Bowie knife?

[JALLEN]

I believe the statutes have been reorganized maybe a couple of times, but am not familiar with that.

When I worked for a law firm here, in high school and college, there was VATS, Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes.b. That seems to have been redone somehow.

I think that is now the "bible" of the legal profession, is it not? Just asking, as I'm not a student of law. And if that were the case would we not see a re-definition of the "bowie knife"? Not trying to stir up anything but just curious. I honestly don't know.

Statutes are only revised, in express provisions, by the Legislature. Those can be interpreted or voided by the judiciary in interpreting their meaning and effect. If the statutory definition of "bowie knife" has been changed, it would have been by the Lege. A court, probably the highest court in the state, could flesh it out, or void it, by interpretation, although this would not appear in the statute. Sometimes appellate courts in different parts of a state have interpretations which conflict. If you read only the statute, you have no idea.

I guess I will ask the lawyer I worked for ~50 years ago. He's still alive.

[JALLEN]

He says:

Mine has an 9 inch blade with a back cut 41/2 inch given me by the NRA in
recognition of my status as an endowment member. I reckon that is close to
an authenticate original and since it was presented me by NRA, must be
legal.

Come to the office and look at it.

I figger if someone comes in mad at me, I can show it to them and save the
cost of a bullet.

Like a great many old ranchers around here, he seems to be not terribly impressed by what the
Lege says or does, or thinks, if you will forgive the assumption.

[stroo]

I read a book recently about the great Bowie knife fighters, most of them back in the 1800s. Most of the knives used back then seem to have been around 12 inches long. They could crack a skull open with those to say nothing of disembowelling their opponent. It seemed like the first one with a good cut won most of the fights usually by the other guy dying. It was a very dangerous weapon in the right hands and often in the wrong hands.

Most of the "bowie" knives you see in stores today seem to be around 6-8 inches. Still a substantial knife but not quite like one a foot long.

[srothstein]

I believe the statutes have been reorganized maybe a couple of times, but am not familiar with that.

When I worked for a law firm here, in high school and college, there was VATS, Vernon's Annotated Texas Statutes.b. That seems to have been redone somehow.

I think that is now the "bible" of the legal profession, is it not? Just asking, as I'm not a student of law. And if that were the case would we not see a re-definition of the "bowie knife"? Not trying to stir up anything but just curious. I honestly don't know.

Statutes are only revised, in express provisions, by the Legislature. Those can be interpreted or voided by the judiciary in interpreting their meaning and effect. If the statutory definition of "bowie knife" has been changed, it would have been by the Lege. A court, probably the highest court in the state, could flesh it out, or void it, by interpretation, although this would not appear in the statute. Sometimes appellate courts in different parts of a state have interpretations which conflict. If you read only the statute, you have no idea.

I guess I will ask the lawyer I worked for ~50 years ago. He's still alive.

Beginning in the 70's, Texas began a process of rewriting all of the laws. They called the process codification and it moved them from Vernon's to the current various codes we have, such as the Penal Code. As the laws were codified, the old laws were repealed in whole batches.

I only started working in Texas well after this and the Penal Code was already existing then. It does not have a definition of the term "bowie knife" in it, and clearly invalidates the old definition referenced by making fixed blade knives a separate class from bowie knives (note the fixed blade over 5.5 inches clause). It also separated bowie from dagger by putting them in separate clauses too.

I was taught that the bowie knife was any knife that looked like a bowie knife regardless of the size. The points I was taught to look for included the false edge, curved blade, and the cross guards at the pommel. And one of the points made in class was that any citizen could go to the Alamo (it was the San Antonio Police Academy) and buy a souvenir bowie knife that was one inch long. They said it would be covered under this law even though I would be laughed out of court for making that case.

I do not think I have ever made a case or heard of an officer making a case out of someone illegally carrying a bowie knife on them. To me, this is all the more reason to repeal that section of the law, especially for Bowie County.

[JALLEN]

I think I will write my representatives to implore them to either take this out of the statute, or provide some guidance.

It demeans the law to have these traps for the unwary, and the wary alike!

In CA, all my representatives, legislators, Congressmen/women, Senators, were a bunch of socialists. Maybe here, you can approach them and get things done.

