Questions about def. of interstate commerse and "concealed."

D

darth kcorbe

Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
169
This is purely hypothetical.

I live in Alabama. Here it is legal to own and carry (unconcealed) automatic knives.
First, regarding interstate commerce:
Suppose I went to a shop outside AL, say Smokey Mountain Knife Works, and bought an auto there. Would/could taking that knife back home with me constitute "interstate commerce," thus making it illegal?

Second: what exactly does "concealed" mean?
One might think this a obvious term but, as we know, it takes at least three full paragraphs to eliminate loopholes and that's a double edged sword. Would a closed pouch on the belt be considered concealed? what about carried in a pocket, but with a clip visible? Or perhaps "what couldn't be considered CC?" would be a better question?

And i'm feeling in a Libertarian mood, so feel free to tell stories of these terms being twisted and/or abused by "the man."
 
I assume that you were planning to purchase an item or two at Smokey Mountain Knife Works for your personal use, not to mark it up and sell it as part of a retail business. Interstate commerce would not be a consideration, since the sale was made face-to-face within a state and not a matter of a wholesaler shipping across state lines to a retailer. Good to know about possession of auto-openers in AL, though. I purchased property in Fairhope, AL in anticipation of my retirement in six years, so I plan to become well-acquainted with the knife laws (and firearms laws, since I am also a gun owner) in that state.

Concealed means not visible in any way. If you can see any part of a knife, firearm, or other weapon that someone is carrying, then it is not truly concealed.
 
TOM1960 said:
Concealed means not visible in any way. If you can see any part of a knife, firearm, or other weapon that someone is carrying, then it is not truly concealed.
Click to expand...


this is exactly how i would define it as well.

if any recognizable and/or identifiable portion of any item is visible, it is not concealed. likewise a visible belt pouch is not concealed.

one could argue that the clip could belong to a number of items, however the same clip would be reasonable suspicion to detain/search if such carry was illegal.

it is not a matter of what is being concealed or not concealed, necessarily, at the time it is discovered. courts will focus on whether it was reasonable to believe the item in question was a prohibited item, whether in a pouch or pocket. in other words, one may not know definitively what the item is until a search is conducted and the item is recovered.

if i believe a concealed item or "bulge" is a weapon, i can detain and search to determine what the item is. i need only articulate why i thought the concealed item was a weapon. if it turns out to be a cell phone, this does not invalidate my legal standing in conducting the detention or search.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
if i believe a concealed item or "bulge" is a weapon, i can detain and search to determine what the item is. i need only articulate why i thought the concealed item was a weapon. if it turns out to be a cell phone, this does not invalidate my legal standing in conducting the detention or search.
Click to expand...

I'm raising the BS flag on this one. You make it sound as if you can at any time legally stop and search a random person only because you see a "suspicious" bulge. Thankfully the 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. As it applies to police unless you witness unusual conduct which leads you to believe I'm committing a crime and/or pose a threat to you, no search unless I agree.

RS
 
rckshrk, I have to say you rose the wrong flag. The poster is a officer from the West coast, and I am a former NYC one. An officer can legally stop and frisk if he reasonably believes there is a weapon violation and he can clearly state what he saw and why he believed it to be a weapon. The officer does not have to believe that any other crime is involved in order to have proable cause to check for a weapon. Other illegal items ( drugs, stolen items, etc) require a standard to be met before a search is valid, but weapons do not. There are alot guys guys making license plates in NY that would not have learned that trade if your flag was raised correctly.

Now I am a Second Amendment type of guy, so don't think I approve ( I don't), but this section is about what the law is, not what we hope it is or think it should be....
 
rckshrk said:
I'm raising the BS flag on this one. You make it sound as if you can at any time legally stop and search a random person only because you see a "suspicious" bulge. Thankfully the 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. As it applies to police unless you witness unusual conduct which leads you to believe I'm committing a crime and/or pose a threat to you, no search unless I agree.

RS
Click to expand...


that's because you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Hmph. Four posts and he's already stepped in it.

Retired cop and a lawyer here, and Mark is absolutely correct.
 
rckshrk said:
I'm raising the BS flag on this one. You make it sound as if you can at any time legally stop and search a random person only because you see a "suspicious" bulge. Thankfully the 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. As it applies to police unless you witness unusual conduct which leads you to believe I'm committing a crime and/or pose a threat to you, no search unless I agree.

RS
Click to expand...
rckshrk, calm down! Sure, that suspicious bulge at a person's waist level could be a bag attached to a colostomy stoma or a Foley catheter, but that is not the point here. Officers do not randomly search people. You would have to be doing something to call attention to yourself (ie: sneaking around a closed business at in the dark at 2:00 AM, walking down the street while guzzling a beer, jimmying open a car door, etc.). If you are not dressed like a gang-banging punk, you mind your own business and you keep your EDC knife well-concealed, you will not have to worry about any negative encounters with LEOs.
 
rckshrk said:
I'm raising the BS flag on this one. You make it sound as if you can at any time legally stop and search a random person only because you see a "suspicious" bulge. Thankfully the 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. As it applies to police unless you witness unusual conduct which leads you to believe I'm committing a crime and/or pose a threat to you, no search unless I agree.

