Why not piggyback on CCW laws?

L

lawdog

Joined
Aug 21, 1999
Messages
63
Hello:

It seems to me that if one of the AKTI's main objectives is to ensure that people can carry knives on their person without running afoul of the law, perhaps it could come up with some model legislation.

My vision of such legislation would be that of simple amendment style language that concerned citizens could ask their legislators to introduce to amend CCW laws and permits. What the model legislation should do is permit Concealed Carry Permit Holders in "shall issue" states the option to carry folding or fixed blade knives up to a 6.5 inch blade concealed upon their person.

I believe that proposing such legislation could even be pitched to gun control advocates because it allows people a measure of self-defense ability without the attendant risk of killing or injuring innocent bystanders.

Any suggestions?
 
I've been saying this for years. One difference: we may as well go for absolutely unlimited...in fact, there's very good reasons for doing so.

Remember this: you can only go so far with a "they're only tools" approach. Same with gun rights: saying you want guns for "legitimate target, sporting and hunting use" *will* eventually lead to confiscation. That's the mistake the Brits and Aussies made; eventually the "safety fears" overrode the gunner's need for "hobbyist toys" because they'd already conceded the defense argument.

The moment they conceded defense, they had lost.

With CCW, we're confronting the self-defense reality of guns head-on. "Sporting use" my tail end - CCW *is* about killing people when absolutely necessary, no apologies. In the shall-issue states, that's exactly what the politicians already realize with guns.

Welp, there's no reason they can't realize that with cane swords, big Bowies or similar in "Dundee Rigs" as Mad Dog so charmingly calls 'em, etc.

The arguments in favor should be as follows:

1) There are situations where bullets would be negligent due to dense crowds. Classic example, a stickup on a subway. I would far rather have a GOOD major-grade knife than a gun at sub-8ft ranges!

2) There are people who just don't like guns but have martial arts training or similar. Or who come from a non-gun-culture (esp. Asian) but may be wizards with a knife, machete-length piece or even sword.

To push for such a critter, I'd get a well-crafted petition together signed by prominent martial arts teachers! In California, I'd find a whole pile of teachers, esp. Filipino-origin arts. Note that at the same time, I'd push for CCW-legalization of various sticks/staffs too, partly due to their effectiveness and partly as a "non-lethal alternative if you're well-trained" type argument.

If you're gonna trust someone with a gun, busting them for knife/stick carry is just plain nuts. Once we get shall-issue CCW in California I'll evaluate that fight in more detail, meanwhile those of you in shall-issue zones should consider it.

Absolutely it can and should be connected. In some places it is; Kevin McClung legally conceals his Panther on his AZ CCW.

Jim March
 
You have made some great, well thought out points. I'd like to take it one step further , however. How about Vermont (American type before socialism took over) type legislation in which the law recognizes an individual's right to defend self and family, with OUT needing permission from the govt. to exercise this God given right? This should encompass the liberty to carry ANY weapon, regardless of blade, caliber, whatever, as long as it is used in a lawful manner respectful of life and private property. I think that you would probably agree that the true issue is not the object, but rather the use of said object. Laws are already on the books in most states regarding capitol punishment (unless they've been amended, repealed, superceded, or ignored by the courts) for capitol offenses. This is one of two major divine establishment clauses which takes into consideration the life of the victim and family: This also is a deterant to those committing capitol crimes, not to mention lowers the recidivism rate.
The second major divine establishment clause in regards to this issue is that of self defense and that of one's family. The individual already has the God given right to defend himself with appropriate force. He also has the right of possessing the means (read weapon of choice) to carry out that right.

May I make a point which is philosophically different from most gun rights activist, but which is right in line with our ancestors who understood this. The CCW "might" be a step in the right direction, but it is FAR from just. A CCW "permit" is the government's way of giving an individual their "permission" to carry according to the govt. guildlines. The premiss on which they grant a CCW is that of a PRIVELEDGE, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL'S GOD GIVEN RIGHT. In my state, WV, this only applies to handguns, not to knives, sticks, or any other weapon.

There is only one legislator in the state house of representatives which is trying to introduce a bill, recognizing such a right and giving Vermont type of carry. The bill is denied entrance onto the floor for a vote because of one communistic committee leader will not allow it.