[ELB]

I think I will write my representatives to implore them to either take this out of the statute, or provide some guidance.

It demeans the law to have these traps for the unwary, and the wary alike!

In CA, all my representatives, legislators, Congressmen/women, Senators, were a bunch of socialists. Maybe here, you can approach them and get things done.

In the last legislature, HB 92 by Rep White of Tyler proposed to remove "bowie knife" from the definition of "illegal knife." It got a public hearing but that's all the farther it went.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=HB92" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HB 3884 by Rep Dutton changed the name of "illegal knife" to "location-restricted knife," but more importantly also limited the carrying restrictions of PC 46.02(a) to those under the age of 18. (i.e. anyone under 18 could only have a "location restricted knife" on his own premises, vehicle, or directly enroute to a vehicle - adults could carry in most public places). It maintained restrictions on everyone against carrying it at polling places, schools, etc (46.03 restrictions). It passed the House and got thru Senate Committee, but did not get voted on in the Senate.

Of the two bills, I prefer Dutton's, but what, I'd really like to see is knives and clubs and ninja stars and all that other stuff eliminated from the code entirely.

[K.Mooneyham]

Some years ago, my wife bought me a "baby" Ka-Bar knife. I won't carry it because it could be construed as appearing like a little-b "bowie" knife. 99 out of 100 LEOs might never even give it a second look, but I cannot take the chance of that 100th who indeed thinks it looks like a "bowie" knife and arrests me for that. A really nice present that sits in a drawer, gathering dust, due to a poorly written law. Just like firearms, it shouldn't matter what it looks like, it should matter how it gets used.

http://images.knifecenter.com/thumb/150 ... _large.jpg

[JALLEN]

I think I will write my representatives to implore them to either take this out of the statute, or provide some guidance.

It demeans the law to have these traps for the unwary, and the wary alike!

In CA, all my representatives, legislators, Congressmen/women, Senators, were a bunch of socialists. Maybe here, you can approach them and get things done.

In the last legislature, HB 92 by Rep White of Tyler proposed to remove "bowie knife" from the definition of "illegal knife." It got a public hearing but that's all the farther it went.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=HB92" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HB 3884 by Rep Dutton changed the name of "illegal knife" to "location-restricted knife," but more importantly also limited the carrying restrictions of PC 46.02(a) to those under the age of 18. (i.e. anyone under 18 could only have a "location restricted knife" on his own premises, vehicle, or directly enroute to a vehicle - adults could carry in most public places). It maintained restrictions on everyone against carrying it at polling places, schools, etc (46.03 restrictions). It passed the House and got thru Senate Committee, but did not get voted on in the Senate.

Of the two bills, I prefer Dutton's, but what, I'd really like to see is knives and clubs and ninja stars and all that other stuff eliminated from the code entirely.

Thanks for providing that info. I guess "great minds think alike" at least on occasion.

Whatever the advantages of eliminating the items you mention, it will never happen. It simply will not do to have a Penal Code that does not make use and/or possession of those criminal.

[BobCat]

Some years ago, my wife bought me a "baby" Ka-Bar knife. I won't carry it because it could be construed as appearing like a little-b "bowie" knife. 99 out of 100 LEOs might never even give it a second look, but I cannot take the chance of that 100th who indeed thinks it looks like a "bowie" knife and arrests me for that. A really nice present that sits in a drawer, gathering dust, due to a poorly written law. Just like firearms, it shouldn't matter what it looks like, it should matter how it gets used.

http://images.knifecenter.com/thumb/150 ... _large.jpg

I have one of those, I really like it, and I do carry it because the blade is under 5-1/2 inches.

Might have to re-think it, but to me it is a baby Ka-Bar, not a Bowie.

[JALLEN]

Some years ago, my wife bought me a "baby" Ka-Bar knife. I won't carry it because it could be construed as appearing like a little-b "bowie" knife. 99 out of 100 LEOs might never even give it a second look, but I cannot take the chance of that 100th who indeed thinks it looks like a "bowie" knife and arrests me for that. A really nice present that sits in a drawer, gathering dust, due to a poorly written law. Just like firearms, it shouldn't matter what it looks like, it should matter how it gets used.

http://images.knifecenter.com/thumb/150 ... _large.jpg

I have one of those, I really like it, and I do carry it because the blade is under 5-1/2 inches.

