Sword Canes

A

azchazslvrfx

Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
8
In all my research of Arizona law, there isn't any mention of the law relating to the carry of sword canes. The closest I can come to a resolution of this question is the following:

Since sword canes can be classified as concealed weapons, and they aren't listed as prohibited weapons, carry should be permitted with a CCW.

Any comments from the great void?
 
It is not legal to have a wepon that looks like something its not. Like a cane that has a blade or gun hidden inside. Or a cell phone that is a gun or knife.
I may be wrong.
 
I own a Burger and they are very well made, but many states (as well as other jusritrictions in the U.S.) have some pretty arcane laws pertaining to sword canes. Some actually prohibit carrying them in public with laws that are much stricter than knife laws.
 
Gentlemen:

I'm sure that what you say is probably true in venues other than Arizona. However, as stated in my original inquiry, it's not clearly stated in Arizona law.

Having a legitimate need for a cane, (not that it's a necessary condition to carry one) I've used sword canes for several years. Among them two Burgers. Since then I've discovered the use of the
cane as a self defense weapon and have abandoned the sword cane in favor of a walking stick or a cane with a crook. They make awesome weapons and are both un-obtrusive and legal. Even on airlines. But like a sword cane they can be lethal, depending on the technique used and the need for lethal force.

Thanks for your interest. However, I'm still curious for a definitive answer to the Arizona law question.
 
This is one of about six threads going on whether "X" is legal to carry in state "Y".

I'm answering a lot of them, but not all.

Chopshopchopper is effectively correct. Laws vary from state to state--but an exemption in one state does not mean it's not illegal at the municipal level, where you *will* find the majority of bans.

All right, here's the basis for how most weapons laws are constructed. And it doesn't matter whether we're talking sword canes, balisongs, screwdrivers (these are all active threads going on in this or other BladeForums!) or anything else. It's intent, not the literal wording of the law.

And that intent is:

"Why are you carrying it?"

If you can come up with a clear answer in less than a second, without searching for or stretching the truth, you're probably clear to do so.

I'm pretty open-minded about what people carry and why, obviously, but even I'd have to ask "why would you be needing to carry a sword cane?" Because I can't quickly come up with a practical answer, I'd be wrong in carrying one.

Azchazslvrfx, if that's even your real name :) , you don't indicate whether you're planning to carry one, or just curious about the wording of the law, so don't think I'm flaming you or anyone else here. Actually, I'm not flaming anything here. But while I can't imagine any objection to someone _owning_ a sword cane, I'm pretty sure your average LEO is going to ask you "WTF?!" if you're strolling down Camelback Road with one.

If you are, don't answer! But in short, "if you have doubts about it, leave it at home."
 
Watchful: (If thats even your real name, if thats even relevent)

Your correct about law at the municipal level. However the overriding principle here is that you refuse to discuss the matter with a police officer. It may peeve the officer, but may save your ass if it ever makes it to court. Of course if you have a CCW, and the weapon you're carrying isn't on the prohibited list, it obviates the need for such a discussion.

If you take the trouble to read my previuos messages they'll answer your questions about my prior actions/intent.

With the obvious irrelevent exceptions it's a good reply and can be used as a basic guide for the uninformed. Flamed or not.
 
I believe Watchful (denotes a certain 'sensability') is correct.
Discretion and forthought go a long way in a society. The stress of being in constant fear of the 'other guy' will kill you far sooner than being randonly targeted by a bad guy.
Actually, to me, you (figurative 'you') are the bad guy. You have a (poorly) concealed weapon and I don't know you or your intentions. By the time that subject arises one of us is in trouble. If you think your sword is invisible as such to most people you are probably right. However many of us do recognize your weapon and many of us have the power to challenge you for being in possession of a weapon. I can make assumptions based on your appearance and accesories. When I see someone carrying a weapon, not a 'tool' knife, but a tactical folder or whatever, denotes a certain attitude, reflecting the mindset of having an uncontrolled animosity towards others (they are out to get me) that gets people hurt or wins a trip to lock-up.
I carry a utility knife, actually several ;) , and have no pretentions about its deployment in self defense. Chances are great that I would never have time. The street is a long way from a movie set.
Your cane alone is a far more sensible choice. Having a 'non victim' attitude of situational awareness balances your profile to the bad guy from 'target' to 'trouble'. Fearfulness screams 'attack me. I feel weak'.
Despite what you feel is your 'right' it is no infringement of your freedom to be asked to leave weapons at home. I find it somewhat liberating to not have to worry about bad guys AND the police.
This site has been posted before but a good deep read can prevent a lot of problems.
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifefighting.html
 
Merek,

Deep read this:

You're far afield from my original inquiry about the law. Any opportunity to blow off, I would suppose in your case.

