Court rules paring knives not protected by Second Amendment

Court rules paring knives not protected by Second Amendment

SEATTLE (AP) - A divided Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Seattle law prohibiting people from carrying fixed-blade knives such as kitchen utensils for self-defense does not conflict with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Charles Wiggins the court said small paring knives are not covered by the amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

He called such knives a utility tool, not a weapon.
“While almost any common object may be used as a weapon, that does not necessarily mean that possession of otherwise innocuous objects that could be wielded with malice will trigger the constitutional protections afforded to ‘arms’,” Wiggins wrote.
The case stems from a traffic stop in which Wayne Anthony Evans was arrested after telling an officer he was carrying a knife after being asked if he had any weapons. He was convicted of unlawful use of weapons.
His appeal focused on the Second Amendment, saying the Seattle statute infringed on his right to bear arms.
The court ruled 5-4, with a strongly worded dissent written by Justice Mary Fairhurst.
Fairhurst wrote that the Seattle law is too broad and likely unconstitutional, in part because the Washington laws cannot offer lesser protections than the Constitution. She argued that the fixed-blade knife is a bearable arm and protected by the Second Amendment.

“Scholars have recognized that ‘knives are indisputably militia arms’,” she wrote.

Click to expand...

I haven't looked into this much. Are there any conflicting cases or rulings on this one that could push it to the SCOTUS?

No link?

He called such knives a utility tool, not a weapon.
“While almost any common object may be used as a weapon, that does not necessarily mean that possession of otherwise innocuous objects that could be wielded with malice will trigger the constitutional protections afforded to ‘arms’,” Wiggins wrote.
The case stems from a traffic stop in which Wayne Anthony Evans was arrested after telling an officer he was carrying a knife after being asked if he had any weapons. He was convicted of unlawful use of weapons.

Click to expand...

Saying that having a non-weapon or any object that could be wielded with malice is a valid basis to be convicted of unlawful use of a weapon should be a basis for further appeal. WTF? Neither that law or the judge makes any sense to me. Having (possessing) is not using (acting with) and to classify any object that could become a potential weapon, yet the judge ruled not to be a weapon, is nonsense.

I see no need for the 2A at all - having is not using and a common kitchen tool is not an arm or a weapon unless it is being used as such. The defendant was a complete moron for referring to that knife as a weapon ("I use it to open letters, officer" would have done niicely), but his lawyer was also a moron for not asking how it was ever used as a weapon.

ttwtt78640 said:

No link?



Saying that having a non-weapon or any object that could be wielded with malice is a valid basis to be convicted of unlawful use of a weapon should be a basis for further appeal. WTF? Neither that law or the judge makes any sense to me. Having (possessing) is not using (acting with) and to classify any object that could become a potential weapon, yet the judge ruled not to be a weapon, is nonsense.

I see no need for the 2A at all - having is not using and a common kitchen tool is not an arm or a weapon unless it is being used as such. The defendant was a complete moron for referring to that knife as a weapon, but his lawyer was also a moron for not asking how it was used as a weapon.

Click to expand...

Yeah this ruling stinks. But the defendant messed up more than anything by calling a common kitchen tool a weapon.

NonoBadDog said:

Court rules paring knives not protected by Second Amendment




I haven't looked into this much. Are there any conflicting cases or rulings on this one that could push it to the SCOTUS?

Click to expand...

"In a majority opinion written by Justice Charles Wiggins the court said small paring knives are not covered by the amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

"He called such knives a utility tool, not a weapon. “While almost any common object may be used as a weapon, that does not necessarily mean that possession of otherwise innocuous objects that could be wielded with malice will trigger the constitutional protections afforded to ‘arms’, Wiggins wrote"

--

So it seems to me now, that in WA one can now carry paring knives or similar, and not be charged with having a weapon unless one actually uses it as such!"

Hello, box-cutter carry!

NonoBadDog said:

Court rules paring knives not protected by Second Amendment




I haven't looked into this much. Are there any conflicting cases or rulings on this one that could push it to the SCOTUS?

Click to expand...

The only thing that makes any sense here is that Washington does not allow the carrying of ANY knife. A parring knife has a 3" blade which would have to be used backwards in a fist to be any good as a defense. There are plenty of laws however on blade lengths, so if it goes to the SC I think they'll go along with the decision.

ttwtt78640 said:

No link?



Saying that having a non-weapon or any object that could be wielded with malice is a valid basis to be convicted of unlawful use of a weapon should be a basis for further appeal. WTF? Neither that law or the judge makes any sense to me. Having (possessing) is not using (acting with) and to classify any object that could become a potential weapon, yet the judge ruled not to be a weapon, is nonsense.

I see no need for the 2A at all - having is not using and a common kitchen tool is not an arm or a weapon unless it is being used as such. The defendant was a complete moron for referring to that knife as a weapon ("I use it to open letters, officer" would have done niicely), but his lawyer was also a moron for not asking how it was ever used as a weapon.

Click to expand...

Either it is a "weapon" which clearly falls under the Second Amendment term "arms;" or it is NOT a "weapon," in which case he should not have been subject to charges.

How can you be guilty of the charge if you are not unlawfully using a weapon?

This is the kind of ridiculous decision that keeps me strongly against any form of control legislation. Might as well say carrying a pencil or a cane is unlawful.

Chomsky said:

"In a majority opinion written by Justice Charles Wiggins the court said small paring knives are not covered by the amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

"He called such knives a utility tool, not a weapon. “While almost any common object may be used as a weapon, that does not necessarily mean that possession of otherwise innocuous objects that could be wielded with malice will trigger the constitutional protections afforded to ‘arms’, Wiggins wrote"

--

So it seems to me now, that in WA one can now carry paring knives or similar, and not be charged with having a weapon unless one actually uses it as such!"

Hello, box-cutter carry!

Click to expand...

I agree that it would seem that way, the problem is they still charge the person with a crime labeling the knife as a weapon. I guess hammers, screw drivers and ratchets would be illegal to carry. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I looked up "automatic" (switch blades) a little while ago. It seems that they are regulated by state. There is a small movement to include knives under the 2nd nationwide.

Captain Adverse said:

Either it is a "weapon" which clearly falls under the Second Amendment term "arms;" or it is NOT a "weapon," in which case he should not have been subject to charges.

How can you be guilty of the charge if you are not unlawfully using a weapon?

This is the kind of ridiculous decision that keeps me strongly against any form of control legislation. Might as well say carrying a pencil or a cane is unlawful.

Click to expand...

That is what I was thinking. It reminds me of a tax that isn't a tax but is a penalty until it is collected but after it has been collected it is a tax.

ttwtt78640 said:

No link?



Saying that having a non-weapon or any object that could be wielded with malice is a valid basis to be convicted of unlawful use of a weapon should be a basis for further appeal. WTF? Neither that law or the judge makes any sense to me. Having (possessing) is not using (acting with) and to classify any object that could become a potential weapon, yet the judge ruled not to be a weapon, is nonsense.

I see no need for the 2A at all - having is not using and a common kitchen tool is not an arm or a weapon unless it is being used as such. The defendant was a complete moron for referring to that knife as a weapon ("I use it to open letters, officer" would have done niicely), but his lawyer was also a moron for not asking how it was ever used as a weapon.

Click to expand...

Ooops, sorry. Here is the link:
Court rules paring knives not protected by Second Amendment - Washington Times

NonoBadDog said:

I agree that it would seem that way, the problem is they still charge the person with a crime labeling the knife as a weapon. I guess hammers, screw drivers and ratchets would be illegal to carry. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I looked up "automatic" (switch blades) a little while ago. It seems that they are regulated by state. There is a small movement to include knives under the 2nd nationwide.

