TexasCHLforum.com

MechAg94 wrote:Beyond "I just want to", what is the benefit of carrying brass knuckles? They are still considered deadly weapons so you don't get any credit for using them instead of a knife or gun. They might be easier to carry than a gun. But just like a knife, to use it, you have to be close in. Just curious how you are looking at that.

As far as getting rid of unnecessary laws, I agree that them being illegal to carry doesn't accomplish much. If someone used them in a bar fight or a knockout-game, it could be weighed the same as having used a knife or gun. I would prefer knife rights preemption before legalizing brass knuckles.

I can't speak to the tactical advantages of knuckles vs knives, but given the statement up-thread that LEO's used to opt for knuckles, there must be at least a perceived advantage to some people. I would focus more on whether there is a compelling reason for them to be illegal.

Salty1 wrote:

JakeTheSnake wrote:

Salty1 wrote:Maybe somebody can explain that rationale behind wanting these to be legal to carry because I cannot think of a single instance where they would be beneficial to law abiding citizens. It seems to me that the use of these alone would constitute deadly force. I can see itnow, if they are legalized then they will be used in the thugs knockout "games". No thanks.......

So they should outlaw AR15's then so crazies won't walk into schools and nightclubs too?

Your comment is not even worthy of a response if you do not have the sense to realize the difference........

The difference is in the eye of the beholder. Both knuckles and AR15's have been demonized and characterized as weapons that have no reasonable use other than for nefarious purposes. To you, knuckles are something that only criminals would need / use. To a lot of the public, an AR15 is only something that a "crazy" anti-government militia member / or terrorist would need / use. I think that is the point Jake was making.

This gets a lot simpler if we put the onus where it belongs. Unless there is a compelling reason to restrict a type of arm, then we should not have any infringement. Otherwise, you will ban everything you don't see a "legitimate" use for, like knuckles, and others will ban everything they don't see a legitimate use for, like AR15's. Pretty soon we will be talking about whether anyone has a legitimate need to legally possess a rock.

Salty1 wrote:Maybe somebody can explain that rationale behind wanting these to be legal to carry because I cannot think of a single instance where they would be beneficial to law abiding citizens. It seems to me that the use of these alone would constitute deadly force. I can see itnow, if they are legalized then they will be used in the thugs knockout "games". No thanks.......

IMHO the threshold is whether there a compelling reason to infringe upon the ownership and carrying of these particular types of weapons? I can't think of a good enough reason for an infringement. That is the only rationale that is needed for allowing them.