Novus Collectus
Regular Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Hunting knives (often Bowie type knives) and work knives (which can be ANY type of knife and mine was double edged) are really no different than dirk knives or other prohibitted concealed knives and it simply does not matter anyway because the statute only applies to wearing a weapon with the intent to unalwfully injure. It does not say a shaving razor, Bowie knive or even a dirk knife cannot be worn openly, it says any weapon worn concealed or with the intent to unlawfully injure is the ONLY thing it prohibits.
Now about the links. I see you cannot provide any proof of yours or provide a cite. You call foul saying I do not have a cite, then you make a claim you cannot cite. Something is not right about that. So sorry if I do not take your word for it when I have heard the exact opposite happening too.
Now about the part about providing links to cases where someone wore a dirk knife openly and was convicted that they appealed....well that is like trying to prove a negative. If it is not illegal and therefore never convicted, then there is no appeal to cite.
Now please read the statute, it defines the dangerous weapons which means any of those worn concealed is likely a violation of statute regardless of intent because they are listed as dangerous weapons and the paragraph about concealed says "any dangerous weapon", but openly worn there has to be mens rhea to unlawfully injure. This means that you are not breaking the law by simply possessing openly a dirk knife, Bowie knive, switchblade, etc. It either has to be worn concealed or openly with a mens rhea (intent) to unlawfully injure for it to be illegal.
Now I too have heard people arrested for knives, and I have heard of people arrested for pen knives over three and a half inches, but this is ignorance of the law on both the arestee's and the officer's part. If they are stupid enough to not challenge it in court or have it thrown out (which I have also heard happen with a sword but since it was second hand I cannot cite it like you cannot cire yours), then it does not mean it is illegal.
I know the way the dangerous weapons law is written, and my arrest would not get that far because I will challenge the officer's arrest and I will sue for false arrest if they charge me and I will win just like Sorrell did.
This is why I have no problem openly carrying around a bayonet, a double endged knife, or a dagger if I had a dagger. If I get arrested by an officer that didn't bother to look up the law after I told him what it is, then so what, I can use the money.
Now as far as the state trying to insist weaing a dirk knife openly was proof alone of intent to unlawfully injure, that is ridiculous and no judge would allow that. Even with the colcealed carry of prohibitted weapons the state still has to prove some manner of intent even though the concealed carry part doesn't even require it.
Grapeshot wrote:
What rules? He did not say to test it in the courts and by plain reading of his post it was a challenge to test it which can mean anything from trying to wear one in public (which is exactly how I read it) to going all the way to the Supreme Court. Anything in between those two extremes is an exceptable interpretation.
Hunting knives (often Bowie type knives) and work knives (which can be ANY type of knife and mine was double edged) are really no different than dirk knives or other prohibitted concealed knives and it simply does not matter anyway because the statute only applies to wearing a weapon with the intent to unalwfully injure. It does not say a shaving razor, Bowie knive or even a dirk knife cannot be worn openly, it says any weapon worn concealed or with the intent to unlawfully injure is the ONLY thing it prohibits.
Now about the links. I see you cannot provide any proof of yours or provide a cite. You call foul saying I do not have a cite, then you make a claim you cannot cite. Something is not right about that. So sorry if I do not take your word for it when I have heard the exact opposite happening too.
Now about the part about providing links to cases where someone wore a dirk knife openly and was convicted that they appealed....well that is like trying to prove a negative. If it is not illegal and therefore never convicted, then there is no appeal to cite.
Now please read the statute, it defines the dangerous weapons which means any of those worn concealed is likely a violation of statute regardless of intent because they are listed as dangerous weapons and the paragraph about concealed says "any dangerous weapon", but openly worn there has to be mens rhea to unlawfully injure. This means that you are not breaking the law by simply possessing openly a dirk knife, Bowie knive, switchblade, etc. It either has to be worn concealed or openly with a mens rhea (intent) to unlawfully injure for it to be illegal.
Now I too have heard people arrested for knives, and I have heard of people arrested for pen knives over three and a half inches, but this is ignorance of the law on both the arestee's and the officer's part. If they are stupid enough to not challenge it in court or have it thrown out (which I have also heard happen with a sword but since it was second hand I cannot cite it like you cannot cire yours), then it does not mean it is illegal.
I know the way the dangerous weapons law is written, and my arrest would not get that far because I will challenge the officer's arrest and I will sue for false arrest if they charge me and I will win just like Sorrell did.
This is why I have no problem openly carrying around a bayonet, a double endged knife, or a dagger if I had a dagger. If I get arrested by an officer that didn't bother to look up the law after I told him what it is, then so what, I can use the money.
Now as far as the state trying to insist weaing a dirk knife openly was proof alone of intent to unlawfully injure, that is ridiculous and no judge would allow that. Even with the colcealed carry of prohibitted weapons the state still has to prove some manner of intent even though the concealed carry part doesn't even require it.