Click to expand...

Knives are already supposed to be covered under the 2nd amendment. People just care about guns more.

reinoe said:

Knives are already supposed to be covered under the 2nd amendment. People just care about guns more.

Click to expand...

I'd rather deal with a street mugger in gun to baseball bat combat as opposed to knife to baseball bat combat

The odds are a bit better that way for me.

Here's an interesting read on the subject:

Knives Are the New Guns in Lawmakers’ Second-Amendment Expansion - Bloomberg Politics

NonoBadDog said:

Court rules paring knives not protected by Second Amendment




I haven't looked into this much. Are there any conflicting cases or rulings on this one that could push it to the SCOTUS?

Click to expand...

well its an interesting question because the supreme court only recently applied the second amendment to STATE laws and seems loathe to take up cases based on this unless they are outright bans. rather the supreme court will most likely defer to the own state's constitution as interpreted by the state courts. I do note that Oregon's second amendment provision led to their supreme court throwing out a law against automatic ('switchblade knives to the ignorant) knives which is why so many good automatic knife makers (Benchmade, Kershaw, for example) are in Oregon

NonoBadDog said:

I agree that it would seem that way, the problem is they still charge the person with a crime labeling the knife as a weapon. I guess hammers, screw drivers and ratchets would be illegal to carry. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I looked up "automatic" (switch blades) a little while ago. It seems that they are regulated by state. There is a small movement to include knives under the 2nd nationwide.

Click to expand...

Oregon has ruled that automatic knives are protected as arms under the Oregon version of the second amendment

I wonder if this guy was carrying a

Ka-bar USMC fighting and utility knife

a USN "Seal" knife-the most current model is made by SOG-prior versions by various makers including Camillus Cutlery

a Gerber Mark II knife-the most widely private purchased knife by our men in Nam (mainly designed for taking out sentries and guards-its a pure killing knife)



or the famous Randal Model 1 combat knife (used in every military operation the US has been involved in since WWII and widely regarded as the finest combat knife in history)

would have have been covered since those are all military weapons
because all of those have been issued or regularly carried by active duty soldiers, marines, SEALs and aviators over the last 40 years

for those who are interested




Gerber Mark II (more modern version)




SEAL Knife by SOG





Randall Model 1-

jet57 said:

Here's an interesting read on the subject:

Knives Are the New Guns in Lawmakers’ Second-Amendment Expansion - Bloomberg Politics

Click to expand...

Interesting article especially this

The group began in 2006 after Doug Ritter, a manufacturer of survival kits, and Ethan Becker, who oversees the cookbook his grandmother wrote in 1931, found common ground over a belief that bans were anachronistic.
Becker, a Paris-trained chef, has had a lifelong fascination with knives, designing and manufacturing them. He agreed to fund the group.

Ethan Becker is from Cincinnati and a co-founder of what is now the tactical Defense institute of Ohio. He is a friend of mine though he moved to Tennessee a year before Ohio allowed CCW mainly because he was tired of waiting for Ohio to pass CCW

I have several of his designs including his MACHAX that probably helped prevent an altercation-one night-late on I71, my tire went flat and I got out the lantern and the spare and the Becker MACHAX machete that I used to pry the wheel cover off. a bunch of what appeared to be inebriated "rednecks" came up and were looking me up and down until one of them said-damn look at that blade and they took off.

Right before he left for Tennessee, Ethan was at a gun shop in Loveland, Ohio (20 miles east of cincinnati) and was selling some knives to the owner for stock. a young serviceman came into the shop looking for a knife to take to Iraq and Ethan opened his display bag and told the guy to take whatever knife he wanted.

Great knives

Great guy

Captain Adverse said:

Either it is a "weapon" which clearly falls under the Second Amendment term "arms;" or it is NOT a "weapon," in which case he should not have been subject to charges.

How can you be guilty of the charge if you are not unlawfully using a weapon?