However: Believe as you will. I think your twisted. Although I do agree with your point about forethought.

By the way, I not only carry a cane, but.....GASP, a knife and a firearm as well.
 
Glad you are in Arizona.
Deep read this: "Since sword canes can be classified as concealed weapons, and they aren't listed as prohibited weapons, carry should be permitted with a CCW."
Yes I saw your original posted STATEMENT which could be good legislation. However the later comment: "...if you have a CCW, and the weapon you're carrying isn't on the prohibited list,..." makes little sense. If you have a CCW it pertains to a specific weapon type, not the weapon of your choice as I also believe it should. Personally I believe a knife is far safer to everyone as you don't kill someone a block away.
Now as to your INQUIRY:
"Any comments from the great void?"
You opened the door...
Admittedly I was responding to a preconcieved notion that most people who feel the need to carry should not. The psychology of conflict is part of obtaining permission to carry and the 'woe is me. I can even the odds' attitude prevents many from obtaining a permit and they become 'outlaws' picking a fight. A few harsh words or percieved affront results in an crime of passion. I am sorry if my comments offended you. I tend to overstate the case (my daughter hates it) in a pre-emptive attempt to reach middle ground sooner. My comments, while seemingly personal, are directed also at the far larger audience that 'lurks' without comment and looks for some validation to stretch the laws and carry something prohibited. Regardless of the efficacy of my comments to that audience, to whom these notions cannot be drilled enough, I am needful to say them. Think of me as Jiminy Cricket. The little voice of reason. :p
Any 'invited' opportunity to blow off.
And what kind of a name is 'azchazslvrfx' anyway? Is it short for AriZona Charles SiLVeR FoX?
Be cool man. Not looking to fight. You have more weapons...on you. :)
BTW: Yes. Your original proposal about CCW of a swordcane has validity. Too bad knives and swords don't have an NRA type organization to help us in the quest.
 
azchazslvrfx said:
Watchful: (If thats even your real name, if thats even relevent)

... However the overriding principle here is that you refuse to discuss the matter with a police officer. It may peeve the officer, but may save your ass if it ever makes it to court. Of course if you have a CCW, and the weapon you're carrying isn't on the prohibited list, it obviates the need for such a discussion.

If you take the trouble to read my previuos messages they'll answer your questions about my prior actions/intent...
Click to expand...

1. No, you're right. Watchful isn't my real name.

2. I can't argue with anyone on whether the local preference (as opposed to principle) is to discuss the matter with law enforcement. But asking for clarification beforehand can easily save you from court. Because there are a large number of LEOs on this forum who read, and as Merek says, lurk these posts, this would provide anyone a great opportunity to hear from them and find out what they think.

3. Whether or not the weapon is specifically listed for CCW is ultimately unimportant... again, it's the intent. I can walk around with keys in my pocket in all 50 states; if I pull them out and threaten to stab someone with them, it's now assault with a weapon. Regardless of a list.

4. As for whether your post clarified your intent, you did. I was using a figurative 'you' when discussing what 'you' would do with any concealed weapon.
 
Watchful and Merek:

What's with your obvious problem with my forum moniker? Surely Watchful, your really not that dim as to suppose that it would be anything other. I smell little egos spoiling for a food fight.

For your edification, CCW stands for "Concealed Carry Weapon". It isn't weapon specific as you assert, but covers anything considered a weapon not on the prohibited list. As for your silly insistence on the intent principle, well DUHH, I obviously carry it for self defense. Which, unlike other benighted parts of this country, in Arizona, is a legal and acceptable INTENT.

As for spilling your guts to a police officer, it's not a matter of local preference, but one of legal principle.

Sure, if you pull any weapon out and threaten someone with it you've gone way beyong the pale of self defence and entered into criminal intent, CCW or no.

Merek's assertion that a knife is better "because it doesn't kill a person a block away" is ridiculous to a suicidal degree. You display an abismal ignorance of what a horrific, down and dirty, up close and personal event a knife fight is. Furthermore, it can hardly be considered self defense to shoot someone a block away. Smacks of armchair warriorism.

Watchfull, if you'd had any training or experience in the matter of self defence you'd know how fast a weapon can be deployed rather than making an amateurs disparaging remarks on the subject.

Yeah Merek, I'm also glad I live in Arizona. It feels like freedom.

AS always,

Arizona Charlie Silverfox
 
Well, this thread is pretty much over. Killed by the poster.

As friendly advice, which you don't seem to want or need, I might suggest that you refrain from asking legal questions you don't really want the answer to. I'm sorry that neither myself nor Merek gave you the answer you wanted, but hey. We gave good answers to the questions you asked.

