US proposed knife ban could include any one hand opening knives

[jtr1962]

Not ever going to get there. People want wealth. Whether they work hard for it, or spend every penny on lottery tickets. It's just basic human nature. If I held a raffle, and the winning prize was a bag full of money; do you believe anyone would refuse the prize?

They want wealth because the wealth allows them to obtain material things. Now envision a society where robots produce all of the goods or services, and also make and repair themselves. In such a society there is no longer any need to exchange money for goods (what will robots do with money anyway?), hence money is pointless. Each citizen would essentially get what they want by simply asking for it to be produced. Naturally, there would need to be some total limit to what one could ask for based on either energy usage or raw materials and the total population. Even if you don't use all of your allotment you wouldn't be able to transfer the surplus to someone else (or that would essentially be like money is today). I imagine in such an advanced society with completely automated production that this allotment might well put everyone far beyond what is today considered a decent standard of living. In other words, there would be no incentive (or means for that matter) for anyone to do anything to acquire more as they already can have whatever anyone could reasonably want or need. Now you might say you'll have no billionaires with huge estates and yachts and so forth in such a society as those things would be well beyond their allotment. That's true, but IMO acquistion of material things to that extent indicates a pathology even if today it's considered socially acceptable. Why have goods and wealth beyond what you'll need or use in 1000 lifetimes? From what I see being super rich never seems to result in any more happiness. Usually the opposite is true. The material things become a burden. Granted, this is all pretty far-fetched but given the exponential growth in robotics and AI it's not hard to imagine such a society 100 or 200 years from now.

But like I said, I really think we should discuss this in another thread.

 

[StriderSMF]

Dont be surprised when the put a ban on forward clickies with over 200 lumen's :mecry:

 

[TITAN1833]

I have been around the UK long enough to see my rights eroded on a yearly bases,the fact is once I could carry lock knifes actually most weapons.

A few examples back in the eighties I carried daily Nunchaku,and quite often I would practice out in the open with out fear of arrest! try that now and I would certainly end up in jail :shakehead

Also at around the same time and prior to 1988 any knife including lock knives were allowed with one exception flick knives/gravity knives,I believe these were banned back in 1959! try carrying a lock knife in public and you will 100% end up in jail :shakehead

I could go on but! this statement will suffice,try carrying any sharp object in public and you could end up in jail BTW this includes multi tools,screw drivers and nails :laughing: the only exception is a folding pocket knife with non locking blades and with a blade under 3"

Do I feel my rights have been eroded "hell yeah" I just wish we in the UK stood up to those who impose such erosions but! sad to say this will never be the case, so alas the damage is done oh! and one more thing be careful in the UK if you carry a tactical pen it's a grey area.

So yes I'm with the US guys on this,keep fighting for your rights guys :twothumbs


[edit]I have to add this important information,most knife attacks in the UK are likely to include a kitchen knife FACT!

 

[Illum]

its like the laser pointer incident...

Sometimes I feel safer having my rights pulled knowing that there won't be idiots out there causing trouble because they don't know what to do with their rights and decide to exploit it:shakehead

 

[TITAN1833]

its like the laser pointer incident...

Sometimes I feel safer having my rights pulled knowing that there won't be idiots out there causing trouble because they don't know what to do with their rights and decide to exploit it:shakehead

True but! the idiots exploit people like you thinking you are safe why! well they know that you will most likely not be carrying anything to defend yourself with "especially" as that right gets "slowly" eroded.

 

[Beamhead]

Sometimes I feel safer having my rights pulled knowing that there won't be idiots out there causing trouble because they don't know what to do with their rights and decide to exploit it:shakehead

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin

 

[Guy's Dropper]

Oh lawdy, Another proposed ban? WTF?:shakehead

 

[McGizmo]

The right to defend ourselves is certainly not one to allow to be eroded as many have commented on. This is especially the case when for many of us the perceived enemy or potential enemy is within our borders. For some it may be the wingnuts on the right for others, the wingnuts on the left. For many, the criminal element alone is cause to be ready to defend.

In regards to the UK comment about a non locking 3" blade knife, I think one of the most dangerous tools I ever used was just such a knife! :green:

One of the key ideas I picked up from that book I mentioned was the notion that "conventional wisdom" is not necessarily logical, based on truth or deserving of being held as wisdom or by convention. There may be conventional wisdom in support of this knife ban but that alone does not justify such a ban but will the law makers question this? :shrug:

I wonder if common sense should also be questioned although most of us doubt there is much of it prevailing these days, anyways.

 

[Lightraven]

I've pulled a lot of knives off criminals and their cars. Most were California-legal folding or fixed blade knives. Maybe just the population I deal with tends to carry the legal (but garbage quality) stuff.