This is the kind of ridiculous decision that keeps me strongly against any form of control legislation. Might as well say carrying a pencil or a cane is unlawful.

Click to expand...

NonoBadDog said:

I agree that it would seem that way, the problem is they still charge the person with a crime labeling the knife as a weapon. I guess hammers, screw drivers and ratchets would be illegal to carry. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I looked up "automatic" (switch blades) a little while ago. It seems that they are regulated by state. There is a small movement to include knives under the 2nd nationwide.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

WTF?

jet57 said:

The only thing that makes any sense here is that Washington does not allow the carrying of ANY knife. A parring knife has a 3" blade which would have to be used backwards in a fist to be any good as a defense. There are plenty of laws however on blade lengths, so if it goes to the SC I think they'll go along with the decision.

Click to expand...

Yish!

I've never heard of anything like that.

I've carried pocket knives most of my life.

TurtleDude said:

well its an interesting question because the supreme court only recently applied the second amendment to STATE laws and seems loathe to take up cases based on this unless they are outright bans. rather the supreme court will most likely defer to the own state's constitution as interpreted by the state courts. I do note that Oregon's second amendment provision led to their supreme court throwing out a law against automatic ('switchblade knives to the ignorant) knives which is why so many good automatic knife makers (Benchmade, Kershaw, for example) are in Oregon

Click to expand...

Isn't there still a federal ban?

There was one on importation pretty much as long as I can remember.

Chomsky said:

Isn't there still a federal ban?

There was one on importation pretty much as long as I can remember.

Click to expand...

too many bed wetting politicians watched west side story and figured the way to stop biker gangs was banning the interstate transportation of "switchblade" knives and the import of such things. perhaps one of the most stupid laws in history since anyone who knows knives can tell you a SPYDERCO folder or of course a fixed blade knife can be deployed faster than an automatic. Like the federal machine gun ban of 1986 or the Clinton magazine ban of 1994, there was no evidence whatsoever supporting such idiocy-just garment soiling politicians pandering to hysterical sheep who were terrified by scenes from movies where "switchblades" were always depicted as a criminal's weapon (perhaps the best switchblade scene filmed was when Clint Eastwood stuck the psychotic killer in DIRTY HARRY with a switchblade he had taped to his calf as a back up weapon)

I own many high quality (100-300 dollar) knives that are autos such as Microtechs, Protechs, Benchmades, and Kershaws. they are fun and work well but no more "deadly" than a manual opener. The government has also played games trying to pretend butterfly knives are "switchblades" and other nonsense

anyone who understands tactical knife use laughs at that idiocy

many dealers get around this because there is a erroneous but often accepted belief that "knife dealers" or those with firearms dealers licenses can buy auto knives across state lines. you also can assemble knives into autos in your home state and sell them in your home state. a few years ago- a guy marketed auto knife kits for retail sale, the feds shut it down saying it "tried to get around the "SPIRIT" of the law. I don't think the guy had the money to take it to the supremes

at Ohio gun shows several dealers openly display auto knives. In Ohio they are legal to buy, own and carry like other knives but technically its a misdemeanor to SELL them to anyone other than LEOs. I asked an FBI agent and the county prosecutor I used to deal with weekly why they didn't go after these people and both said-lack of resources, stupid law, and they figured they'd lose in court since there was no rational reason for the law. when I asked the FBI guy why they didn't bust a well known PA dealer who sold auto knives in Ohio (transport across state lines) he said

1) the guy is a legit dealer

2) he sells high dollar knives not bought by "assholes"

3) the prosecutors (I know I heard this from ones I worked with) didn't want to waste time on a case that they could well lose on a rational basis argument

the only time I heard of a dealer getting busted was a scumbag who was selling Guns off the books and was evading taxes. The FBI threw the Switchblade act offenses on top of the other stuff probably for plea barraging purposes

no one can make a rational argument for any laws that treat a "switchblade" differently than a folding lock knife or a fixed blade. and under Heller, these knives are both in common use and not unusually dangerous. paratroopers were issued them in every war as well

NonoBadDog said:

Court rules paring knives not protected by Second Amendment




I haven't looked into this much. Are there any conflicting cases or rulings on this one that could push it to the SCOTUS?

