Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: State vs Evans (Fixed blade knives in Seattle)

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

    State vs Evans (Fixed blade knives in Seattle)

    Mostly good news....

    State Supreme Court:

    We hold that the right to bear arms protects instruments that are designed as weapons traditionally or commonly used by law abiding citizens for the lawful purpose of self-defense. In considering whether a weapon is an arm, we look to the historical origins and use of that weapon, noting that a weapon does not need to be designed for military use to be traditionally or commonly used for self-defense. We will also consider the weapon’s purpose and intended function….
    Read it all: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/906084.pdf

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Then the courts will have no problem with me carrying a K Bar, sword, ax, hammer, switch blade or a Bayonet.

    How can a paring knife not be an arm but yet be a deadly weapon.

    This ruling makes no sense on several levels.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Then the courts will have no problem with me carrying a K Bar, sword, ax, hammer, switch blade or a Bayonet.

    How can a paring knife not be an arm but yet be a deadly weapon.

    This ruling makes no sense on several levels.
    I think the gist of it is:

    A paring knife is not a weapon. If we rule that anything that can be possibly used as a weapon is a constitutionally protected weapon, it'll be a mess. The dissenting opinion alludes to this sort of saying; he was carrying it as a weapon, therefore it's protected as a weapon.

    The main point is that fixed blade knives are "arms" and constitutionally protected. That's good.

    It's bad for Evans of course, because if he had been carrying a Bowie knife (a weapon) instead of a kitchen knife (not a weapon), he would have prevailed. Go figure.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    I think the gist of it is:

    A paring knife is not a weapon. If we rule that anything that can be possibly used as a weapon is a constitutionally protected weapon, it'll be a mess. The dissenting opinion alludes to this sort of saying; he was carrying it as a weapon, therefore it's protected as a weapon.

    The main point is that fixed blade knives are "arms" and constitutionally protected. That's good.

    Agreed, that opens a lot of doors that have been slammed shut for years.

    It's bad for Evans of course, because if he had been carrying a Bowie knife (a weapon) instead of a kitchen knife (not a weapon), he would have prevailed. Go figure.
    I am wrestling with the Bowie knife would have been OK but not a kitchen knife, they opened a lot of doors, still digesting this as it will have far reaching effects on current laws.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,193
    Some more info full story at link

    http://www.gunwatch.blogspot.com/201...n-supreme.html


    The Washington State Supreme Court issued an insane ruling on December 31st. The ruling was written by Justice Charles Wiggens, pictured above. The case was City of Seattle v. Wayne Anthony Evans. I classify this sort of opinion as Goldilocks gun control. While this case involves knives, the approach is the same. Under Goldilocks gun control, guns are restricted under any imaginable restriction, until the ones that are left are such a small number that they are acceptable to disarmists. Either guns are "too big" (.50 caliber rifles) or too small (easily concealable), too military (weapons of war) or not military (not suitable for militia use), too effective (no one needs a 30 round magazine) or not effective enough (not reliable). In the end, no gun is "just right". Here is Justice' Wiggins transparent and idiotic attempt to do the same for knives. From the decision(pdf):
    Last edited by Firearms Iinstuctor; 01-03-2016 at 08:31 AM.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    We really have ourselves to thank for this stupid ruling. Lobby organizations have worked for years to convince all, including the court that the second amendment was only for firearms, and particularly concealed handguns with a permit. Where is the NRA? SAF? GOA? the state gun orgs? They should be on this like white on rice, but advocating carrying anything but a concealed permitted handgun goes against P4P. I count myself responsible for my apathetic years of my life. I could carry because I had state sanction, so I did not get involved. I am still state sanctioned but I now realize the lunacy of the current gun laws for the people.

    People just don't get the real danger with the permit industry, they have to learn the hard way it seems. There are those that extol it, those that make excuses for it, but it is the devil's work no matter how it is portrayed.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    I think the gist of it is:

    A paring knife is not a weapon. If we rule that anything that can be possibly used as a weapon is a constitutionally protected weapon, it'll be a mess. The dissenting opinion alludes to this sort of saying; he was carrying it as a weapon, therefore it's protected as a weapon.

    The main point is that fixed blade knives are "arms" and constitutionally protected. That's good.

    It's bad for Evans of course, because if he had been carrying a Bowie knife (a weapon) instead of a kitchen knife (not a weapon), he would have prevailed. Go figure.

    This is pure sophistry by the courts.

