of the other.

By your interpretation of the law, you're saying it's okay in Illinois to carry a switchblade on your person provided you don't intend to use it against somebody (because it's not listed in 720 ILCS 5/24-1)... and you know that isn't true.

Otherwise, it doesn't apply to non- automatic or double-edged knives.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Both statutes specifically list dirks and daggers as dangerous weapons. If you re-read your post where you quoted the pertinent sections, dirks (a fixed blade) and daggers (a double-edged weapon) are both listed.

Whether it applies to objects other than knives wasn't discussed.
Click to expand...

It is: "broken bottle or other piece of glass... or any other dangerous or deadly weapon of like character..."

I'm sure, however, that there are officers out there who would try and say that my carrying a knife with an over 3 inch blade was de-facto evidence of criminal intent.
Click to expand...
No doubt; and there are also a large number of LEOs (I optimistically believe the majority) who can sum up the situation and realize you or I are not going to be running around stabbing folks with a 6" fixed blade, and so let it pass without mention.
 
The answer is.... you will never be able to find an answer.

You cannot logically make sense of something inherently illogical. That is why we have a hard time understanding women. :D
 
Watchful said:
Nowhere is intent mentioned in 720 ILCS 5/33A-1 (b). 720 ILCS 5/33A-1 (b) is *not* ancillary to 720 ILCS 5/24-1. It's an independent statute. You cannot read these as a novel: they have to be read individually, unless specifically cross-referenced.

I'll translate:

720 ILCS 5/24-1: A person breaks the law if he carries a dagger, dirk, club, knife, razor, etc., or anything really, with the knowledge and intention of using it against another person.

720 ILCS 5/33A-1 (b): A LEO will considered you armed and dangerous if you carry a knife with a blade of at least 3 inches in length, or any dagger, dirk, switchblade knife, etc.

Either one applies without support or requirement of the other.

By your interpretation of the law, you're saying it's okay in Illinois to carry a switchblade on your person provided you don't intend to use it against somebody (because it's not listed in 720 ILCS 5/24-1)... and you know that isn't true.


Incorrect. Both statutes specifically list dirks and daggers as dangerous weapons. If you re-read your post where you quoted the pertinent sections, dirks (a fixed blade) and daggers (a double-edged weapon) are both listed.



It is: "broken bottle or other piece of glass... or any other dangerous or deadly weapon of like character..."


No doubt; and there are also a large number of LEOs (I optimistically believe the majority) who can sum up the situation and realize you or I are not going to be running around stabbing folks with a 6" fixed blade, and so let it pass without mention.
Click to expand...

I suppose you could be right, but I haven't met a single person, LEO or otherwise, who interprets it that way.

I think solidsoldier said it best:

solidsoldier said:
The answer is.... you will never be able to find an answer.

You cannot logically make sense of something inherently illogical. That is why we have a hard time understanding women. :D
Click to expand...

:D
 
Heh heh heh, dem buggers have you coming and going! So we can define anyone with a blade over 3" as campers - living in-tent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top