• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Almost any Knife is a Dangerous Knife in Seattle

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
...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
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
...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".
 

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
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.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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:

Seriona

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
151
Location
Snohomish, WA
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.
 
Top