(I am not a lawyer, what is to follow is my personal opinion and should not be relied upon. This is not legal advice.)
First, the tl;dr:
The question of legality here would appear to depend on whether a sword is "a penknife without a switchblade."
Now, the why:
Some language in the statute:
(Emphasis added.)
The use of the word "includes" rather than a word such as "is" indicates an illustrative rather than comprehensive list.
Take a note of this, it comes up in a case.
Look at their cites for case law:
I looked up the cases. The first case is
Anderson v. State, 328 Md. 426, 614 A.2d 963 (Md. 1992). The second is
Johnson v. State, 90 Md.App. 638, 602 A.2d 255, (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992).
The first case,
Anderson, is a successful appeal from a conviction - the defendant went free. The object in question was a "utility knife" and was described in a footnote of the case opinion:
The reasoning they used to reach this reversal is not good for the OP. It focuses on intent: whether an object is for use on inanimate objects or on people. OP's sword is meant for (defensive) use on people. The opinion compares a carpenter with a cutting tool to a youth in a high crime neighborhood with the same object; the first is a tool, the second a weapon. 328 Md. at 438, 614 A.2d at 968. The case did say, however, that "penkni[ves] without [] switchblade
" are a per se exception - they are not weapons regardless of intent. Id. Is OP's sword a "penknife without a switchblade"?
I do not know whether the intended defensive nature of the sword would be of much, or indeed any, assistance. I am inclined to believe that it would not. The opinion stated that "these statutes protect the wearers or carriers of weapons from themselves" and went on to describe how carrying weapons makes people a danger to themselves and others. 328 Md. at 432, 614 A.2d at 966. (It is a fairly standard discourse with an observation that having people on unequal footing can result in (potentially lethal) misbehavior, with the standard omission of consideration of the possibility that persons may be more equal and well behaved if they all have weapons instead of just the criminals. Since the like has been discussed in great length and detail in other threads, and since the only relevance to this thread is to show the mood of the court, I shall limit my commentary to the following emoticon: :banghead
These judges are not fans of armed citizens - but after 18 years maybe they, or their replacements, have come around.
On to Johnson v. State, 90 Md.App. 638, 602 A.2d 255, (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992).
The facts:
The conviction for having a weapon with intent to injure was reversed due to insufficiency of evidence. Here's the quote:
(Emphasis added.) 90 Md.App. at 648-649, 602 A.2d at 260.
So it might not have been a weapon because it might have been a penknife that was not a switchblade. Which suggests that if the State can show that the blade was greater than three inches AND not a "a penknife without a switchblade" that there would be sufficient evidence for a conviction. Again, the question of legality would appear to depend on whether a sword is "a penknife without a switchblade."
