Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Almost any Knife is a Dangerous Knife in Seattle

  1. #1
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Almost any Knife is a Dangerous Knife in Seattle

    ...and no, the clearly written Article I Section 24 statement, "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..." has no bearing. Amazing. I can walk around Seattle with a pistol carried openly without any license required, and the police cannot stop me for doing so. But a knife......too dangerous.

    As a matter of first impression, we hold that as applied in this case, Seattle's prohibition on carrying a fixed-blade knife in public did not violate Evans's federal constitutional right to bear arms and affirm his conviction.


    Here's the .pdf of the case: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/678167.pdf

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    ...and no, the clearly written Article I Section 24 statement, "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..." has no bearing. Amazing. I can walk around Seattle with a pistol carried openly without any license required, and the police cannot stop me for doing so. But a knife......too dangerous.
    Result-oriented jurisprudence. Define "arms" as not including knives in order to read as much out that constitutional provision as you can. Of course, that's not the fault of the appellate court, their hands are tied. That's the fault of the WA Supreme Court and the spinelessness of the Heller court.

    Since they're looking for a result, even if that constitutional provision said "weapons" and not "arms" it likely wouldn't matter. They'd probably then rule that since no threat was imminent, the defendant wasn't bearing in self-defense and so the constitutional provision still doesn't apply. That would gut it entirely.

    Not the first time the WA SC used suspect definitions to obtain a result. As I recall they're also rather aggressive at denying any and all attempts by the voters to restrain the legislature's taxing authority, basically by defining all tax initiatives as "multi-issue" and then striking them down because ballot initiatives must be "single-issue".

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    150
    I should test this. I have a M14 bayonet that came with its own holster, I am thinking about getting an actual M14 that has a bayonet attachment and walk around with the M14 in a rifle holster and the knife on my hip to see which one get the police called on me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by randian View Post
    Since they're looking for a result, even if that constitutional provision said "weapons" and not "arms" it likely wouldn't matter. They'd probably then rule that since no threat was imminent, the defendant wasn't bearing in self-defense and so the constitutional provision still doesn't apply. That would gut it entirely.
    Maybe, maybe not. Unless they want to declare police forces to be death squads, they have to recognize carrying for potential self-defense.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. Unless they want to declare police forces to be death squads, they have to recognize carrying for potential self-defense.
    If I can define "arms" to exclude "knives", then I can certainly define "self-defense" in a way that guts it for civilians but not police. The courts may not go there, but that's where the logic they're favoring leads.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Seriona View Post
    I should test this. I have a M14 bayonet that came with its own holster, I am thinking about getting an actual M14 that has a bayonet attachment and walk around with the M14 in a rifle holster and the knife on my hip to see which one get the police called on me.
    You need not expose yourself to arrest if your argument is a federal 2nd amendment argument ~ you can file w/o being charged in federal court.

    So, if you want to test this, go file in federal court. Although this case is churning through the court system now and has not reached the supreme court.

    There is no doubt to rational people that bladed instruments are arms. Bladed arms are still issued to members of the military all around the world. Even this court assumed this in their 2nd amendment analysis.

    That goofy "level of scrutiny" , made up my the courts, was intermediate ... which means that the 2nd amendment actually means nothing.

    All these cases flip on that mystical level of scrutiny .. and the level is decided by the government ... that's why they can decide anything that they want. I guess the founding fathers should gave wrote the level of scrutiny into each law that they made.

    Have yet to see a litigant argue that the "level of scrutiny" or "historical viewpoint" are both hogwash. Both are or have been controlled by the government(s).

    From my slant, I see that this court views the 2nd amendment as an "exemption" ... what idiots. Of course, seeking redress from a tyrannical government from ITS tyranny isn't the best logic either.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-01-2014 at 06:56 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    150
    Plus I bet you they would argue the knife is more dangerous as you can stealth kill much easier than you could with a firearm even with a suppressor.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •