Unintended "Gravity Knife"?

That's how I open my native sometimes, it got so smooth with the rem oil I put in it, I can get out by throwing it really fast then stoping it.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
The very fact that the knife has a detent (regardless of if it functions properly or not) can be used as an argument against it being a gravity knife.
Click to expand...

Not always. I don't have the reference handy, but there was a case a while back where the judge had ruled that a liner lock had become a gravity knife because the detent ball had worn down. It doesn't matter how a knife is designed, or how it functioned when you got it. If a prosecutor can flick it open in court, there's a very good chance that you're going to jail.
 
The fact that a knife can be legally misconstrued as a gravity knife DOES NOT MAKE IT A GRAVITY KNIFE. It makes the laws where you live restrictive, invasive, and abusive of your rights... but it doesn't change the actual, factual, technical definition of a gravity knife.

Two plus two does not equal five even after Big Brother passes a law saying that it does.
 
Last edited:
Sharp Phil said:
The fact that a knife can be legally misconstrued as a gravity knife DOES NOT MAKE IT A GRAVITY KNIFE. It makes the laws where you live restrictive, invasive, and abusive of your rights... but it doesn't change the actual, factual, technical definition of a gravity knife.

Two plus two does not equal four even after Big Brother passes a law saying that it does.
Click to expand...


From NY Section 265:

5. "Gravity knife" means any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device.

If an officer arrests you for having a knife that can be opened by centrifugal force, he is not abusing or misconstruing a definition. He is applying a definition which was stated very clearly by the democratically elected legislature. It can therefor not be considered invasive because it reflects, however indirectly, the will of the citizens who elected that legislature. If you can't handle that, run for office or move.
 
My point is that THE LAW is abusing and misconstruing the definition. Some states LEGALLY categorize balisongs as "gravity knives." This doesn't mean they are.

I'll repeat myself: The fact that a knife has been, or will be, LEGALLY MISCONSTRUED as a gravity knife WHEN IT ISN'T ONE doesn't mean the factual, mechanical definition of a gravity knife includes the blade in question.

It means the law is abusive. It means the people interpreting and applying those laws are also abusive. It means those in authority don't give a damn about your civil rights and are simply trying to make the definitions of prohibited weapons as expansive as possible so they can charge you for carrying virtually any knife, which is the point I've been making since I started replying to this thread.

If you can't handle that, you can go right on believing that the letter of the law redefines reality.
 
Sharp Phil said:
The fact that a knife can be legally misconstrued as a gravity knife DOES NOT MAKE IT A GRAVITY KNIFE. It makes the laws where you live restrictive, invasive, and abusive of your rights... but it doesn't change the actual, factual, technical definition of a gravity knife.

Two plus two does not equal four even after Big Brother passes a law saying that it does.
Click to expand...

Phil,

Your post here is absolutely correct. It all comes down to interpretation and spin to make the type of knife fit the crime. We are not speaking about reasonable folks here. The unscrupulous authorities in question do not care to get to the truth by understanding facts and industry standards for testing. Furthering they're perspective agenda means the ends justifies the means. And by whatever means necessary.


Anthony
 
I agree to Phil regarding false definitions and his following conclusions.

But considering the definition, given by artmichalek:

If an officer takes the blade and uses centrifugal force to open the knife he is actually releasing the handle from the blade. That is right the oposite from releasing the blade from the handle.

I don´t believe, that would make a difference in the real situation, but that is the problem, Phil is talking about.

It makes no difference, how false the officer is acting, it makes no diference, how false a gravity knife is defined: You are in trouble without causing it. What does it mean, if you can´t be sure, that you are acting legally or not?
 
Blop said:
I agree to Phil regarding false definitions and his following conclusions.

But considering the definition, given by artmichalek:

If an officer takes the blade and uses centrifugal force to open the knife he is actually releasing the handle from the blade. That is right the oposite from releasing the blade from the handle.

I don´t believe, that would make a difference in the real situation, but that is the problem, Phil is talking about.

It makes no difference, how false the officer is acting, it makes no diference, how false a gravity knife is defined: You are in trouble without causing it.

What does it mean, if you can´t be sure, that you are acting legally or not?
Click to expand...

Good point.. I believe that after asking themselves the question you pose here, most reasonable folks that want to avoid problems with the Police and the Criminal Courts system would conclude that its not worth the trouble to carry knives at all. And, at the end of the day, that is the desired result they are looking to achieve. Is this right? No, its not, IMO.


Anthony
 
Exactly so. If you live in an area where the authorities can and will charge you for the possession of virtually any knife, it really doesn't matter what you do or don't do.
 
Sharp Phil said:
If you can't handle that, you can go right on believing that the letter of the law redefines reality.
Click to expand...

Well, in this case the letter of the law does define reality. The OP asked about the legality of the knife, not Phil's conceptual interpretation of the physical mechanisms behind gravity. If he runs afoul of the law, he goes to real prison. Not conceptual prison.

And again, this law was passed by a democratically elected legislature. It is the will of the citizens of New York. As far as I know, it has not been brought before the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. I'm not saying that I agree with the law, only that people are inherently incapable of oppressing themselves.
 