Might have to re-think it, but to me it is a baby Ka-Bar, not a Bowie.

Who can say?

Apparently no one, except a cop trying to figure out some way to hassle someone.

Some folks need hassling, of course, but usually they can find a better reason than this knife thing.

It oughtn't be this way, lessening as it does respect for the law.

[ShootDontTalk]

I have a Western W49 Bowie that, of all things, I found in my backyard. It was, as best anyone can tell about early Westerns, made in 1968-70 but is probably not a Vietnam veteran. It needed a good clean-up but didn't look like it had ever been in the jungle. It is definitely not a pocket knife, being almost 15 inches long. I couldn't find a good picture.

Mine is definitely a fighting knife, made for only one purpose.

[NotRPB]

Just for Trivia's sake:

The first Bowie knife Jim had made had no brass on the back of the blade, the second version had the softer brass to keep opponent's knife from sliding up the back of the blade of the Bowie knife as easily as the edge of the opponent's knife dug into the softer brass..

Should be designed weighted forward for throwing, both edges sharpened some at the end and as mentioned, the handguard This place has the blade and handguard fairly accurate, but .. see below for the "real authentic" type thing http://www.unitedcutlery.com/ProductDet ... 013&cat=GH" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rock legend Phil Collins brings Davy Crockett's musket ball pouch to Alamo
By Scott Huddleston : October 28, 2014 : Updated: October 28, 2014
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/ ... 852955.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ Image ]
Photo By Courtesy Phil Collins
This(see below) Bowie knife was among the possessions of Jesse Robinson, who fought in the Texas Revolution under Jim Bowie at the Battle of Concepción and the Siege of Béxar, and under Gen. Sam Houston at San Jacinto.

[ELB]

In all the reading I did a few years ago into the origins of Bowie knives, trying to find accounts that actually cited reasonable sources, the actual configuration of the "original" knife seems to be conjectural. It was a large and may have started out as a large butcher knife to which a cross guard was added. A contemporaneous newspaper account of the Sandbar Fight based on an (alleged) eyewitness account described Bowie as pulling a "large butcher-knife." I think some of the notable features of what is recognized by aficionados as a Bowie knife came long later as it grew popular and was copied. It was not only handy for fighting but served in camp the purposes of a machete and a small hatchet.

Again, the Leg needs to take a Bowie knife that that part of the Penal Code...

[K.Mooneyham]

Some years ago, my wife bought me a "baby" Ka-Bar knife. I won't carry it because it could be construed as appearing like a little-b "bowie" knife. 99 out of 100 LEOs might never even give it a second look, but I cannot take the chance of that 100th who indeed thinks it looks like a "bowie" knife and arrests me for that. A really nice present that sits in a drawer, gathering dust, due to a poorly written law. Just like firearms, it shouldn't matter what it looks like, it should matter how it gets used.

http://images.knifecenter.com/thumb/150 ... _large.jpg

I have one of those, I really like it, and I do carry it because the blade is under 5-1/2 inches.

Might have to re-think it, but to me it is a baby Ka-Bar, not a Bowie.

Who can say?

Apparently no one, except a cop trying to figure out some way to hassle someone.

Some folks need hassling, of course, but usually they can find a better reason than this knife thing.

It oughtn't be this way, lessening as it does respect for the law.

I have a big problem with any law that has gray areas like that, based on sheer interpretation. I've said this before, but I don't believe it would convey the same vagueness if they would simply capitalize the word Bowie, instead of it being a little b. An actual Big B Bowie knife evokes a rather straightforward image in the mind, and one can easily find pictures like that above, to aid a jury, if necessary in a trial. And, obviously, an actual Bowie knife is generally rather large, and so would exceed the 5.5 inch blade limit in the law. In fact, I'd imagine that the originators of that law really wanted to ban the carry of huge Bowie fighting knives, not some smaller knife that might seem a bit Bowie-like if one squinted at it just right. It might not be a perfect fix, but it would certainly be a good step to clarifying things...and it's such a simple change, too, one letter.