    OF course anything can be used as a weapon!
    The mess is pretending they have any constitutional authority to infringe. They do not. Get rid of that silly notion......no mess.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    Don't worry! The proper people will be exempted when it becomes necessary. By keeping cheap "Saturday night special" knives away from the wrong people (you know - them!) we're all better off. Proper people with the proper tool - who (with any political power) could possibly object?

    /says Jim Crow supporter

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim675 View Post
    Don't worry! The proper people will be exempted when it becomes necessary. By keeping cheap "Saturday night special" knives away from the wrong people (you know - them!) we're all better off. Proper people with the proper tool - who (with any political power) could possibly object?

    /says Jim Crow supporter
    Well duh! We all know some animals are more equal!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Well duh! We all know some animals are more equal!
    +1
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  11. #11
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    OK,,, so I have some confusion...
    I cant carry a kitchen knife for self defense, even if I carry it for self defense ,, Its not protected by the 2nd...
    I have a filet knife in my sun visor of my car,,, I guess thats illegal now too...
    I read all 27 pages of the Indecision!! Still dont know how it was made.
    I have a bayonet for my M1Grand,, guess that is protected!
    I have two 6inch hunting knives,, guess they are Not kitchen nor defense knives,,, Need another court case!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  12. #12
    Regular Member Bill45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    160
    Watch out for Tacoma too.

    Tacoma city code bars carrying any knife with a blade over 3.5 inches. Blade length is described as to include the shank.
    So essentially any fixed blade knife which has a shank that enters the grip is illegal.

    If you want to carry a knife it must be a folder and 3.5" or less.
    Last edited by Bill45; 01-04-2016 at 10:56 PM.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    Mostly good news....

    State Supreme Court:



    Read it all: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/906084.pdf
    A person who is bearing a knife in self-defense has the right to do so and that right should be protected and considered a part of the 2nd amendment . . .

    the decision is very bad!

    z

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    We really have ourselves to thank for this stupid ruling. Lobby organizations have worked for years to convince all, including the court that the second amendment was only for firearms, and particularly concealed handguns with a permit. Where is the NRA? SAF? GOA? the state gun orgs? They should be on this like white on rice, but advocating carrying anything but a concealed permitted handgun goes against P4P.
    Really? Citations?

    How often did any RKBA advocate get up and lobby against RKBA for knives? This contrasted with focusing on advancing RKBA for firearms while simply neglecting knives?

    The focus is easily explained by where the largest attacks were. I'm not aware of any federally imposed "Gun Free Knife Zone" for instance, though most all schools do seem to ban students from possessing even Boy Scout pocket knives under the idiocy of zero-tolerance policies.

    In Utah, our Concealed Carry Firearm Permit exempts the holder from the section of code otherwise banning concealed weapons. I can legally conceal carry a knife or three just as I can my firearms under said permit. So far as I can discover, we've never had any State level laws banning possession of switch blades or other auto-knives--only a couple our liberal cities had such bans--though the federal ban on inter-State sales for non-first-responders made acquisition a little inconvenient.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I count myself responsible for my apathetic years of my life. I could carry because I had state sanction, so I did not get involved. I am still state sanctioned but I now realize the lunacy of the current gun laws for the people.
    This is a far more sensible and likely explanation for the current situation re knives than some conspiracy about your much hated "P4P".

    It is a real shame that instructors in some States have made RKBA into a personal money-making industry. We've not had that problem in Utah.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    People just don't get the real danger with the permit industry, they have to learn the hard way it seems. There are those that extol it, those that make excuses for it, but it is the devil's work no matter how it is portrayed.
    Those who never enjoyed your "State sanction" to carry were faced with the choice of either getting something they could get, or going a lifetime with nothing. Permits have lead to an increase in the number of persons owning and carrying guns specifically and solely for self defense. This has lead directly to the political power for half a dozen States to advance to permit-free carry. With the exception of Vermont, I'm not aware of a single State that has adopted permit-free carry (OC and CC) without first having a few years' experience with shall-issue permits.

    I do think you make an unintentional good observation here.

    Many fall into the mistake of claiming that the Bible condemns money as the root of all evil, when it is actually the love of money that is condemned.

    In like fashion, I can see the problem with the "permit industry" being distinct from permits themselves. I've always viewed permits to carry as offensive to the Constitutionally enumerated RKBA. Who would accept a permit to attend church, print a book, read a newspaper, or be presumed innocent until duly convicted? Yet it has also been obvious that permits are a necessary, hopefully temporary, evil, on the road to fully reclaiming and/or establishing our RKBA as the individual right it is, without need for permits (nor to carry antiques to sneak through some loophole). We've very deliberately worked to make sure that the State of Utah does not see a profit from issuing permits to carry. Fees are set as close to "break even" as we can maintain, lest any agency develop a profit motive for permits. And the culture of our activists and general residents alike have prevented our instructors from making permit courses the basis of their livelihood.