Sharp Phil said:
The fact that a knife can be legally misconstrued as a gravity knife DOES NOT MAKE IT A GRAVITY KNIFE. It makes the laws where you live restrictive, invasive, and abusive of your rights... but it doesn't change the actual, factual, technical definition of a gravity knife.

Two plus two does not equal four even after Big Brother passes a law saying that it does.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Phil. The term "Gravity Knife", for the purposes of the Courts and the Law is the legal term - the term specifically defined in the Criminal Code - i.e. "Gravity Knife". Big Brother, in the form of a democratically elected Legislature, defined the term and the Constitutionally constitued Court interpreted the term in the context of the legislation.
That may not conform to your definition of "Gravity Knife", and it may even insult the English language and common sense, but yes, that does make it a "Gravity Knife".
A simple experiment will prove it.
The observable universe may be curved; but the legal universe is warped.
You are talking about the former; we are really in the latter.
 
I'm not interested in the legal definition. I'm interested in the reality. Just because ignorant lawmakers call a perfectly normal folding knife a gravity knife doesn't make it one. Sure, it means you'll face legal consequences for having that knife, per the abusive, ill-defined law; I'm not disputing that. I'm simply taking exception to letting ignorant lawmakers redefine reality through ill-conceived pen-strokes.

artmichalek said:
Well, in this case the letter of the law does define reality. The OP asked about the legality of the knife, not Phil's conceptual interpretation of the physical mechanisms behind gravity. If he runs afoul of the law, he goes to real prison. Not conceptual prison.

And again, this law was passed by a democratically elected legislature. It is the will of the citizens of New York. As far as I know, it has not been brought before the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. I'm not saying that I agree with the law, only that people are inherently incapable of oppressing themselves.
Click to expand...

No, the letter of the law does not define reality. It defines the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of certain actions. No amount of legalese will turn a knife that isn't a gravity knife into a knife that is one; it simply means the penalty for possessing one has been improperly attached to the knife in question.

I'll let you know when ANYONE for whom I vote in New York actually makes it into public office at the state level.
 
What is a "gravity knife"? That is an arbitrary term that has no "objective" meaning.
There is no entry for it in the OED.
It is a legal term of art.
If there is an extra-legal concept defined more precisely by a different usage or conception ,then I'd appreciate the historical references.
To a physicist or engineer, the term "gravity knife" is as meaningless as the term "momentum knife" or "electrodynamic knife".
Maybe it is supposed to mean a knife that opens when a huge mass passes by close enough to induce the blade to open while the frame is somehow kept fixed and motionless.
Or maybe it means a knife that opens by the earth's gravity when inverted.
Logically, nothing is purely a "gravity knife" because gravity alone could never open it.

Do knifemakers have a tradition or definition of "gravity knives", apart from the law?
We have a few knifemakers here, and knife historians who could answer the question.
This isn't like the Legislature defining Pi to be 3 instead of 3.14159... or whatever the hell it is. Or defining Creationism as "science".
It's a legal construct. A stupid, arbitrary legal construct.


That form of knife is a figment of the legal imagination
 
The law comes with its own definitions, which may or may not correspond to definitions in plain English. There's a reason people cal it "Legalese", and there's a reason people pay lawyers big bucks.

If the law defines purple as black, then for all legal purposes purple is black.
 
stabman said:
What math class did you take?:confused:
2+2=4.
It really does.
I'm confused by your analogy. Can you explain?
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing, but it likely means that 2+2 IS 4 no matter what the law says. It equals 4 because it equals 4, not because someone passed a law that made it equal 4. At least that's my take on it.
 
Leaf Fan said:
I thought the same thing, but it likely means that 2+2 IS 4 no matter what the law says. It equals 4 because it equals 4, not because someone passed a law that made it equal 4. At least that's my take on it.
Click to expand...
You Canadians are starting to get out of hand!

I get so tired of hearing that 2 + 2 = 4 no matter what.
If you think lawyers are bad, you never spent time with mathematicians.
They're worse.

No, 2+2 = 4 isn't always true.
For example, in Base 4, 2 + 2 = 10
In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11

Here is a brief illustration from a math site:
Still toying with the table we may learn a few interesting things. As everyone knows, 2 + 2 = 4. This is true in all base systems. That is, except bases 2, 3, and 4. In base 4, we have 2 + 2 = 10. In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11. However, recollect that (4)10 = (10)4 = (11)3, and everything falls into its right place again. Numbers equal in one base are equal in any other base. Conversion between bases does not violate arithmetic identities. In base 2, 2 + 2 = 4 appears as 10 + 10 = 100 - looking differently but having exactly the same meaning.
Click to expand...

Nothing could be simpler, eh?
 
HJK said:
What is a "gravity knife"? That is an arbitrary term that has no "objective" meaning.
Click to expand...

But it does have a meaning, just as "Rondel Dagger" and "Equal End Jack" and "Switchblade" have meanings. Specifically, it refers to a knife whose blade falls into position when you press a button. That was always its meaning among people who use, carry, and collect knives. Words have commonly accepted meanings based on their derivations and historical use; the single stroke of a pen in the hands of an errant lawmaker does not change that.

If I pass a law that says a semi-automatic handgun is illegal because it's an "automatic weapon," I haven't changed reality; I haven't changed the real meaning of the terms "semi-automatic" or "automatic." I've simply broadened the law to abuse it, towards a specific socio-political goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top