Vague knife laws

[klattman]

Why are knife laws vague?

1. So Politicians can get them passed and make themselves look good (i.e tough on "crime").

2. So certain lawyers can make gobs and gobs of money (regardless who wins).

If laws weren't so complicated, the laws would be seen as restrictive and not pass _or_ they would pass and the cases would be simple and lawyers wouldn't make so much money on the court cases.

Agree, disagree? Discuss.



(I hope I don't offend any good lawyers or politicians )

 

[Planterz]

They're vague because:

1. They rely on descriptions like "bowie knife", "dirk", "dagger", and "stiletto", yet don't define exactly what constitutes a "bowie", "dirk", etc.

2. Definitions of what a "switchblade" or "gravity knife" is are very outdated and don't account for technological advances.

3. And since definitions are outdated, they require ambigious interpretations of insufficient definitions.

and most importantly...

4. The laws aren't written by people knowledgeable about knives.


Bad laws are written because sheeple associate certain knives (and other things) with criminals, when they should be just looking at the criminal acts.

 

[Watchful]

I don't think knife laws are changed too frequently for it to be motivated by political reasons.

Regrettably, I think many of them are reactionary, and that also explains some of the outmoded terminology used in the laws.

Here's an example: if some kid decided to make a homemade weapon out of a piece of pipe with a high school biology kit scalpel taped to the end of it...and then killed somebody with it...you just know that every state legislature in the US would have a bill to outlaw "pipe scalpels." It would pass due to press coverage and parental demand, and then twenty years later somebody will post to this forum asking "What the heck are pipe scalpels??"

Are they vague? Yes, and no. Attorneys tend to be very good at writing precisely worded legislation. Often, vague terms are intentionally there to allow for certain loopholes, while other phrases are quite specific to prevent loopholes.

I suspect--with no evidence, admittedly--that knife laws use vague language because knives are, frankly, popular and everywhere. You can't deny people the right to carry something--and keep your job as a legislator!

Great question!

 

[klattman]

... You can't deny people the right to carry something--and keep your job as a legislator!

Great question!

Good points, however some politicians have made themselves by passing stupid/pointless laws (look at gun legislation or even swtichblade laws back in the 50s).

You CAN deny people the right to carry something, and I would almost bet that locking knives will be banned for personal carry in many states in the near future, simply beause the public, not used to doing anything for themselves anymore, will allow it.

There could be 100s of murders with kitchen knives, but one case with a locking folder and they will be banned because many crimes are committed with 'knives'.

Forgive my ranting...

 

[Watchful]

...You CAN deny people the right to carry something...Forgive my ranting...

No rant perceived. I should have been more specific: they're not going to outlaw *all* knives; it's easier to go after the one that's popular (switchblades, balisongs, etc.).

Now that I think of it, are there other examples of "media popular" weapons? You know... how in the 1980s, every firearm was an "Uzi," and how today every firearm is an "AK-47," and so on?

 

[Mark Nelson]

Why wouldn't they want to outlaw all knives. In some place they have more or less. Well let me add knives that you can carry on your person. Here in Georgia you can not carry any "offensive" or "defensive" knife in a public place. None of them terms are defined. This is on top of the silly laws that are already on the book around the state. Can't carry a blade that locks in the city of Atlanta. The county in which the Blade Show is held has a law that you can not carry a knife with more then a 2.5 in blade concealed.

 

[klattman]

Boston is also 2.5".

I rant because such laws do nothing to people who commit crimes with a knife. If they rob or murder someone, they are locked up for that crime. The weapons possesion charge is unneccesary and may not even come into play.

However, the laws make normal people into crimminals, even if they never would commit any other crime.

These pointless laws make the politicians look tough on crime, and when the possesion-only cases come to trial, the lawyers on both sides get paid.

 

[jablunov]

I'm currently struggling with interpretation of Pennsylvania's "spring mechanism" term. This, maybe, applies to assisted openers but you can't really tell.

I sense the ambigous words help with selective prosecution. This is in addition to the knee-jerk language of the most fashionable weapon of the current mythical bad guy (highwayman, cattle-rustler, anarchist, mobster, zoot-suiter, west-side-story-dancing-gang-member, drug-crazed-hippie, gangsta, ...in approximate historical order). If somebody wants you put away, there are enough loose laws to find something.

Maybe a nice Emerson is a safer bet...

 

[Watchful]

...the knee-jerk language of the most fashionable weapon of the current mythical bad guy (highwayman, cattle-rustler, anarchist, mobster, zoot-suiter, west-side-story-dancing-gang-member, drug-crazed-hippie, gangsta, ...in approximate historical order)...

Priceless. You nailed it.

Did we miss 'drug dealer' or 'devil worshipper' from the 1980s?

 

[brewthunda]

Knife laws are passed so that the police can remove undesirable people from society. They need to be written vaguely enough to apply to all the knives that undesirable people might carry.

I think that's the short of it. I don't see how lawyers could "make gobs and gobs of money (regardless who wins)" from vague knife laws. The criminal client who can pay for a long, drawn out defense is probably pretty rare.