Utah

D

Dagw00d

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
68
Wow, the Utah laws are amazingly vague... No mention of blade length or the legalities of auto or spring-assist, etc etc. I have no idea what I can carry and what I can't.

Does anyone have any light to shed on this nonsense?

"Utah - Offenses Against Public Health and Safety - 76-10-504.
Carrying concealed dangerous weapon.
(1) Any person... carrying a concealed dangerous weapon... is
guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
- 76-10-501... Definitions... (2)... (c) "Dangerous weapon"
means an item that in the manner of its use or intended
use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
The following factors shall be used in determining whether
an item, object, or thing not commonly known as a
dangerous weapon is a dangerous weapon:
(i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing;
(ii) the character of the wound produced, if any; and
(iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing
was used."
 
"The intent in which an item is carried". That's what I have heard and that is my interpretation of the law.

If you carry it AS A TOOL than it IS a tool, If you carry it AS A WEAPON than it IS a weapon. I you go home and get an item to go attack some one down the street cause they pissed you off, Then it's a weapon.
Call the local PD of where you are/are going to. Call multiple offices.

Blade length: Any Size, It's the Intent.
Auto's: LEGAL
Spring Assist: LEGAL
F.B.: LEGAL
Ball point pen: illegal IF carried as a weapon.

If I may ask, what are you wanting to carry?
 
Last edited:
WOW! that is pretty vague. i thought FL's was vague, you got us beat by a long shot.

i think there's a reason for vague wording of a law - it can be applied to a very wide group of individuals. basically, you criminalize EVERYONE, but then selectively enforce it. it gives LEO's total discretion. there exist a certain belief that particular laws are "OK" to break, but then when someone who is showing their butt breaks that law, the LEO can charge 'em

i'm an NOT voicing support for this tactic, just saying that i really think there's a method to the vagueness. for those of you who've traveled to "developing" nations, you'll know EXACTLY what i'm talking about.

i do believe in giving individual officers the right to use discretion when enforcing the law, though.
 
^^ Yes, that's exactly why I don't like it. A cop could call my little kershaw leek a weapon if he felt like it.
 
Weapon laws in general I think were always intended to work some what like what zignal_zero described: technicalities to arrest people whom the LEO has a fairly reasonable belief is up to no good, but has no hard evidence. Problem is carrying any weapon or object is not innately evil. It a philosophical (not legal) sense, it is all about why, not what. Problem when you mix law in is that "why" is hard to prove, "what" is not. The "what" requires no mens rea.

Laws based on "why" can be very good if a fair burden of proof without presumption is placed on the state. They can go very bad if that burden is shifted away.
 
I don't think you have too much to worry about as long as you use some common sense. Most of the state is rural and most of the folks in the state hunt, so it is pretty knife and gun friendly.

Just a couple of quick stories, not to hijack your thread, but to show how the state used to be.
1. A friend and I were going out shooting with our .357s. We stopped at the Red Canyon Lodge up by Flaming Gorge for breakfast, but left our handguns in the truck. When we returned to the truck, we put the guns back on, but decided to take a quick look at the pond outside the dining room. The manager came out and asked us not to wear our handguns outside the dining room because it made the tourists nervous.

2. I once took a bus from northern Utah through Salt Lake on my way to Ephraim in central Utah. I bought a new hunting rifle during the layover in Salt Lake. When I got off the bus in Ephraim I had the rifle tucked under my arm, in the box, of course. My sister and her roommate, who were supposed to meet me, were waiting in the cop car with the local police officer. They gave me directions to the hotel. No one was at the desk of the hotel (which was kind of an old, converted house), so I walked back to the cop car to ask him how I was supposed to get a room. The only person who ever asked about the rifle was my sister. I told her I'd bought it in Salt Lake on the way through. The cop didn't even blink.

It's been a few years since then, but I think that if you don't run around in a mall ninja outfit with one of those fantasy knives prominently displayed you should be okay. And if all you are concerned about is your Kershaw Leek, I don't think you have too much to worry about.
 
Check with the local PD's. My understanding is that most LOE's do not understand this law.

As for your Leek, my friend carries one, no problems, and he is someone who would most likely get arrested.
I carry a Native, Endura, and most times an RC-3Mils "concealed" on my belt with my shirt over it tucked under the bottom.

The burden of proof is on the LEO/prosecutor. I sincerely dought that there is, even remotely, an underlying intent to "trick" people into committing a crime. If it isn't stated than it isn't illegal unless carried as a weapon. I'll ask my professor what her interpretation on this law is on Friday.
 
Last edited:
zignal_zero said:
WOW! that is pretty vague. i thought FL's was vague, you got us beat by a long shot.

i think there's a reason for vague wording of a law - it can be applied to a very wide group of individuals. basically, you criminalize EVERYONE, but then selectively enforce it. it gives LEO's total discretion. there exist a certain belief that particular laws are "OK" to break, but then when someone who is showing their butt breaks that law, the LEO can charge 'em

i'm an NOT voicing support for this tactic, just saying that i really think there's a method to the vagueness. for those of you who've traveled to "developing" nations, you'll know EXACTLY what i'm talking about.

i do believe in giving individual officers the right to use discretion when enforcing the law, though.
Click to expand...