 

[TITAN1833]

In regards to the UK comment about a non locking 3" blade knife, I think one of the most dangerous tools I ever used was just such a knife! :green:

I agree and I have the scar to prove that, however the very worst are craft knives "snap ouch!" LOL if only my fingers could speak :mecry:

Haha! maybe allowing non locking 3" knives is our governments way of disabling us all :green:

And I see it now very soon we will have to wear boxes as gloves when out in public :candle:

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Thanks Titan for the encouragement to keep the fight up and defend our rights: we certainly need to do that. Sounds like you and your fellow citizens need one of those little "tea parties" we had a few years ago, and see if you can get some guaranteed citizen rights down in writing, and we (US citizens) need to do what we can to protect our Bill of Rights from the little encroachments such as this proposed ruling on one handed opening knives.

Bill

 

[TITAN1833]

Bill the thing is this "try it at your peril" you have kids right? slowly take away their rights and see where that goes,it's no different with adults! something will CRACK! in the end.

I really believe in this: tools "which includes any knife",fire, water and food is a human right that should never be taken away :twothumbs

 

[Beamhead]

The right to defend ourselves is certainly not one to allow to be eroded as many have commented on. This is especially the case when for many of us the perceived enemy or potential enemy is within our borders. For some it may be the wingnuts on the right for others, the wingnuts on the left. For many, the criminal element alone is cause to be ready to defend.

Don't forget the right to defend ourselves from tyranny in government.
Right wingnut here.:nana:

 

[cave dave]

I think this thread has gotten off topic and into the realm of emotional responses. And frankly whining ain't gonna get us anywhere.

I wonder how many people have actually taken the time to read the proposed Customs ruling document? It is simply full of bad logic and poor definitions. I think the way to overturn this proposed action is to point out all their mistakes.

examples:

it is necessary to reassess our position regarding knives with spring-assisted opening mechanisms as 1) there are no judicial decisions interpreting, other than in the ontext of balisong knives (discussed above), 15 U.S.C. § 1241(b)(2) and the second clause of 19 Part CFR 12.95(a) (discussed below) and 2) CBP has issued inconsistent rulings, of which HQ W116730 is one, regarding the issue of whether knives with spring-assisted opening mechanisms are admissible or prohibited from importation into the United States.

I believe this is incorrect and that there have been judicial decisions. People mention them but we will need to send them actual case numbers if we want to reference them.

The Customs position, which has been supported by court decisions, is that Congressional intent was to address the problem of the importation, subsequent sale, and use of a class of quick-opening, easily concealed knives most frequently used for criminal purposes.

Umm, now they are saying there have been court decisions, I would assume some attempt at interpretations during these. :thinking:
I agree that was probably the point of the original legislation and why I cautioned against using the term "weapon". However I think one would be hard pressed to prove that the millions of one hand folding knives sold at Walmart, sporting good stores and online are most "frequently used" for criminal purposes.

They spend a lot of the document defining words (sometimes incorrectly) and yet they fail to define the word "primarily" even though they use it a lot to say certain knives are primarily not intended for utilitarian purposes, and implying they are primarily weapons.

the type of gravity or ''flick'' knife
which is indisputably within the statute requires some human manipulation in order to create or unleash the force of ''gravity'' or ''inertia'' which makes the opening ''automatic.''

If it requires human manipulation it isn't "automatic".

The force of gravity can't be created or unleashed, it is always present.

The knives at issue open via inertia – once pressure is applied to the thumb stud (or protrusion at the base of the blade), the blade continues in inertial motion (caused by the combined effect of manual and springassisted pressure) until it is stopped by the locking mechanism of the knife.

Inertia is simply defined as an "object in motion stays in motion", manual and spring assisted pressure can not cause inertial motion by definition.

Seriously these folks need to be sent back to High School Physics class.

The writers of the document seem also to have difficulty understanding the legal definitions of "and" as well as "or". They seem to want to build cumulative cases where the sum of the logic adds up to more than the whole, when the intention the original legislation wasn't additive. They seem to understand that when they say that utilitarian switchblades are still illegal. But seem to want to combine hand pressure + spring + inertia to = switchblade.

On October 24, 1970, notice was published in the Federal Register (35 FR 16594) of a proposal to prescribe regulations to govern the importation of articles subject to the so-called Switchblade Knife Act, sections 1 – 4, 72 Stat. 562 (15 U.S.C. 1241 – 1244). Importers or other interested persons were given the opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of relevant comments, suggestions or objections. No comments were received from importers or other persons. 36 FR 18859.

Bold mine. This part is just plain scary, and in part why we have these stupid regulations today. Of course we didn't have the internet in 1970 to get the word out, so a 30 day comment period was likely to go unnoticed.

