imported post
Sonora Rebel wrote:
GCR 4-101; * technically "yes" unless it's intended as a weapon, but probably no. Again, this is a situation where intent is required by the statute, but ends up being presumed
unless the defendent can prove otherwise.
Anderson v State broadly discusses the statute and some D.C. caselaw on the subject.
'Daggers are a NO carry... and that would be any dubble edged fixed blade knife. Wanna test it?
Uh, no, it can be intended as a weapon for self defence if worn openly. The only prohibition is for unlawfully injure when worn openly. This is not DC, this is MD and
this is MD law dealing with intent:
"Art. 27 § 12A-1(a)(1). Although the State must prove that an
individual had a specific intent to cause a serious physical
injury, see Dixon v. State, 364 Md. 209, 239 (2001), a jury may
infer the necessary intent from an individual’s conduct and the
surrounding circumstances, whether or not the victim suffers such
an injury. See Ford v. State, 330 Md. 682, 703, 705 n.9 (1993).
Also, the jury may “infer that ‘one intends the natural and
probable consequences of his act.’” Id. at 704 (citation omitted).
Here, Chilcoat grabbed a beer stein and hit Keene in the head
four or five times. The jury saw photographs of Keene’s external
injuries, the beer stein with which Chilcoat hit Keene, and Keene’s
medical records. The jury could determine whether inflicting a
serious physical injury was the natural and probable consequence of
hitting Keene with the stein."
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache: )Y2BGcwgoZQJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/marylandstatecases/cosa/2004/2032s02.pdf+maryland+intent+to+unlawfully+injury+weapon+appeals+court&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
In other words, you stab someone in a fight you started, then they know your intent was to unlawfully injure.
The link you provided was to a case about
concealed carry, not open carry and there is no intent for unlawfully injure when dealing with the concealed paragraph of the statute, it is about if the item is intended to be a weapon because ANY dangerous weapon cannot be concealed. The courts ruled an extension cord in a pocket violated the dangerous weapons statute because it was concealed and intended to be used as a weapon (which was evident from his using it as a garrote). You are confusing to totally seperate items.
Daggers are allowed to be openly carried in MD and I HAVE tested it. The law is plain and simple, if it is not prohibitted it is not illegal and the open carry of a knife without intent to unlawfully injure is not prohibitted.
I will not follow a law that does not exist. Why do you?
