US proposed knife ban could include any one hand opening knives

[McGizmo]

Dave,
I have been led (perhaps falsely) to believe that the ban would include interstate transport of the knives, regardless of origin and including transport by the end user/ owner.

From the forwarded e-mai (CRKT being the origin) I quote:

Dear CRKTCustomers and Industry Friends,

We need your immediate help as the Obama administration, acting through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has proposed to ban all assisted opening knives.

In a lengthy ruling, CBP arbitrarily reversed itself, and rescinded all its rulings which agreed that assisted opening knives were not "switchblades" and could be imported. They have now determined that they are going to treat all assisted opening folders, regardless of size or blade shape, as prohibited "switchblades."

Obviously, assisted opening knives are one of the most popular categories of folders being sold today for "utilitarian use", and such a ruling will have a devastating affect on the knife industry in these difficult economic times. Many millions of assisted openers have been sold by the knife industry over the past 11 years. If you are a retailer, distributor, manufacturer's representative, designer / custom knife maker or supplier and we lose this market, it will affect your income!

Now if this message has some spin on it that takes the proposed ban beyond its actual scope, damn! I don't know what the various agendas may be but if folks can't stick to the heart and truth of matters then where are we? One thing I found unsettling in this e-mail was that the subject of the e-mail started with Obama admin. proposing to ban... Now is there an implied partisan element here where it is not really the case or germane? :shrug: Was this initiated by Obama?


If the ban is strictly in regards to import and domestic manufacturers will be free and clear to manufacture and distribute these knives, then is it nothing more than an embargo on offshore production?!?!


Now I feel more confused than ever. I understand that one thing can lead to another and yes, all herion users started with drinking milk. Is the thinking that these knives are bad and therefore customs will not allow them into the country but they are only bad if imported and any domestic supply and manufacture is not a concern? Or is the concern not in the scope of Customs and they leave it to others to handle the domestic inventory of these knives? If the latter, then I can see the concern of one step leading to another. Is there any underlying unified feeling about these knives among the various departments of law enforcement and domestic protection?


Plain and simple, if say a Boker folder with a thumb tab or a Spyderco folder will no longer be importable as a result of this ban, I am against it and wish for my representative to know this. I get the impression that that could easily be the case. Yes? No?


Is the proposed ban so vague that everyone is justified in giving their own and varying interpretations on it?

 

[Lightraven]

Yeah, it is confusing. The U.S. government can ban something completely such as marijuana, or merely the international or interstate movement of something.

With switchblade/butterfly/gravity/springblade knives, it would seem that U.S. law regulates international and interstate movement, but not the domestic manufacture or ownership of such knives. I know that the military and federal law enforcement agencies are exempt from this law--including CBP.

That seems to be the entree into the switchblade market, as it would seem that retailers don't check federal LE or military credentials too closely. In theory, federal LE agencies could sting various knife retailers, if it was that important to them. I'm guessing it is not. Consider the team of special agents brainstorming a sting. A quarter of the guys might have switchblades themselves. Are they so hypocritical as to shut down retailers where they themselves might buy knives? Not exactly bragging rights at the office compared to cocaine or military arms smuggling or kiddie porn cases.

So it may go for the AO market--domestic manufacture resulting in higher labor costs. Add to that the risk of selling the AO over state lines to an unknown buyer--you need a premium for that--and the AO's could easily double in price.

And again, California law currently bans the carrying of switchblades, butterflies, daggers and dirks. AO's don't seem to be on the state radar. . .yet.

 

[9volt]

In fact people have drowned because of it trapped in their cars and not being able to cut a seat belt that has jammed :shakehead

These can cut a seatbelt. Are they illegal?

 

[TITAN1833]

These can cut a seatbelt. Are they illegal?

Yes they are if you carry it in a public place a car BTW is deemed a public place reason they give LOL the blade can be locked out.





[edit]The reason I mentioned it in the first place is because most people in the UK are not sure what they can carry,but unlike them I know I can carry say a spyderco UK penknife or similar so hopefully that situation wont happen to me or my family.

 

[cave dave]

...Now if this message has some spin on it that takes the proposed ban beyond its actual scope, damn! I don't know what the various agendas may be but if folks can't stick to the heart and truth of matters then where are we?...