Click to expand...

Not really.

back in the 90s a man was arrested in Seattle under near identical circumstances and claimed he had a right to possess a paring knife under Art 1 Sec 24 (right to bear arms) of the WA State Constitution. The current Chief Justice (then Associate Justice) Barbara Madsen wrote a concurring opinion stating the same thing as this case.

What stinks is, this justice Charlie Wiggins is just a prosecutors pet, Years ago we had a libertarian judge named Richard Sanders who would've voted for the defendant in this case. the state prosecutors and police agencies propped up Wiggins because Sanders wasn't towing their line, Wiggins beat Sanders in a very narrow election.

Chomsky said:

Isn't there still a federal ban?

There was one on importation pretty much as long as I can remember.

Click to expand...

the federal ban is on distributing across state lines and importation from abroad.

the federal law does not regulate the carry or possession of such knives, nor the manufacture within one state for retail within accordance of that state's (or another state's laws)

for example, a switchblade made in Oregon can be retailed to police officers or EMTs in WA.

or retailed to a private citizen in Oregon.

In the 1980s the Oregon supreme court declared switchblades protected arms under the Oregon Constitution in State v Delgado

ttwtt78640 said:

No link?



Saying that having a non-weapon or any object that could be wielded with malice is a valid basis to be convicted of unlawful use of a weapon should be a basis for further appeal. WTF? Neither that law or the judge makes any sense to me. Having (possessing) is not using (acting with) and to classify any object that could become a potential weapon, yet the judge ruled not to be a weapon, is nonsense.

I see no need for the 2A at all - having is not using and a common kitchen tool is not an arm or a weapon unless it is being used as such. The defendant was a complete moron for referring to that knife as a weapon ("I use it to open letters, officer" would have done niicely), but his lawyer was also a moron for not asking how it was ever used as a weapon.

Click to expand...

Well you gotta figure that every year a bunch of dozen folks are strangled, pummeled otherwise killed with bare hands to we really should regulate hands..and feet.

Heck, when you get down to it a lot of folks are drowned and get skin cancer too so we should probably come up with a way to register sunlight and water. Then you've got the whole food thing. Chipotle alone has harmed hundreds of folks so we really need to do something about food. Of course there's gravity too. You damned sure don't want innocent folks falling down but if they fell up they'd be like enough ti get sucked into an airplane engine so gravity has definitely got to be regulated. Come to think of it, folks got to see all this mayhem going on too and hear about it as well! That's got to be protected.


.....


I hereby declare that everyone needs their own personal bubble that keeps out all the bad things in life and only lets rainbows, kittens and unicorns in.


Somebody will need to make sure the kittens are declawed and the unicorn horn is properly dulled.

Chomsky said:

Yish!

I've never heard of anything like that.

I've carried pocket knives most of my life.

Click to expand...

It's not true, Washington law only forbids one from "furtively carrying with intent to conceal any dirk, dagger, pistol, or knife" (RCW 9.41.250)

or carrying weapons "apparently capable of producing bodily harm" "at a time, at a place, under circumstances,that manifests an intent to intimidate another or warrants alarm for the safety of other persons" (RCW 9.41.270)

there is no prohibition in WA on carrying knives, however the state does not preempt local ordinances on knives and Seattle has an ordinance on carrying fixed blade knives.

clearly it's time for the state legislature to preempt localities on knives just like with guns

reinoe said:

Knives are already supposed to be covered under the 2nd amendment. People just care about guns more.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree with you but some folks won't believe it till it goes before the SCOTUS.