Sneak Peek!!!! . . . . Force Multiplier V8 . . . . Coming January 17, 2018!!!

MattinLA said:
I'm hoping Dave will make a "Double Open Spine Sheath"...with Tek Lok!
Click to expand...
Now there's an idea! kind of visualizing it, that could look pretty awesome being "windowed" on each side versus all the bumps required for the fillers to prevent stiction. Hell of an idea!

For the fun of it I read through Ohio's laws and what I walked away with was~ the "intent" of the said knife. It seems it comes down to the questioning phase by LEO -"Sir, what do you have this for? Me- "in casein I'sta have to stick some sumbtch I cud bleed him real good and spill his guts all over" - In this case, I'm carrying a deadly weapon- and it's all bad
- Now if I was to say "Well ossifer, we got a bad coyote problem and we gets jumped from time to time and I need it to protect myself and when I'm not doing that I like to carve me out sum of dem snipe callers and it's good fer gettin a piece a gristle out a ma teeths after dinner" - Then I'm ok because my "intent" would be practical use - So it comes down to are you stupid and if you view it as a weapon or a useful tool - Carrying a deadly weapon would be illegal, carrying a useful tool, no problems. Now there may be more specifics to it but that's what I got out of a quick brush over of what I found- there were a lot of court cases specified for precedent but I didn't spend much time on it- Basically, if you're an idiot, you probably got bigger issues than a knife anyway and most likely are already known to your local LEO.
 
just trim off the guard area of the sheath and have it contact the handles for retention like what was done with this tglb sheath.... not my picture

paw-paws-knife-shop-busse-tglb-kydex_1_bff7a13ee4287c3400a75b7f91f38a07.jpg
 
MattinLA said:
I'm hoping Dave will make a "Double Open Spine Sheath"...with Tek Lok!
Click to expand...

Leonardo63 said:
Now there's an idea! kind of visualizing it, that could look pretty awesome being "windowed" on each side versus all the bumps required for the fillers to prevent stiction. Hell of an idea!
Click to expand...

You guys must hate your fingers ;)

anything is possible with time and money :)
 
Murman said:
Best resource I've found. They were the activists working with the lawmakers. Knives with knuckles are still illegal to possess. (Thus I sold my AA LB)

https://kniferights.org/hb-1935-bottom-line/
Click to expand...

It's not something that I'd be inclined to test, but I question the constitutionality of a law that bans the possession of a "Model 1918 WWI Trench Knife and similar."

I vaguely recall reading some 19th century Texas case saying the predecessor of this provision protects the right to own (or "keep and bear') the sort of arms that are suitable for military service, and I suppose the ban on brass knuckles might arguably be justified on the theory that they're not the sort of arms that are used in "lawful defense," being primarily a thugs weapon used for other than lawful purposes. But it would be hard to make that argument about a knife that was designed specifically for military service (or derived from such a knife), or where the guard (like a D-guard) is designed for retention or to protect the fingers when engaged in non-criminal activities like chopping wood.

But that's neither her nor there, limiting the constitutional protection to arms suitable for military service was overruled by a subsequent Texas supreme court decision, and they said the constitutional protection extended to "such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State." If an Argonne Assault isn't a weapon suitable for "manly use in self-defense," I don't know what is. And unlike brass knuckles, trench knives have never been particularly associated with criminal activity and aren't likely what the legislature intended to ban.

Also, when the Constitution of 1876 was enacted, they consciously adopted the current language that lets the legislature regulate the "wearing" of arms, but not prohibit arms. Article 1, § 23 of the Texas Constitution states: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

The prior constitution, adopted under the reconstruction government, said: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." During the time after the military relinquished control and Republicans controlled the state, all sorts of tyrannical and obnoxious laws were passed attempting to limit Texans' rights to keep and bear arms, which is something Texans of the time did not seem to appreciate, and after the Democrats got control again, the Constitution of 1876 (the current constitution) was enacted, and it eliminated the legislatures power to regulate the "keeping" or "bearing" of arms; and limited the legislature's power to regulate just the "wearing" of arms.

But I guess I've wandered pretty far off topic, so, in the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
 
I gotta say, I love the look of this dagger. The lines are just amazing!

However, it would just a be a wall hanger for me as I believe it's illegal to carry (or even own) daggers in Pennsylvania :(

Huge bummer.
 
JohnTheTexican said:
It's not something that I'd be inclined to test, but I question the constitutionality of a law that bans the possession of a "Model 1918 WWI Trench Knife and similar."

I vaguely recall reading some 19th century Texas case saying the predecessor of this provision protects the right to own (or "keep and bear') the sort of arms that are suitable for military service, and I suppose the ban on brass knuckles might arguably be justified on the theory that they're not the sort of arms that are used in "lawful defense," being primarily a thugs weapon used for other than lawful purposes. But it would be hard to make that argument about a knife that was designed specifically for military service (or derived from such a knife), or where the guard (like a D-guard) is designed for retention or to protect the fingers when engaged in non-criminal activities like chopping wood.

But that's neither her nor there, limiting the constitutional protection to arms suitable for military service was overruled by a subsequent Texas supreme court decision, and they said the constitutional protection extended to "such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State." If an Argonne Assault isn't a weapon suitable for "manly use in self-defense," I don't know what is. And unlike brass knuckles, trench knives have never been particularly associated with criminal activity and aren't likely what the legislature intended to ban.

Also, when the Constitution of 1876 was enacted, they consciously adopted the current language that lets the legislature regulate the "wearing" of arms, but not prohibit arms. Article 1, § 23 of the Texas Constitution states: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

The prior constitution, adopted under the reconstruction government, said: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." During the time after the military relinquished control and Republicans controlled the state, all sorts of tyrannical and obnoxious laws were passed attempting to limit Texans' rights to keep and bear arms, which is something Texans of the time did not seem to appreciate, and after the Democrats got control again, the Constitution of 1876 (the current constitution) was enacted, and it eliminated the legislatures power to regulate the "keeping" or "bearing" of arms; and limited the legislature's power to regulate just the "wearing" of arms.

But I guess I've wandered pretty far off topic, so, in the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
Click to expand...

I've talked to at least one of the knife rights guys who was working on this in Austin. He said first-hand that the intention was to make trench/knuckle knives legal, it's only in retrospect that they see that the language didn't do that.
 
If anyone would be so kind or inclined to email me pics, I would be most grateful.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
firecog said:
If anyone would be so kind or inclined to email me pics, I would be most grateful.
user name at hot mail
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Sent :)

~Chip

Edit: Cookie beat me to it
 
Some one hit my pm with a shot or two, if inclined....

Please and thank you in advance!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top