Why should we expect it to be voted on, much less pass in the state legislature, when even the gun/knife lobbies shoot for govt. permission? I've had NRA representatives paint me as an extremist for taking this point of view, as well as IPSC shooters; but what was a common point of view in one generation, is extremist ravings of today.

Three things are certain when it comes to good ol' *instant checks* (thank you NRA) and *CCWs*:

1. The government knows who you are.

2. The government knows what you have.

3. The government w/ probably try to remove the weapon that it LET you have and remove the PRIVELEDGE to have the means to defend yourself/ family someday.

I know that CCW seem like a good thing that will keep us out of legal trouble, if we are ever frisked by a cop, but my concern is regards to the possible, no, probable long term effects.

Maybe CCW for knife carry is a good step in the right direction. Unlike any other time in history, maybe we can regain liberty the way that liberty has been violated, through incrementallism. But then again, maybe we should study this matter from a Biblical viewpoint, that God has granted this right of defense. I just hope that there are enough men in society that can still make lucid decisions of justice, grace, and liberty to make a difference. This must be the case before any amount of activism even makes a dent for the cause of conceiled knife carry.

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one." Luke 22:36 & John 3:18
 
Equalizer: in some states, a switch to "Vermont carry" may be politically possible. States where the CCW permit is nothing more than a background check (WA, ID, GA) would be prime candidates.

If I was to try and craft a "Vermont carry" law (or initiative) in such areas, I'd put in a very small tax on ammo (1 or 2%) earmarked for computer upgrades for cops. The idea is, make sure that the cops can quickly run a felony ID check at any stop.

Then, along with "Vermont carry", there'd be 3 rules:

1) When packing, you must carry valid ID.

2) If asked by a cop if you're packing, you must answer truthfully.

3) Ya better not be an ex-con.

Politically, there is just no way in hell Vermont Carry will pass in California or any other non-shall-issue state. Welll....*maybe* New Mexico. With a grabber governor in WA State, even that's impossible.

Shall-issue IS a violation of RKBA, granted. But it's a damn sight better than the alternatives. And as a practical matter, letting sheeple and politicritters know that "X" number of citizens are packing yet aren't causing trouble is NOT a bad thing, really. If politicritters *know* that there's "X" many million people out there that care enough to score the permits, they'll just maybe realize there's a limit to how far those people can be pushed.

And that's a GOOD thing!

Jim March
 
I agree with Mr. March. In a perfect world we would not have to justify or validate why we want to carry any implement for self-defense, but this is not a perfect world.

Media-types have vast protections against what is called "prior restraint." Governments and individuals can attempt to punish or restrain any artist, but usually only AFTER he/she has produced the work in question. It seems that hopolophiles have never had the luxury of such a judicial policy. The stakes for such an approach are simply deemed to be too high according to the sheeple

CCW permits in shall-issue states are a form of prior restraint. You have the onus of demonstrating that you have not in the past been a menace to society and that you are a safe bet to remain a solid citizen. This makes a certain amount of sense (omigod, I can see that there may actually be logic beneath this position) as a policy. The worst that usually happens from misguided journalism or poorly produced biography is that someone's reputation gets trashed. If someone flips out with a gun, society bears a cost it is not willing to gratuitously bear by not checking you out beforehand.

These are reasons why I'd want to piggyback on CCW systems: First, knives are both demonstrably and logically less threatening to passersby in the event of their justified or unjustified use. In many common scenarios, a knife may be as or more effective and practical as any gun. It seems that if one gave the gun grabbers the option between just fuming that they cannot reverse shall-issue or continually wasting their resources trying to reverse it and the option that they could give the permitees the legal means of reducing their mass lethality potential while maintaining their self-defense potential, they might go for it and help us pass it.

Personally, I am not worried in the slightest if the government knows I own a Beretta, or a Steyr Scout , or a Fallkniven F1, or any other weapon/tool. If they come looking for them, they are going to need a warrant and a psychic. First of all, I am not permitting any JBT's on my property through consent. Secondly, I will have had some unfortunately tragic deep woods losses that I cannot specifically point to on a map. Thirdly, no one has to consent to a polygraph test as these are nearly universally barred from courts on the state and federal level. Even if all of the laws are changed, I will simply begin buying and carrying fixed blade kitchen knives from the most reputable makers I could afford. The government has a long way to go before banning kitchen utensils.