    Someday soon, we will drop our requirement to have a permit. And eventually, all federal and inter-State reasons to have a permit will also be eliminated. When that happens, neither the State of Utah, nor our instructors, will face the loss of any significant revenue. Instructors will continue to offer training spanning the gamut from first introduction to guns all the way to advanced tactical methods. And gun carrying residents will continue to seek out the training they desire. Permits will have served their purpose to provide a temporary avenue to effective self-defense, while also helping to change social and political views toward greater acceptance of RKBA. And having served their purpose, will no longer be needed, and won't be missed when the much better permit-free legal environment is available.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post

    People just don't get the real danger with the permit industry, they have to learn the hard way it seems. There are those that extol it, those that make excuses for it, but it is the devil's work no matter how it is portrayed.

    +1

    Its history is rooted in banning minorities from having guns and turning them into criminals if they do, it has worked tremendously well. Then it has given statist courts outs in helping to ban other type of weapons because there is a "permissable" one.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 01-16-2016 at 11:28 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Time to invest in a good Daisho set and start wearing those around town.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  17. #17
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    snip...

    It is a real shame that instructors in some States have made RKBA into a personal money-making industry. We've not had that problem in Utah.
    of course not as you have already saturated the state with permits ~ (2013)

    quote: Utah just crossed a big threshold for a small state with just 2.86 million residents: More than a half million people now hold a Utah permit to carry concealed firearms — 521,914, to be exact as of Sept. 30, according to new data. So Utah has issued enough permits for about one of every five residents. unquote
    http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?...t-gun.html.csp

    Even with 20% having a permit let's take a quick look for cost info on Utah's 3.5 hour the non-shooting CC class:

    $50 http://www.utahccwcarry.com/
    $50 http://www.carryutah.com/
    $5 + finger prints + photos ~ http://www.readygunner.com/Utah-CCW

    further, it seems there are:
    14 pages listing names of in state UTAH CHP instructors

    38 pages listing names of out state UTAH CHP instructors

    http://bci.utah.gov/concealed-firear...m-instructors/

    seems like a bustling business for 3.5 hours of filling out paper work...hummm



    a quick view for NC's 8 hour, minimum 50 round ammo supplied live fire CC class:

    $80 http://www.wakegov.com/sheriff/servi...cripsfetc.aspx
    $99 (ladies class) http://www.pointblankrange.com/train...rmit-training/
    $70 http://concealcarryhandgunclass.com

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Who would accept a permit to attend church, print a book, read a newspaper,
    What's the difference between a articles of incorporation and a business license... and a Concealed Pistol Permit (in regards to exercising Constitutional Rights)?

    Anyone else have an old Washington State Concealed Weapons Permit laying around? The kind that used to let you carry numchucks, throwing stars, knives, etc, before the liberals for scared.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    Mostly good news....

    State Supreme Court:



    Read it all: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/906084.pdf
    So we can only use OLD weapons ... after all new weapons are not common or have historical use for defense.

    I ignore all these musings by all gov't officials...they cannot change my rights.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainsail View Post
    Mostly good news....

    State Supreme Court:



    Read it all: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/906084.pdf
    by the way, not sure it matters, but the way to speak of the case is probably Seattle v Evans, rather than state v Evans. There is the city, the county and the state and they all have some different batches of laws and their own ability to prosecute for violations of the different laws.

    I don't know much of what the county laws are that would affect various persons, other than there is the code of conduct governing Metro transit and/or transit facilities, and that is King county code. There are special laws re weapons and special laws re photography within the city of Seattle . . .

    There are the usual state laws found in the RCW.

    Evans was prosecuted for violating a Seattle law, rather than a state law . . . and so, the opponent of Evans in the legal battle was Seattle, rather than the state. The state of Washington has no law against knife bearing . . .

    But it was very good of you to post the link to the decision; I read it and now I know more so that I can sue the city of Seattle on the grounds that their anti-knife law is not constitutional!

  21. #21
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    ....the way to speak of the case is probably Seattle v Evans, rather than state v Evans.
    You are absolutely right! Not sure how I came up with State vs; probably because it was decided by the State Supreme Court. But yes, Seattle vs, not state.

    There is a lot wrong with the decision to be sure, but there's also a lot right with it. One step at a time I suppose.
    Last edited by Mainsail; 01-26-2016 at 07:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

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