I agree. Let's face it. A cop isn't going to randomly stop you to arrest you for carrying a knife; however, if you are stopped by a cop because you were doing something wrong or acting stupid, you will probably get in trouble for carrying it. I don't really have a problem with this. Don't do stupid things = staying out of trouble.
 
I say the stabbing should be the illegal part, not the knife.

and I just used the leek as an example of a totally innocuous knife that COULD be illegal under my states retarded knife laws. :)
 
Dagw00d said:
Wow, the Utah laws are amazingly vague... No mention of blade length or the legalities of auto or spring-assist, etc etc. I have no idea what I can carry and what I can't.

Does anyone have any light to shed on this nonsense?

"Utah - Offenses Against Public Health and Safety - 76-10-504.
Carrying concealed dangerous weapon.
(1) Any person... carrying a concealed dangerous weapon... is
guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
- 76-10-501... Definitions... (2)... (c) "Dangerous weapon"
means an item that in the manner of its use or intended
use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.
The following factors shall be used in determining whether
an item, object, or thing not commonly known as a
dangerous weapon is a dangerous weapon:
(i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing;
(ii) the character of the wound produced, if any; and
(iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing
was used."
Click to expand...


ive been to utah, utah county to be more precise. from what i saw, utah is a fairly weapon friendly state.

note the highlighted areas.

shall=must. no ambiguity there. consider the difference between "should do" and "shall do".

all the elements are based on use of the item, not simple carry, and all three elements (i, ii, iii) must be articulated. in order to establish "intended use", i would think the individual would be engaged in some other illegal act or make an admission of their intended use. in other words, there must be aggravating factors to determine with reasonable certainty what an individual intends to do with any item.

for example, someone carrying a can of spray paint seems fairly inocuous. but if that individual also as 5 tips in his pocket, paint on his hands matching the color, and is in an area with fresh grafitti also matching the color, the possession of spray paint becomes criminal.

i think you folks are getting excited over nothing.
 
Hmm. Thanks, Morimotom. I feel better about things now that you put it that way.
 
Dagw00d said:
Hmm. Thanks, Morimotom. I feel better about things now that you put it that way.
Click to expand...

thwolf said:
Thanks Morimotom, You eloquently clarified, what I was saying.
Click to expand...

anytime.

it is important to keep in mind that laws should be vague in many instances. although a law written too vaguely is impossible to enforce, so is a law written too specifically.

there must be room allowed not only for interpretation (spirit of the law), but also for changes in technologies, designs, and uses.

additionally, the exclusion of blade length and autos works in your favor as well. not being specifically prohibited or regulated creates situations where simple possession of most, if not all, knives is not going to be an offense, in and of themselves. again, additional circumstances would determine whether all the elements are met, or what is referred to as the "totality of circumstances".
 
you may also want to check if there are provisions for weapons carried for purposes of self defense.
 
frankiebagadonuts said:
I agree. Let's face it. A cop isn't going to randomly stop you to arrest you for carrying a knife; however, if you are stopped by a cop because you were doing something wrong or acting stupid, you will probably get in trouble for carrying it. I don't really have a problem with this. Don't do stupid things = staying out of trouble.
Click to expand...

So a stop for jaywalking can end up as a trip to the lockup because a LEO had a fight with his wife and decides to call your axis a switchblade? No thanks. Laws should be clear as possible.
 
I think that the word concealed is the key part of this law. As long as it was not concealed you could carry around a sword.
just my .02
 
BigDude said:
So a stop for jaywalking can end up as a trip to the lockup because a LEO had a fight with his wife and decides to call your axis a switchblade? No thanks. Laws should be clear as possible.
Click to expand...

Sure- everyone has heard the "mad cop harrassing me for no reason" stories. In my experience, the ones telling the stories have been hot-heads or smart a$$es. I prefer the laws to be vague enough to give LEO's a little leeway in how they apply them. In most cases, they will give a respectful person the benefit of the doubt if they were not doing something else illegal already. I might be naive in this opinion, but I'll take my chances. Of course- the only way to truely be sure is to not carry anything in question.
 
From Morimotom's post:
(i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing;
(ii) the character of the WOUND PRODUCED, if any; and
(iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing
was USED."

Morimotom highlighted the "used," but there is also (ii) that refers to the wound produced.

I'd suggest 1. Don't threaten anyone with your knife. 2. Don't cut on anyone with your knife. 3. Treat your knife as a tool, not as a weapon.

I lived in Utah for 25 years and I'm not sure I knew any man who didn't carry a knife. It isn't a big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top