Don,
KnifeRights.org and others have definitely been spreading false information about the proposed ban. :tsk: Now, whether they are doing that on purpose to promote an agenda or by accident because they simply don't understand the laws is unclear. The laws are very, very confusing, but you would hope the only knife right organization we have would have a better understanding of the law than myself for instance, and yet I have found the info on kniferight.org chock full of errors and mis-information. The various forums discussing the topic are even worse.
I have no law background, but do deal with gov't bureaucracy on a daily basis, so am used to reading and interpreting gov't rules and regs.

I think the proposed law would be similar to the current Butterfly knife situation. It is illegal to import a butterfly knife into the USA because of the Customs interpretations of Federal switchblade act. However it is legal for domestic manufactures to make butterfly knives if their state laws allow. Individuals can also buy and carry them if their state and local laws allow.

Here are two links that help clarify the current knife laws and the applicability of state vs federal laws.

from BERNARD LEVINE's - http://www.knife-expert.com/
and specifically "Switchblade Legacy;" history of the 1958 U.S. federal switchblade ban

partial quote, read the entire text, good info at both links:

....It is not within the constitutional authority of the United
States to ban manufacture or possession of a class of item,
although the individual states have almost unlimited
authority to do so. What the federal government may do,
according to Article I, Section VIII, Clause 3 of the
Constitution, is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several States..."
Using the authority of this "Interstate Commerce" clause,
Congress did the very next thing to banning switchblade
knives.

 

[McGizmo]

Thanks Dave.
I do wonder at the motivation, reasoning, origin and intent of this proposed ban.

On one hand, I can understand customs installing bans and restrictions on incoming items to "mirror" and be in concert with regulations and bans within the United States. This proposal though seems to be something on the other hand or off handed or perhaps simply out of hand?!?!

 

[cave dave]

Well my own pet theory, involves bureaucratic laziness.

Basically, I figure some low level bureaucrat got sick of having to individually evaluate ever single variation in knife design and try to determine if it was or was not a switch blade, said bureaucrat may have also got into trouble because his office was being inconsistent in their interpretations, letting some knife through while other virtually identical ones pass. So what is the easiest thing to do? Just make all assisted knifes illegal and you can use the form letter to deny it each time.


Don, I think you will also enjoy this read from the site above.

"Oppressive Knife Laws;" essay by Bernard Levine (c)1998

segment:

... On one side of the divide were the agrarian republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, with their foundation stones of equal creation, personal freedom, and the inalienable rights of every citizen. Theirs was a republic of innate virtue, where crime and vice were nothing more than aberrations
...
On the other side of the divide were the puritanical republicans... These men believed all citizens to be innate sinners, irresistibly driven to dastardly deeds unless rigidly restrained by the State... Countless detailed laws and regulations were devised, and then constantly revised, in order to eliminate every possibility of straying...

 

[Benson]

Thanks Dave.
I do wonder at the motivation, reasoning, origin and intent of this proposed ban.

On one hand, I can understand customs installing bans and restrictions on incoming items to "mirror" and be in concert with regulations and bans within the United States. This proposal though seems to be something on the other hand or off handed or perhaps simply out of hand?!?!

In my understanding, it's not so much a proposal of a new ban, as an expansion (by re-interpretation of definitions) of the 1958 ban on importing/interstate-commercing switchblades, to include at least spring-assisted openers (as a type of auto-opener), and apparently (though I'm unclear on this point) Carson flippers and the like (as inertia or gravity knives). It's not at all clear why they suddenly "realized" they'd been interpreting it wrong, but given the timing, the most obvious explanation is that it reflects policy of the new administration. The timing seems remarkable if it's really an overworked desk-jockey's idea, and I expect the fact that it overturns substantial precedent required approval from rather high places in CBP

Bluntly, while I don't like it, I do think that spring-assisted openers can be included or excluded from the definition of a switchblade with equal legitimacy, but the others clearly aren't included, and I think this new reinterpretation (hinging on a rather loose understanding of "automatically") is overly broad. (And since there's an established precedent for the interpretation which permits assisteds, there's a strong argument for leaving it alone rather than changing it, if both readings are within the vagueness of the law: Chaos isn't actually a good thing.)

Of course, it would help if, back in '58, Congress could have paused in their rush to "do something" just long enough to write a decent definition. It's bad enough that they pass laws, knowing they'll be ineffective, to be seen averting a manufactured crisis, but you'd think the least they could do is make them clear enough that those who want to comply can, as more recently with the '94 AWB. (The overall similarities, incidentally, are striking, but the clarity of definitions in the latter is commendable.)

