imported post
(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:
(5) (i) "Weapon" includes a dirk knife, bowie knife, switchblade knife, star knife, sandclub, metal knuckles, razor, and nunchaku.
(Emphasis added.)
The use of the word "includes" rather than a word such as "is" indicates an illustrative rather than comprehensive list.
(ii) "Weapon" does not include: 1. a handgun; or 2. a penknife without a switchblade.
Take a note of this, it comes up in a case.
Look at their cites for case law:
- "For objects not legislatively classified as dangerous and
deadly per se, the State must prove that the object is
within the class described as any other dangerous or
deadly weapon of any kind." (1992)
- "Where the only evidence presented was that the object
appellant was carrying was a knife over three inches long,
this evidence was insufficient to meet the statutory
requirements of this section." (1992)
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 blade of the subject utility knife is enclosed in a plastic case approximately six inches long. The blade is exposed by removing a plastic cap from one end of the case and then pushing a lever to slide the blade to an exposed position at the open end. Fully extended the blade measures three inches in length. It is three-eighths of an inch wide. Its cutting edge is on one side only. The blade is notched diagonally at three-sixteenths of an inch intervals, creating twelve sections. The blade is designed to be exposed in small increments, allowing a notched section to be broken off when it dulls. The knife can be used to cut wallcovering, dry wall, tape, string, roofing or almost any type of soft material.
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:
...[A]ppellant was the person who stole Eaton's moped in the early afternoon of September 12, 1990. Eaton testified that on that date he saw a person pushing his moped across his driveway and down the street. Eaton, who was 81 years old at the time, chased this person and said “let my bike go.” At that point, the man threw the bike at Eaton, striking him in the chest, and pulled out a knife. The man then waived the knife at Eaton and said “leave the bike alone, you s.b.” Eaton then ran from the man and called the police. Eaton's moped was later recovered at 5:00 p.m. on Earle Avenue.
The conviction for having a weapon with intent to injure was reversed due to insufficiency of evidence. Here's the quote:
Appellant claims the evidence established that the knife he was alleged to be carrying with intent to injure was a penknife. While the State does not agree that the *649 weapon was a penknife, it acknowledges that the only evidence presented was that the object was a knife over three inches long. This evidence is insufficient to meet the statutory requirements of Md.Code Ann., Art. 27, § 36(a) (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.). Specifically, it is unclear whether the knife fell within the statutory exception for penknives without switchblades. The State therefore concedes, and we hold, that appellant's conviction for carrying a weapon openly with intent to injure must be reversed. Biggus v. State, 323 Md. 339, 353-54 n. 6, 593 A.2d 1060 (1991); Washington v. State, 293 Md. 465, 474-475, 445 A.2d 684 (1982); Mackall v. State, 283 Md. 100, 111, 387 A.2d 762 (1978).
(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."