NY State poised to enact bill classifying machetes as deadly weapons.

All the law does is include them as known deadly weapons. It has more to do with the level of crime when you use one against someone as a weapon. It does not change the ownership status of them, and in fact only protects non citizens with the added clause to section 265. The law implies that a deadly weapon when used against someone will cause serious or deadly injury, and since they certain items are defined as deadly weapon, the user knows in advance what level of force he is using as per the law. Section 35 of the NYS PL defines when force can be used and to what extent. The items listed as deadly can only be used when deadly force is deemed needed.
 
That's my understanding as well. However, it's worth mentioning here since it's a recent development. It does raise concerns over increased potential for harassment from the constabulary regarding them, though.
 
*Sigh* Just to be on the safe side, they ought to classify EVERTYTHING as a deadly weapon. A guy that knows what he's doing can kill a man with a #2 pencil. I guess school kids will have to get CCW permits to carry their pencils to school... :rolleyes:
 
I am not feeling comfortable at all with this legislation.

Nothing else on that list save a switchblade (when accompanied by fishing/hunting license and engaged in the act) is legal to possess off your property.

I was under the impression that possession of those items equaled intent to use unlawfully. I have letters to my Assemblyman, Senator, and the Senator who wrote that Bill and am waiting to hear back.
 
Illegal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (section 265.01) lists a number of weapons included in the section 10 definition of deadly weapons, but doesn't actually use that term, and so machetes don't fall under it. 265.01 also lists several weapons like sword canes and sand clubs that are not listed as deadly weapons. Subsection 5 of 265.01 uses the term "deadly weapon" but the bill would provide an exemption of machetes under that subsection. Subsection 2 describes criminal possession of deadly weapons or dangerous instruments with intent to use unlawfully, treating both classifications equally in that instance, and machetes already constituted dangerous instruments, as would things like screwdrivers etc. and other weapons of opportunity or improvisation.

I'm definitely concerned this will result in harassment of law-abiding machete users by constabulary, though, such as folks who keep a machete in their car for emergencies (like I do) and drive through an urban area. While legal under the law, law enforcement might distort things or otherwise cause issues like they have with so-called "gravity knives" in the past.
 
HeavyHanded said:
I am not feeling comfortable at all with this legislation.

Nothing else on that list save a switchblade (when accompanied by fishing/hunting license and engaged in the act) is legal to possess off your property.

I was under the impression that possession of those items equaled intent to use unlawfully. I have letters to my Assemblyman, Senator, and the Senator who wrote that Bill and am waiting to hear back.
Click to expand...

People need to open their eyes and realize how horrible strict liability crimes are. This applies to all laws, not just knife and gun crimes. The notion that possessing a certain item implies an intent to use that item unlawfully is absurd but commonplace.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Illegal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (section 265.01) lists a number of weapons included in the section 10 definition of deadly weapons, but doesn't actually use that term, and so machetes don't fall under it. 265.01 also lists several weapons like sword canes and sand clubs that are not listed as deadly weapons. Subsection 5 of 265.01 uses the term "deadly weapon" but the bill would provide an exemption of machetes under that subsection. Subsection 2 describes criminal possession of deadly weapons or dangerous instruments with intent to use unlawfully, treating both classifications equally in that instance, and machetes already constituted dangerous instruments, as would things like screwdrivers etc. and other weapons of opportunity or improvisation.

I'm definitely concerned this will result in harassment of law-abiding machete users by constabulary, though, such as folks who keep a machete in their car for emergencies (like I do) and drive through an urban area. While legal under the law, law enforcement might distort things or otherwise cause issues like they have with so-called "gravity knives" in the past.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope this is nothing more than a slight bit of legal clarification, but until I hear back I am not convinced. This could easily lead to me being arrested on the thruway en route to the Adirondacks or elsewhere, to say nothing about routine transportation locally etc etc. Would be small comfort to be released a day later with charges dropped.

I also asked the author of this Bill for letters/emails from LE or prosecutors offices stating their inability to effectively do their jobs without this legislation.
 
I guess anyone in NY with concerns could buy a parang, bill hook, cutlass, taiga, bolo or khukuri instead of the named "machete".

Kind of like how when they banned ".50 caliber rifles" in CA, someone almost immediately came up with something like a .48 rifle based on the same case and action. Laws written by people that don't understand the thing they are legislating are pretty easy to find loopholes.
 
They are fearful of the wave of machete attacks. The cleaver will be next. Then the Sheetrock hammer.
 
Feeling a little better. Now If I'm being hauled off for simple possession I can scream "Call Frank Alkkofer - he can explain everything!"


although I fail to understand how one would not be charged with misdemeanor weapon charge prior to this legislation...

Hello Martin; Senator Robach is in receipt of your mail regarding S3199. This legislation defines that a person using a machete during the course of a crime would be charged with a misdemeanor. A person caring a machete for use as a tool or for recreational use would not violate any law. I hope this clarifies the intent of the law for you. If you have any questions regarding this legislation please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Click to expand...

Martin
 
Good to know it looks like I was interpreting the bill correctly.
 
If a machete is classed as a deadly weapon if used in a deadly manner why make it illegal for any body to posses. The people who want to use them as a weapon will get them regardless. most knife laws are stupid
 
kokoek9 said:
If a machete is classed as a deadly weapon if used in a deadly manner why make it illegal for any body to posses. The people who want to use them as a weapon will get them regardless. most knife laws are stupid
Click to expand...

It doesn't make them illegal to possess. It just allows for harsher sentencing when they're involved in crimes. :)
 
I don't really see the point. They can charge AWDW for attacking someone with a 2x4.
 
From what I can sort out, it's not a "deadly weapon" unless defined as one, regardless of if it's able to cause severe injury or death. It would only classify as a "dangerous instrument" otherwise, from a legal perspective.
 
Thought I explained this above, but lets try again....The effect of calling it a deadly weapon has to do with advanced knowledge that use of it as a weapon falls under the guidelines of use of deadly force and under section 35 of the NYPL there are different levels of allowable use of force. If an item is labelled as a deadly weapon, then you can only lawfully use it when DEADLY force is allowed under section 35. This takes the burden of proof of your intent to use deadly force off the DA as the law now implies use of it as a weapon is now defacto that deadly force was used, Now all the DA has to prove is deadly force was not warranted under section 35....That's all folks....It simply makes use of it as a weapon is known deadly force and it elimates the issue as to what level of force was used ...Take a look at the section 35 as reading it will help:

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top