You took our cautious interpretations personally. Sorry about that. I never meant to offend, but merely to answer your question. Good luck in court. You're going to need it. And if you're still reading this by this point, you're not going to find a judge in any court as willing to debate the question of intent, as defined by jurisprudence. I doubt the court will consider the nature of the law's intent as a "silly insistence."

Also, I'm not certain what "disparaging remark" I might have made. I think you might have misread something. If so, don't bother apologizing. You've killed the thread for me. I'm done helping you either way.
 
I have no problem with your moniker. I thought it was random keystrokes until I really imagined it may be intentional and was happy to figure out the clues. I guess smileys don't work on some people.
Shooting someone down the block refers to the fact that a bullet can fukking travel a long way and kill other than the intended target whereas deploying a blade IF you get the chance affects only those within your reach. IF you get the chance.
Your state is truely free. No Daylight Savings Time and a decent CCW law as follows.
""Arizona Constitution Article 2 Sec 26: Bearing arms
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

In Arizona the permit is truly a concealed weapon permit, so long as the weapon is not prohibited (e.g., nunchakus). Pocket knives may be carried out of sight without a permit but the Attorney General's opinion is that this only includes pocket knives with blades that do not exceed four inches in length. Arizona statutes do not address the issue of switchblades but, as a minimum, it is likely that the concealed carry of any switchblade with a blade longer than four inches would also require a concealed weapon permit.
Effective September 18, 2003, HB 2353 took effect. This bill, with its amendments, created a somewhat ambiguous basis for Arizona to recognize concealed carry permits from several other states, under lower standards (the ambiguous part) than the prior reciprocity-agreement requirements. When the Attorney General's office was consulted by DPS as to the meaning of the new law, they essentially accepted the concept of a minimum training requirement by the other state. However, since the legislation failed to authorize any agency to compile a listing of acceptable state permits, they refused to make an absolute statement about the acceptability of those permits. This is why several of the states that are listed as having their permits honored by Arizona are color-coded yellow, instead of green. Perhaps subsequent legislative action will authorize the AG or DPS to make a more definitive statement.""
Most states require a proficiency course...in firearms.

My sense of humor, coupled with a genuine desire to help and wanton ignorance have started a war. Wow. :eek: :eek: :(
Go read the link I posted. Smarter people than we have been impressed. It touches HEAVILY how down and dirty a knife fight is. or is that a knife duel? Some fine lines are suggested....
Think 'lawyers'.
Have fun storming the castle...see ya. :D
 
Merek/Watchfull:

Merek,

How about that. You've finally addressed my original request without all the amateurish psychobabel about motivational aggressive intent and the armchair theorizing about deadly confrontations. I admit no tolerance for real or percieved blowhard amateurs.

You've also hit upon an important exception to Watchful's simple minded interpretation of intent when you clarify the meaning of your "down the block" comment. When a CCW is issued it confers on the holder the intent of self defense. This includes the defence of others in imminent threat of death or serious injury. One of the responsibilities incumbent on the holder is to make sure of the safety of his field of fire. In this instance, what's beyond the intended target. If the projectile goes beyond and kills or injures an innocent bystander, it renders intent moot. No matter that your intent was legitimate, you'll be held responsible for an act of criminal negligence.

In your paragraph concerning Arizona permits up to the section on Reciprocity, you've directly addressed my inquiry. Excellent, and well stated, supporting my original supposition. Thank you. However, you've also contradicted your assertion of 12-10. To wit: "if you have a CCW, and the weapon you're carrying isn't on the prohibited list,... makes little sense. If you have a CCW it pertains to a specific weapon type, not the weapon of choice."

All the rest is impertinent and irrelevent.

If you truly wish to be understood, when your addressing me, cut the obscure statements and cutesy smiley face humor. I find it offensive and obnoxious. Make yourself clearly understood. If you had, I would have responded in a different manner. As you've proven in your latest
reply , you're actually capable of it, and all of the embarrassing shuffleing of feet and backfilling would've been unnecessary.

What link are you refering to and where?


Watchful,(if you're watching)

I find your sniveling and whining about not being appreciated hilariously childish. I've been adaquetly schooled in the meaning of intent and a lot of other matters that transend your simple-minded rant. If I ever appear in court, It'll be on a jury judging you.

The disparaging remark, erroneously attributed to you, refers to the common trope Merek made about the quick deployment of a knife only being possible on a movie set. Apologies.
 
Bastid said:
I own a Burger and they are very well made ...<snip>... Some actually prohibit carrying them in public with laws that are much stricter than knife laws.
Click to expand...

And it's strange since they're allowed to sell those things right out in the open...I miss Jucy Lucys from Matt's in Minneapolis... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top