In the meantime, perhaps incrementalist measures to legalize and/or liberalize knife carrying for the law abiding might be just what the doctor ordered.

[This message has been edited by lawdog (edited 01 September 1999).]
 
Folks, some states have an interesting variant known as a Dangerous Weapon Carry Permit. Kentucky is one of them. These permits do not limit the individual to guns, but allow the bearer to carry any dangerous weapon.

I agree that the best of all possible worlds would not require us to have "Daddy" give us permission to have the means to defend ourselves, but establishing that defense was a conditional right would still be establising personal defense as a right.

Take care,

Mike

------------------
TANSTAAFL




[This message has been edited by hso (edited 03 September 1999).]
 
I know this is a repeat but: we must have defensive uses of guns AND knives recognised as "legitimate purposes".

If the grabbers can convince everyone that guns cause harm, then if the only "positive aspects" that are recognised are target, hunting and other "sport" uses, we've lost. If a "hobby" is dangerous, it can be banned - ask the Australian "shooting sports" people.

The only *possible* use for a gun or serious combat knife that is more critical than "hobby use" is personal defense.

Jim March

[This message has been edited by Jim March (edited 02 September 1999).]
 
Ok, while I would love to see knives available for some type of CCW permit, I am not too concerned if it doesn't happen. Before you all start raving, listen.
First, I live in California, and here in the Land of Oppression (at least as far as guns and knives go) I carry a knife everyday. What's more, I carry a 6" fixed blade, CONCEALED. I figure the only time a police officer is going to know that I have it, is if I've used it on someone. At that point, if I'm alive, I don't think that any one is going to fault me for protecting my life.
Second, for some reason, people are really really afraid, like irrationally afraid of knives.

I don't know, maybe I'm just unconventional- no one- not even the govt. is going to disarm me.

Just my two cents.

Joe
 
OR won their auto`s with a Second Amend. defense. They are arms, and thus, protected.

------------------
 
SycoticSamurai

I have to agree with you there, ive also noticed that people tend to have an irrational fear of edged tools(or weapons).
for some reason its okay for me to carry one of those razorblade box cutters(which i hate) but god forbid i use my pocket knife to break down a box.
i was working in a warehouse once, assembling cardboard boxes, and i used one of my one-handers to cut the nylon strap holding a stack of boxes together. it scared the hell out of the person i working with, it was alost funny, he started apologizing for every insult/jab/etc he had bothered me with that day(he wasnt the nicest guy) and left me alone after that. i didnt do anything flashy either, just opened the knife, cut the straps, repocketed the knife.
ive also had people tell me there is no need to carry a knife on a camping/backpacking trip.
ive also had some major gun-rights type people tell me there is no need to carry a knife-that they are bad guy weapons or some such tripe.
 
The "I'll just break the law" argument isn't smart. It can be applied to both knives AND guns, of course, and I'll freely admit I've packed concealed guns illegally in California, in the past.

Here's the problem: long term, as "our type of people" get caught one by one, we then get stripped of all gun ownership rights, temporarily or permanently.

THAT'S WHAT THE BASTARDS WANT!

A better idea for knife carry in CA is either open-carry of an FB (which I'm fond of) or concealed carry of folders, including the megafolders that are legal here. If you can't afford a SIFU, the big Cold Steel megafolders ain't bad at all.

As to illegal gun carry: in theory, there's a way to beat these busts. IF your local PD Chief and/or Sheriff is violating the laws regarding issuance of Carry Concealed Weapons permits and you have evidence of this, in theory you can beat a concealed rap in front of a jury. In practice, you're liable to get a pile of sheep and a public defender with an IQ less than some forms of plant life.

Personally, I can't bend weapons laws even a little, not after having sued my Sheriff over CCW issuance policies. All that rodent-with-a-badge has to do to kill the suit is pop be with a piece, and I ain't gonna give him the satisfaction.

See my website for more info on CCW issuance illegality.

Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top