Regulations that govern autos vs. assisted vs. lever openers

R

RX-79G

Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
2,383
I remember when assisted opening knives first came out and were ruled legal, the crux of the argument was that the knife was opened via pressure on the blade or a fixed extension of the blade and that a certain degree of movement was required before the spring took over. I got the impression that a mechanism to open the blade using mechanical advantage would fall under the ban on autos.

But then I was looking at the Kershaw E.T. Camillus Lev-r-lok. These are legal, and use leverage to transform a relatively small movement of the thumb into a full deployment of the blade.

From a purely engineering standpoint, this really isn't much different than a OTF auto, since they also don't rely on a pre-compressed spring, but a lever that converts a small movement into a large movement of the blade. The only difference I can see is that an OTF transmits force through a spring, while the E.T. just uses mechanical advantage with lever arms.


It is not hard to imagine an OTF that doesn't have any springs, but simply pushes a 3" blade out with the forceful 1" movement of a slider button.


Does anyone here understand these distinctions?
 
Another distinction between non-auto assisted knives and auto knives is that the devise used to activated the blade opening is integrally / physically part of the blade itself (the thumb stud or flipper) as opposed to a button that "unlocked" the blade.

Yet another distinction is that with assisted knives, the blade is under tension to remain closed or there is a force that has to be exceeded in order to initiate the blade opening whereas an auto blade has a constant force acting on it to push it out.

Those are the legal distinctions as I understand them as far as they relate to knives in California.
 
Things like that are only legal till a legislator with an ax to grind notices them. When that happens they get lumped in with the other forbidden blades.
 
"It is not hard to imagine an OTF that doesn't have any springs, but simply pushes a 3" blade out with the forceful 1" movement of a slider button."

The old Christy knife is a manual OTF and Cold Steel had a similar design for a while.
 
I put it in General because it was as much a question of mechanism as how that mechanism has legal standing.

In the case of the Cold Steel and Cristy, they are essentially the same as a box cutter in function. The slider moves 1:1 with the blade. The Lev-r-lok, in contrast, moves the blade 180° with maybe 40° of lever movement, and it does that without a spring or relying on inertia like a flipper must. That's like a 4:1 ratio, and I'm surprised that's allowed.

I'm also surprised the concept hasn't been more widely embraced and refined.
 
The simpler the mechanism, the lower the production cost, usually.

I wouldn't mind if the whole concept of allowed were disallowed. When I started with the Postal Service, we had ring knives and small fixed blades lying around by the cut-open tables. Years before, my father and grandfather saw to it we had pocketknives. Never a problem, never trouble. The more laws, the more corruption, the less initiative, the less learning.
 
Here's the Switchblade Act of 1958 language:
U.S. Code Title 15, Sect. 1241 defines switchblade knives as any knives which open "1) by hand pressure applied to a button or other device in the handle of the knife, or any knife having a blade which opens automatically; (2) by operation of inertia, gravity, or both"
Click to expand...

How is the E.T. and LevRLok not a switchblade by this definition? Of course, a Stanley utility knife has the same problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#Federal_law
 
Laws are written by inherently fallible legislators. Few signs exist to show they are familiar with the mechanisms they describe or proscribe. Their reasons for writing these laws are often as vague as the laws themselves.

If you want reason and rigor, study mathematics, not the "social sciences".
 
You quoted the law yourself. At this point, it's a simple matter of being able to read. You even put the pertinent part in bold.

Don't you ever tire of this crap? Jeez. [emoji849]
 
If it were pertinent, you wouldn't be able to by a LevRLok at Walmart. I'm asking if anyone knows why you can.
 
RX-79G said:
I'm not questioning the law. I guess I'm questioning the enforcement.
Click to expand...

Your question/topic is so vague it can literally be interpreted 1,000s of different ways. Anyone can speculate and give misinformation or anecdotal stories about a friend of a friends brother in laws sister was told by some LEO once at a county fair that....
As has been stated before and the general consensus is, the officer will make the determination. Some don't understand that a flipper does not an automatic knife make. Some think a manual knife with a button lock is an auto. Some thing that a torsion spring that requires you to physically touch and move the blade past a specific geometric angle is an auto. Who knows.
 
RevDevil said:
Your question/topic is so vague it can literally be interpreted 1,000s of different ways. Anyone can speculate and give misinformation or anecdotal stories about a friend of a friends brother in laws sister was told by some LEO once at a county fair that....
As has been stated before and the general consensus is, the officer will make the determination. Some don't understand that a flipper does not an automatic knife make. Some think a manual knife with a button lock is an auto. Some thing that a torsion spring that requires you to physically touch and move the blade past a specific geometric angle is an auto. Who knows.
Click to expand...

It isn't a vague question. Seven years ago I showed my patent attorney and fellow knife guy a design for a knife that projected a 3" blade OTF of a knife by moving a slider 1.5" on the handle. He pointed to the Switchblade Act, which took me awhile to remember, but I quoted it. The Switchblade Act, which is what all the states use to define a switchblade in their local laws, seems to say that the LevRLok is a switchblade. But I wasn't aware of LevRLoks in 2009, so that was the end of the conversation.


Since it is pretty damn clear a LevRLok isn't illegal under any US law, I'm asking if anyone know how that works for Kershaw, Camillus or any other manufacturer who make knives which open by hand pressure applied to a button or other device in the handle of the knife.

I am also asking what other knives work like a LevRLok or E.T. for comparison.



I'm not asking about what I can carry in my pocket. I'm also not asking for patent advice. Assisted folders have a particular set of legal rules that made them possible, and I'm asking if there is some similar guideline with the LevRLok and ET types.


Rev, I wish I could ask a pretty straightforward question without being insulted and then have the insult conspicuously ignored by you. There is no "pot stirring" going on - this is a very straightforward and pertinent question about knife design and knife law which knife people might like to talk about, even if Antdog does not.
 
There are federal and state laws that mandate allowances for the handicap. Maybe, it's under the handicap laws that provide a loophole for a certain type of assisted opening knives to be legal in most states. Here in Louisiana, for a long time, the only way you could use a crossbow for hunting was if you were handicapped. Today, crossbows are allowed for everyone.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Why are you asking us here?
Ask the msanufacturer.
Click to expand...

I have. Never heard back.

I'm asking here because this is the largest knife forum in the world, and there are many factory reps and former industry people who post here. If anyone is going to know the answer and be willing to talk about it, I'm most likely to find them here.


That's above and beyond the request for more knives of this type, which anyone can post.


What's the problem?
 
Esav Benyamin said:
You tell me. Do you think I'm the problem?
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue. You and Rev - the Moderators - have basically both posted objections to the topic. I thought these relatively rare type of knives would be interesting. Antdog posted an insult that was allowed to slide, so I assume that there is something about my question that is pissing some people off.

So if you, Rev and Antdog feel that I'm doing something awful by asking about these interesting types of knives, fill me in. I think they're fascinating both in mechanism and their bizarre legal standing, and I don't see what is controversial/argumentative about anything I posted. I had a whole collection of firearms that worked on similar mechanical advantage principles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top