RS
Click to expand...

It's called the "Terry Frisk," and that gives Officers the right to "frisk" which is basically a pat down of the outer garments of a suspect. Here's an overview of that law and how it came to be:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/94895/the_terry_frisk_the_rights_of_police.html

ps. you said it yourself, "suspicous buldge." that's enough to pat you down right there :)
 
glad someone referenced "Terry" :)

here's one for ya tho - i knew a cop who patted a guy down and felt a bag of weed in his pocket. the cop removed the bag and charged the kid (his deal, not mine, i'm not big on charging people for weed). in suppression hearing, the cop was asked "what is the purpose of a pat down" he explained to check for weapons (which is ALL Terry pertains to). then they asked "what kind of weapon did you think that was?" BOOM! it was over. evidence was suppressed, charge dismissed.

as for what is concealed. this comes up in countless threads. FL says something to the effect of (i'm not searching it this time): ...from ORDINARY sight. to me, that means a folder with only the clip showing, is concealed. to others, it doesn't. cops are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get :D
 
zignal_zero said:
glad someone referenced "Terry" :)

here's one for ya tho - i knew a cop who patted a guy down and felt a bag of weed in his pocket. the cop removed the bag and charged the kid (his deal, not mine, i'm not big on charging people for weed). in suppression hearing, the cop was asked "what is the purpose of a pat down" he explained to check for weapons (which is ALL Terry pertains to). then they asked "what kind of weapon did you think that was?" BOOM! it was over. evidence was suppressed, charge dismissed.

as for what is concealed. this comes up in countless threads. FL says something to the effect of (i'm not searching it this time): ...from ORDINARY sight. to me, that means a folder with only the clip showing, is concealed. to others, it doesn't. cops are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get :D
Click to expand...


had he articulated in his report narrative that while conducting the terry frisk, he felt what he immediately recognized as an item consistent with the packaging and feel of narcotics, it probably would have stuck.

the search for contraband other than weapons cannot include "manipulation" to determine what any item is, but that doesn't mean an officer cant investigate further if they can reasonably articulate why they confiscated the dope.
 
To be perfectly honest (and you never saw me write this), a lot of cops will "push the envelope" on these sorts of things, knowing full well that the absolute worst that can happen is that it will be held to be a bad bust. Almost nobody sues cops over these issues. Sure, it could happen, but in the real world, it doesn't, and everybody knows it.
 
the envelope is pushed by all, us, badguys, attorneys, and judges. being articulate and creative when investigating criminal activity is an essential component of the successful officer's arsenal.

they come up with new ways to commit crimes, we have to come up with new ways to catch and prosecute them. sometimes they win, sometimes we win.

laws and enforcement are always evolving, they do not exist in a vacuum. eg, cases involving miranda issues have been before scotus 50 times, more than any other topic. sometimes the outcome is good for us, sometimes it is good for the criminal.
 
MORIMOTOM said:
the envelope is pushed by all, us, badguys, attorneys, and judges. being articulate and creative when investigating criminal activity is an essential component of the successful officer's arsenal.

they come up with new ways to commit crimes, we have to come up with new ways to catch and prosecute them. sometimes they win, sometimes we win.

laws and enforcement are always evolving, they do not exist in a vacuum. eg, cases involving miranda issues have been before scotus 50 times, more than any other topic. sometimes the outcome is good for us, sometimes it is good for the criminal.
Click to expand...
Right on!:thumbup: In your previous posts, you indicated that harassing the law-abiding is not good LE practice. A well-dressed person minding his own business with a folder clipped to his pocket or a contractor with a Buck knife on his belt is not the kind of guy that you would arrest on a knife charge. You would save it for the troublemakers and you can tell who they are by how they dress and behave. I will not get into the controversies of "profiling", racial or otherwise, but I think you know what I mean!:D
 
TOM1960 said:
Right on!:thumbup: In your previous posts, you indicated that harassing the law-abiding is not good LE practice. A well-dressed person minding his own business with a folder clipped to his pocket or a contractor with a Buck knife on his belt is not the kind of guy that you would arrest on a knife charge. You would save it for the troublemakers and you can tell who they are by how they dress and behave. I will not get into the controversies of "profiling", racial or otherwise, but I think you know what I mean!:D
Click to expand...


it is not always easy to distinguish who is "law abiding" from who is not.

but i will say im not terribly interested in a contractor with a folder clipped to his belt/pocket.

criminal profiling is essential, profiling based solely on race with no consideration to other factors is illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top