 

[Lightraven]

I just watched a video news link out of Australia, where knife paranoia is tracking the British lead. You see young victims of knife assaults displaying stab wounds while talking about "nearly dying." Ironically, one kid displays a massive scar from the surgery above the tiny stab scar. Then you watch videos of totally unprovoked stabbings in Britain. One victim lifts up his shirt and blood is running down his chest in a torrent.

It's enough to scare the crap out of anybody and it's no surprise that legislators are responding to the media sensationalism--if it bleeds, it leads. In 1958, it was unlikely most people had ever seen a knife attack. Now, with ubiquitous video cameras and the internet, anybody can see dozens of real life knife attacks. That only strengthens the urge to "ban those weapons."

The interviewer in the Aussie piece talks to a somewhat disreputable looking youth who admits to carrying a knife for self protection. When asked about the laws, he replies, with street logic that he'd rather break the law than be killed. There's no arguing with survival--people will do whatever it takes.

 

[2xTap]

Gentlemen,

All speculation and theories aside, take it for what it is.......and all you have to do is look at the history of Firearm restrictions in this country to figure out where this will lead.

Whether or not you believe there is a spin on one side or another, or what groups are playing to a agenda, the simple matter at hand is a organization within the government is trying to limit or restrict something that has been legal since day one and categorize them as "evil and deadly weapons that serve but one purpose". Playing on fears of those who don't know any better, just like they have done repeatedly with so called "Assault Rifles" and the like.

They take incremental steps, taking little by little, until there is nothing left. They leave it broad to allow any interpretation they deem fit to come out of it. Now they are speaking of A/O's, next it will be any knife that can be opened with one hand, then it will be any tool that has a blade of any kind that can be opened with one hand, then it'll be any knife or tool with more than one blade, or any knife with a certain length, etc, etc.

Don't look into it to hard, if you try to rationalize any part of it then you are playing right into their hands. Like they have been doing for decades with Firearms, so they will with anything else they deem a weapon. If you value knives......be it for your profession, your hobby, your pastime, or for the simple fact it is one of mankind's first tools.......any restriction by our Government in any form should be taken seriously. Because once you give them a inch......they will take a mile!

2xTap

 

[Bimmerboy]

All speculation and theories aside, take it for what it is.......and all you have to do is look at the history of Firearm restrictions in this country to figure out where this will lead.

Don't look into it to hard, if you try to rationalize any part of it then you are playing right into their hands.

Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes. - Ayn Rand

Outstanding post, 2xTap.

 

[jch79]

Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes. - Ayn Rand

"Man's mind will not function at the point of a gun." - Ayn Rand :nana: :laughing:

Rand's thoughts on gun control were actually really interesting.

:thumbsup: john

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

When a government starts restricting knives, it means one thing. Gun control didn't work. Why can't the government understand that people aren't perfect and are prone to violence? It isn't the tool or weapon that commits a crime, it's the person. You can try to ban every weapon or object that could potentially be used to hurt someone, and people would still be hurting others with their fists, kicking with their feet, throwing rocks, beating with sticks, and inventing new weapons that aren't banned yet. They need to get real criminals off the streets and not making tools illegal and turning law abiding citizens trying to defend themselves into criminals. When my government stops trusting me with sharp objects, it's time to replace those in power with people that will protect my rights instead of taking them away.

 

[jtr1962]

Instead of focusing on the tools used to commit violence, few of our politicians are bothering to ask why people commit violence. My guess is that's because it's easier to just take away guns or knives, make up all kinds of petty laws banning everything from laser pointers to sidewalk cycling, and/or just "lock up the bad guys". Weapons control and jail are simplistic solutions which in the final analysis are bandaids. Heck, instead of shorter prison terms where we actually try to rehabilitate criminals all we do now is lock them up for decades with no hope, in the process creating an expensive major problem for both society and their jailers. Rather than the nonsolutions currently in use, we should be asking what aspects of our society cause some small percentage of the population (and it is a small percentage regardless of the fear-mongering politicians love) to decide that violence is the only way of redressing their grievances. Is it the culture of violence perpetuated in the movies? Is it a number of real or perceived social ills? Is it grossly inequitable distribution of opportunity? Is it mental illness of some sort? Is it a culture which worships material things over the spiritual? In all likelihood it's all of these things and more. So it's best to start addressing the root causes of violence rather than focusing on just taking away weapons and locking people up. Neither is an answer. Weapons control just means criminals will find new weapons. Jails are currently just advanced criminal schools as well as very dangerous places for those who work there. We have a record percentage of the population locked up now, many for petty ridiculous things which weren't even illegal 10 years ago, and violence is at lower but still highly unacceptable levels (NYC had around 600 murders last year, down from a peak of over 2000 in the early 1990s but still 600 too many as far as I'm concerned). Of course, the path I mentioned is much harder and the outcome is not predetermined. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And to those who might say it can't be done, there have been societies in the past in which violence or theft were very low, murder was practically nonexistent, and a very small percentage of the population was incarcerated (usually just the incurably mentally ill). Maybe we should try to emulate those societies. An ideal society would be one where any weapons are allowed, but few if any feel the need to have such weapons.

