Originally posted by Mindz_I
Originally posted by Little claw
I'd give the Al handles a chance, the almite navigator is a great knife and there's no real disadvantge (weight, grip or feel) in having a metal handle, but if it will really bother you, get yourself a Meerkat.
TBH if I knew it was ok / legal to carry a locking folder, I'd be carrying a CF delica 
Unfortunatley the legallity of locks in the UK seems to be a really unclear point...
Unfortunately, it is not unclear. If you are arrested and charged and were, in fact, carrying a locking knife you will be found guilty. You can, however, appeal the point of law to any court equal to or higher than the the court that made the original decision.
Originally posted by Mindz_I
Originally posted by Little claw
Secondly, statute supercedes case law and staute says that a folding pocket knife with cutting edge less than 3" is excluded from the restriction on any article with blade or point.
Any chace you could clarify this, I'm not with you 100% there.
The way the law works is that statute defines the law and case law fills in the gaps. Statute law cannot be overturned by case law, only supplemented.
The relevant statute (1988 offensive weapons [amendment] act) prohibits possession of any article with blade or point (e.g. any knife, screwdriver, ice pick, skewer, corkscrew, screw, nail, tweezers, nail clippers, scissors, tooothpick, pen, pencil, needle, etc.) in a public place without good reason. This is not the only definition of an offensive weapon, but it is the pertinent one here. The exception is a folding pocket knife with a cutting edge of less than 3".
Originally posted by Mindz_I
Unforunatley as far as I'm aware, it was ruled that a folding knife in the law's eyes (in the uk) must be one which remains immediatley foldable at all times.
In the case in question, the prosecutor argued that when locked, a knife is no longer a folding knife, therefore is not excluded from being defined as an offensive weapon. The judge agreed. I, and the entire knife industry, would disagree. Bold, I know.
In a later case, which went to appeal on this point, they looked into the legislative intent of the clause. What was found was that they wanted to include Stanley-type work knives under the definition of 'article with blade or point' and not exempt them under the pocket knife clause, since they were commonly used by football hooligans at that time. i.e. possession of a knife wtith a sliding blade, without good reason, was to become an offence. "Folding" was used so as not to include "sliding" in the exemption from the definition of 'offensive weapon'. Unfortunately, the appeal judge in this case upheld the court's earlier decision. I can't remember what his reasoning was, but I remember that he said that the issue was 'absurd', and that he felt he had to uphold the conviction in spite of it.
(In both of these cases there was no question that the blade was of legal length.)
It all hinges on the definition of 'folding'. My arguement is that a folding knife which locks is still a folding knife. Any knife manufacturer, seller or user will categorise a knife where the blade
folds (as opposed to collapses) into the handle as a folding knife, regardless of whether or not there is a lock mechanism built in for safety.
Therefore the court's decision was wrong.
Why did they exclude any kind of knife at all? Because they knew that law abiding people use knives legitimately as tools and routinely carry them on a contingency basis.
The prosecutor in the original case said something to the effect of, "is able to fold in use". How does this make a slipjoint more of a tool than a lock knife? No manufacturer would admit that they design knives to fold in use, or that this makes them more utilitarian in anyway.
Therefore the court's decision was wrong.
Why do manufacturers even make knives with locks when they are more complex and expensive, why not make them without?
If a non-locking folding blade is just as useful as a locking (or by this definition 'fixed') blade. Why aren't screwdrivers and chisels made in this way?
BUT SCREWDRIVERS ARE MADE IN THIS WAY-- ON SAKs, MULTITOOLS, ETC! And where possible, they lock, because they are safer- and more utilitarian- that way. Does that make them weapons?
In 1988, locking knives were widespread and well known. Under the same legislation, many newly emerged and exotic 'weapons' were banned, including the balisong, kusari gama, manriki kusari, kyoketsushoge, spring actuated telescopic batons (but not manual ones), push daggers, hollow kubotans containing spikes, knives or spikes disguised as pens, umbrellas, etc. and blowguns. They did their research and were very specific, to the point of using non english names of the items in the legislation. They did not exclude locking pocket knives from the description of an exempt knife. If the intent had been to allow folding pocket knives but not those which locked, it would have been very easy to write this. And they didn't.
Therefore the court's decision was wrong.
In the UK prior to 1988, it was possible to carry ANY knife (with the exception of switch-blades) as long as malicious intent could not be proven. Thus the idea that a lock knife was
designed to be easily concealed and deployed as a stabbing weapon unexpectedly would have been a nonsense, particularly as very few (if any) had any kind of one hand opening feature. If this was your intent, then a bootknife or push dagger was a much better option.
Anyway, I'm tired of writing now. The preceeding arguments are why I choose to interpret the law as it is written, not as it has been misapplied, and I will argue in court if I have to.
If stopped, I may simply surrender my knife, if that is a practical option. I have been carrying a locking knife most days for about 12 years, now, and have never been in trouble with the law. I've been attacked once in that time by five adult males and I didn't use my knife (I DID call the police and they WERE useless). When I was 16 I almost severed the extensor tendon in my left index finger because my SAK folded in use. If I fail, I hope that these facts, plus the arguments offered ensure a light sentence. That is my gamble.
I am looking into what it will take to get the law clarified in our favour, but even with legal and logical arguments, there may still be political reasons why this is not possible.
I hope this helps.
Dom
PS. Anyone who can offer argument, counter argument or suggestion for re-wording would be greatly welcomed, as I expect that taking this issue to the attorney general will not be easy.
