Search found 2 matches

by Richard_B
Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:52 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2013 Knife Rights Bills
Replies: 70
Views: 33624

Re: 2013 Knife Rights Bills

SherwoodForest wrote:The intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly predicate - connotates the CRIMINAL intent of a 46.02(a) offense.

"illegal knives" are still weapons of arms that the Texas Legislature only has power , by law, to REGULATE the wearing of......NOT PROHIBIT the wearing of.....let alone declare knives "illegal" .

" To regulate " is to ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR ( NOT prohibit ) "the wearing of arms " .

A woman on a college campus with a switchblade knife in her hand wouldn't be as likely to have to resort to " whistle violence ", let alone "pop off a round " as Mr. Salazar contends.

There's nothing that compares to the readily identifiable sound of a switchblade popping out as if to ask a stalker..... " Do you feel lucky today ? "
Interestingly, the word "regulate" at the time of the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, as used in the Commerce Clause, meant regularized, as in standardize so that there would not be multiple inconsistent provisions affecting interstate commerce, and for the purpose of promoting or encouraging, not the power to prohibit as has frequently been incorrectly held by courts. Can you imagine if the word "regulate" included the power to prohibit interstate commerce?

Interestingly, there is an Illinois State Court which has held that the state does not have the power to (arbitrarily) prohibit the carrying (concealed carry) of hand guns. If what I read was correct, the court may have delayed issuing orders for a time to provide the legislature an opportunity to act. I wonder what the ramifications of that might be on Texas' absolute prohibition of Bowie knives etc.

Cheers
by Richard_B
Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:25 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2013 Knife Rights Bills
Replies: 70
Views: 33624

Re: 2013 Knife Rights Bills

I don't really understand the focus on switchblade knives alone. I realize that they are "prohibited items" which are generally illegal to purchase or possess in Texas, but there are simply so many knife restrictions that it is absurd (omitting, for the moment, the San Antonio situation).

The P.C. basically outlaws most everything, leaving a few provisions to squeak through.

"(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;
(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;
(D) bowie knife;
(E) sword; or
(F) spear.
(7) "Knife" means any bladed hand instrument that is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by cutting or stabbing a person with the instrument."

Switchblades and gravity knives are dealt with a little below this.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As noted earlier, the legislature did not define a Bowie knife, but the courts have stepped in to define, after the fact, what constitutes a Bowie knife, a most questionable practice outside the normal rules of statutory construction.

Item (7) acts as a catchall provision which, effectively can ban any and all edged weapons.

I was at the UTSA Institute of Texan Culture this past weekend. There was a display showing the contributions of persons of Scottish descent to Texas (roughly 3/4 of the defenders of the Alamo were of Scottish ancestry and two were Scottish born) which included traditional Scottish clothing, kilt and so on, including a Sgian-dubh or Scottish dagger which is traditionally rather small and worn in the sock sort of like a boot knife. Too bad it is an illegal knife. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgian-dubh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is generally accepted that there is no decent documentation of what the knife Jim Bowie carried at the defense of the Alamo, but the legislature saw to ban it by name anyway, even though no effort at all was made to define it. Presumably, a Bowie knife of any size, no matter how small would be an illegal knife. I'm not sure if there is a court case putting a limit on just how small the knife has to be before it is no longer considered a Bowie knife.

Knife rights are part and parcel of the right to keep and bear arms, even though we often focus more on firearms.

If someone has information about the focus of the bill on switchblades, it would be interesting to hear the background.

Return to “2013 Knife Rights Bills”