The very definition of insanity is to keep doing things the same way while expecting a different outcome. That's pretty much where we are now. I'm tired of hearing let's ban this or that, and let's put those bad guys in jail. Make enough petty laws and soon you'll become one of those bad guys. Or to paraphrase another famous quote: "First they came for those with guns, but I didn't care because I didn't have a gun. Next they came for those with knives, but again I didn't care as I didn't have a knife. And then they came for me."

 

[nmos]

I think the proposed law would be similar to the current Butterfly knife situation.

Unfortunately this isn't a proposed law, but a simple change of definitions.

It is illegal to import a butterfly knife into the USA because of the Customs interpretations of Federal switchblade act. However it is legal for domestic manufactures to make butterfly knives if their state laws allow. Individuals can also buy and carry them if their state and local laws allow.

Right, but some state and many local laws already make switchblades illegal AND refer to the federal definition of what constitutes a switchblade. Effectively then a change in what the CBP defines as a switchblade could automatically changes what some state and local laws allow.

 

[cave dave]

Unfortunately this isn't a proposed law, but a simple change of definitions.

Dang, sorry I screwed up on that and I had been trying to be more careful with my wording.

Right, but some state and many local laws already make switchblades illegal AND refer to the federal definition of what constitutes a switchblade. Effectively then a change in what the CBP defines as a switchblade could automatically changes what some state and local laws allow.

My point was CBP defined the Butterfly knife as a switchblade years ago but it did not "automatically" make Butterfly knives illegal in many states even though switchblades are illegal for concealed carry in all states but 2. There is a difference between Federal law and CBP's interpretation of that law. CBP interpretation does not change the wording of US Code TITLE 15, CH 29

Generally speaking the states use case law to define "switchblade" instead. If the state laws refer to federal law it is usually to the original 1958 Switchblade act, not to any CBP interpretations. It is possible that the states and lawyers will refer to the CBP interpretations in future case law to create a new state definition of "switchblade" but there will be nothing automatic about it, and the lawyers will have to fight against previous case law.

In the case of Maryland and Virginia, there seems to be little correlation between Federal interpretations and state interpretations.

 

[TITAN1833]

I find this very interesting:

In the UK since guns and knives were outlawed crimes with either have risen :thinking: and most of those were against innocents who were unable to defend their selves,so now they are calling for tougher sentencing for offenders LOL.

It seems to me that the tougher sentencing should have been there in the first place and long before any restrictions on those who just want to defend their selves.

Now here's the funny thing,I can disarm a knife wielding person with a good strong stick,later Am'I going to be chastised? and we see a ban on sticks LOL

to all concerned good luck with the trees.
[edit] Sorry if your wondering! knives can be made effectively with wood and free to make also.

 

[souptree]

good luck with the trees.

:thinking:

 

[TITAN1833]

:thinking:

Sorry wood it help if I explained

Look I was only taking the pee! as I do out of any unrealistic concessions,

My point really is: drive knives underground?
and they will go stealth like,:thumbsup:

(WOOD ) carbon fibre,glass or plastic made knives!!!,

then when? they deny you of that well! :devil:


we can go back to stone/flint

 

[McGizmo]

.... even though switchblades are illegal for concealed carry in all states but 2. ......

So it is legal to carry a switchblade if it is obvious and exposed say clipped on your belt?

I recall hearing many years ago of a father who attended a high school basket ball game in Oakland with a six shooter clearly and visibly strapped to his side; cowboy style. I don't recall the particulars but it was something about the fact that it was illegal at the time to carry a concealed handgun without proper permits or some such. I don't believe this man was breaking any law at present beyond the use of common sense and I don't recall what his motivations were. This was before the assault rifle bans and back when there were a number of gun stores doing business in Oakland.