 

[Illum]

Right wingnut here.:nana:

Wingnut yes...right or left handed I'm not so sure:thinking:

 

[Jay R]

try carrying a lock knife in public and you will 100% end up in jail!

Well, you'd get it confiscated and a severe talking to. If you had a bad attitude with the policeman you may end up with an official Police Caution. If you were just in possession of one, you would never end up in Jail.

try carrying any sharp object in public and you could end up in jail BTW this includes multi tools,screw drivers and nails the only exception is a folding pocket knife with non locking blades and with a blade under 3"

Stab someone to death with a screwdriver and of course you will end up in jail as is only right and proper. No exception for a three inch knife.

[edit]I have to add this important information,most knife attacks in the UK are likely to include a kitchen knife FACT

True, true. Usually domestic arguments that have gone big time.

 

[Jay R]

Police in England don't get shot at because the criminals don't have guns.

I read your post, but singled out this line because it speaks volumes, all by itself. And, is extremely easy to disprove .

As I'd already established in earlier posts that a very few criminals do have guns, it's quite obvious to anyone who speaks English as a first language that statement was meant as a generalisation. And finding a few, widely spread cases, only proves my point further.

There have been documented cases of police officers being shot at.

Yes there have been, but not many which is the whole point I'm making.

For some odd reason, you honestly believe that an inanimate object can cause decent folks to commit crimes.

There you go again. Claiming that I said something that I didn't and then trying to criticise me for it. I never said anything of the sort and would not because it is a stupid statement.

Clearly if someone believes that there are no violent criminals in their country who have guns

No, really, it's like you are just making stuff up now. Nobody said that. I certainly didn't.

Look, I don't mean to be rude but you don't read my posts properly, you obviously don't understand what I'm saying and you keep trying to criticise me for saying things which I never said. On top of that you seem to believe that every single news/report in any media format, pro or anti gun from England is lying because it doesn't match what you believe.

I give up. There's none so deaf as those that will not hear.

 

[McGizmo]

The Customs position, which has been supported by court decisions, is that Congressional intent was to address the problem of the importation, subsequent sale, and use of a class of quick-opening, easily concealed knives most frequently used for criminal purposes.

This intent makes sense to me on the face of it. If there is a knife that has little or no utility beyond its use as a weapon then perhaps it can be identified and banned if that is deemed necessary or prudent. However, what data has been compiled to show the frequency of use of any of these knives for that matter or are presumption and assumption adequate in identifying the frequency?

I also find it a bit ironic that there is concern for easily concealed knives in light of my understanding and my admitted assumption that longer or larger knives are in some cases not allowed to be carried and the consideration that an exposed and visible knife on a person brings with it its own set of problems and issues.

Would the laws have any less "real" effect if they addressed the criminals themselves and removed their right to carry a knife as I believe they now disallow a criminal access to legal possession of a firearm?

My gut tells me that a law abiding citizen having a knife on his (her) person might be in a position to deter a crime against their person but in actual defense, I wonder how well being armed with a knife would aid the citizen in warding off an attack?!?! Regardless, IMHO, the citizen who has not broken any law has the right to carry tools of utility as well as defense and should not suffer limitations based on what a criminal might accomplish with the same tools.

Making possession a crime puts an otherwise law abiding citizen at risk of being seen and processed as a criminal and actually a pretty easy mark for those held to enforcing the law. The law abiding citizen will likely respond to the law and avoid conflict by removing any illegal items from their person and carry items; the utility of defense as well as more benign tasks are no longer available to the citizen in the now absence of this device. Will the criminal comply with the law and also no longer have possession? Less the likelihood, I would guess.

I am probably ahead of the situation here because the subject is about a proposed ban and I assume this may not necessarily imply an additional law against possession?

If a ban can effectively remove a criminal device from society and if this device has only criminal merit then it would seem to be worthy of implementation. However the "ifs" really need to be honestly addressed.

If a law is designed to target a criminal but only effects the law abiding and worse, even limits their abilities, then the law is ill conceived and hopefully not passed. :shrug:

Anymore, it seems that too much of what our government and legislators do is all about appearance and not actual positive effect, correction or change.

IMHO, we have some laws that have created criminals where there was no real crime before. If the intent of law is to reduce and deal with real crime, how effective has it been?

 

[TITAN1833]

True, true. Usually domestic arguments that have gone big time

Interestingly the kitchen knife is about to change,soon they will no longer be pointed look here 😀

 

[McGizmo]

Interestingly the kitchen knife is about to change,soon they will no longer be pointed look here 😀

I want to see their redesign of an ice pick or are those already illegal?