Want to build a knife&gun website, need your input

L

LawStudentBladeFan

Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
3
I posted this already in the "Community" forum, but then realized it's probably better posted here. I hope I'm not doing something wrong for reposting!

Hello BladeForums Community,

This is my first post, so if I'm doing something wrong please take it easy on me. I have been a knife enthusiast for years, and I've read lots of posts on this site in the past, but never participated before.

I haven't been able to find a easy and reliable source online where I can look up what kinds of blades are legal to carry in own in my state, nor have I found a similar resource for firearms. Though the laws are publicly accessible, they ore often either hazy because they're in common law form (that is, to understand them you need to be able to interpret them from judicial opinions) or they're spread out in state statutes. So basically, even though you are legally entitled to access to this information, it's a pain in the butt to figure it out.

I'm a law student and I'm considering making a free website that solves this problem, but it would involve a lot of research and cataloguing on my part, so I wanted to check in here (and possibly other forums?) to get some feedback from experts like you guys. So if you don't mind responding to a few questions, I would really appreciate it!

-Do you know of a website that already reliably compiles this information?
-If not, would you be interested in using such a website?
-Specifically what kinds of information would you be interested in accessing?
-Do you have any suggestions for other forums/communities/individuals who might also be interested in having some input into a project like this?

Thanks!
 
Welcome LSBF!,

You are already on a site that compiles this type of info for free.
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=735

In the future if you would like a topic moved/reposted. Please use the triangle with the exclaimation point at the far right next to your post number to report your own post with a request that it be moved. This saves the staff extra work in cleaning up duplicate topics posted in various forums, which is against the rules.
 
Welcome.

Let me start with a well-intended correction, if I may. "Common law" only applies when there is no state statute on point. When there is a statute, the statute applies. Of course, how it applies is determined by how it has been applied in the past under similar and dissimilar sets of facts. But that's all semantics and technicalities. In reality, whichever party has the more believable story (and more trustworthy lawyer) prevails.

More to your point, I can tell you that I have not had any problems finding all of the information that I require. Google is a wonderful thing.

See you on the forum. . . .
 
link2derek said:
Welcome.

Let me start with a well-intended correction, if I may. "Common law" only applies when there is no state statute on point. When there is a statute, the statute applies. Of course, how it applies is determined by how it has been applied in the past under similar and dissimilar sets of facts. But that's all semantics and technicalities. In reality, whichever party has the more believable story (and more trustworthy lawyer) prevails.

More to your point, I can tell you that I have not had any problems finding all of the information that I require. Google is a wonderful thing.

See you on the forum. . . .
Click to expand...

I said that common law can be difficult to decipher because it involves the interpretation of judicial opinion. I didn't say that common law applies in the presence of a statute. I mentioned both because it's often necessary to reference common law when a statute is silent on an issue, as they often are when it comes to the murky specifics of possession, carrying, concealment, etc.

No offense, but since you were attempting to correct me, I thought I'd point out that I didn't say what you implied I said.

Anyway, it sounds like my website idea isn't a good one. Thanks, guys.
 
Last edited:
LawStudentBladeFan said:
I didn't imply it. You misread it, and then attempted to correct an error that didn't exist. 12(b)(6), buddy! Good luck with that law career.
Click to expand...

Wow -- angry and confused, eh? Out of courtesy, I typically refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. But, it seems, you insist.

My point was simply that you were conflating case law with common law. They are not one in the same, and that is all I was stating (politely, if you recall). And for your edification, young padawan, FRCP 12(b)(6) is a federal rule. And federal rules don't apply to judicial interpretations of state statutes (which was your original subject of discussion, if you recall).

Best of luck to you as well. And with some luck, you'll likely figure this all out eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top