US amendment

[Noddy]

The law always dazzles and confuses me - probably why I used to end up on the wrong side of it occasionally

Here's a link to a thread on JD where a US Senator has replied to a member's letter. Post#15

http://www.jerzeedevil.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=61506

I know it is US law, and I am not certain that it is even law yet, or just a proposed amendment. Question is, might it help in UK cases from Mount Pleasant

The line is: "[amendment 1447] ... granted an exception from the import ban to any [OHO] knife "that contains a spring, detent, or other mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure of the blade and that requires exertion applied to the blade by hand, wrist, or arm to overcome the bias toward closure to assist in opening the knife."

The ban on springers and gravs here is whatever it is, but could this serve as a precedent to argue against the man with the trick wrist

[Danzo]

The ban on springers and gravs here is whatever it is, but could this serve as a precedent to argue against the man with the trick wrist

I don't think so Noddy, but it's possible I suppose.

The proposed amendment to US law is intended to squash the arbitrary application by US Customs of their interpretation of the 1958 Federal anti switchblade/gravity knife prohibition on importing such knives, in line with the approach taken by the NYPD and NYC courts regarding the definition of such knives, and of course the way our own Officer Vickery at HMRC interprets our virtually identical legislation.

Whilst decisons of US higher courts can carry some small persuasive precedent in the UK courts, US Federal legislation doesn't carry much weight of persuasive precedent at all. Well, none at all really, as it isn't precedent in the Common Law tradition, as far as I know.

Where's Rogue? He's much better at this sort of thing than me!



It will be interesting to see, when and if this legislation goes through, if it affects the long held approach taken by the NYC courts, and the more recent decisions by several US State legislatures to classify Assisted Openers as Automatics.

Danzo

[Rogue]

US case law might be taken on board in the absence of existing UK case law, but we already have Harris etc. It will take our sparkly new Supreme Court or Parliament themselves to change things now, as far as I see it.

Flattery gets you everywhere Danzo but I am a humble apprentice at your feet

[Danzo]

Flattery gets you everywhere Danzo but I am a humble apprentice at your feet

I'm a simple shotgun when it come to the law mate, you are a finely tuned snipers rifle.



Danzo

[MushiSushi]

get a room!!

[lozofbuk]

There are some interesting points that I've read recently that I believe would aid in a UK defence for classifying AO's as AOK.

The orignal law was aimed at the weapon of thugs and indeed the flick knives were designed purely as weapons at the time.

AO's on the other hand are designed as utility tools with many examples being given of when a tradesmen or someone on a camping or fishing trip has reason to use a knife which can be opened one handed and quickly. (there is a new S&W Out The Front AO knife series which isn't helping this reasoning)

I'm also of the opinion that focusing on the speed of deployment is absurd. An auto knife can be deployed a fraction faster than a manual folding knife, has that half second ever made a difference ever. I'm all for argueing common sense and perspective on this issue.

[Rogue]

AO's on the other hand are designed as utility tools with many examples being given of when a tradesmen or someone on a camping or fishing trip has reason to use a knife which can be opened one handed and quickly.

From memory I think this has already been addressed by the courts, but the case escapes me at the moment. Or I might have made it up. I'll get back to you...

[Noiseif]

There are some interesting points that I've read recently that I believe would aid in a UK defence for classifying AO's as AOK.

The orignal law was aimed at the weapon of thugs and indeed the flick knives were designed purely as weapons at the time.

AO's on the other hand are designed as utility tools with many examples being given of when a tradesmen or someone on a camping or fishing trip has reason to use a knife which can be opened one handed and quickly. (there is a new S&W Out The Front AO knife series which isn't helping this reasoning)

I'm also of the opinion that focusing on the speed of deployment is absurd. An auto knife can be deployed a fraction faster than a manual folding knife, has that half second ever made a difference ever. I'm all for argueing common sense and perspective on this issue.

I don't think the automatics of the 40s and 50s could be said to be universally weapons. Italian switchblades were, but they were by no means the only autos. This is a pretty typical selection of autos from the period, and the designs are nearly identical to contemporary slipjoint pocket knives which certainly were not weapons.

Equally, I don't believe that gravity knives of the day, which were also banned in Britain, were primarily weapons but rather utility knives for soldiers. The blade shapes on a typical example is identical to that of a Swiss Army knife, and it even includes folding tools as a SAK does.

Also, many assisted openers are indeed designed to be weapons (or at least this is part of their design consideration), the Benchmade Nitrous Stryker for example.

You could not argue in court that since speed doesn't matter in the deadliness of a knife, they are legal (which would apply to autos as well). Regardless of how idiotic the law is, it is on the books.

[jdm61]

I'm not sure how your laws regarding automatics ended up on the books, but ours over here were strictly the result of unfounded hysteria, mostly based on stuff seen in movies like "The Wild Ones" "West Side Story" and others. If yo want to see how they were viewed back then, just watch the original Henry Fonda version of "Twelve Angry Men" Fonda pulls out a switchblade, whihc the other jurors assume is some kind of illegal weapon that only hoodlums carry and he surprises them by telling them that he bought it at a store right around the corner. Perhaps the Italian stilletos were designed primarily as some kind of weapon, but the classic German folding lever button knife clearly was not.....or if it was, they didn't do a very good job of designing it as a weapon.

[lozofbuk]

I don't think the automatics of the 40s and 50s could be said to be universally weapons. Italian switchblades were, but they were by no means the only autos. This is a pretty typical selection of autos from the period, and the designs are nearly identical to contemporary slipjoint pocket knives which certainly were not weapons.

Equally, I don't believe that gravity knives of the day, which were also banned in Britain, were primarily weapons but rather utility knives for soldiers. The blade shapes on a typical example is identical to that of a Swiss Army knife, and it even includes folding tools as a SAK does.

Also, many assisted openers are indeed designed to be weapons (or at least this is part of their design consideration), the Benchmade Nitrous Stryker for example.

You could not argue in court that since speed doesn't matter in the deadliness of a knife, they are legal (which would apply to autos as well). Regardless of how idiotic the law is, it is on the books.

I would have to disagree with these statements, the wording behind the U.S law stated the knives were 'weapons for thugs with little or no utilatarian value'

Of course it was all hysteria but that was the wording used to justify the creation of the law.

On the gravity knives, the german paratrooper knife was a target but not the primary target I'm led to believe, and while you could say it was a utilty knife for the injured paratrooper, it really doesn't have a legit purpose outside of this setting, within the general populus this item could only be viewed as a fast deploying german weapon, and as Danzo has said recently the jamaican 3 star gravity knife was being used by gangs in New York and was the primary target for this legislation.

[lozofbuk]

Also, many assisted openers are indeed designed to be weapons (or at least this is part of their design consideration), the Benchmade Nitrous Stryker for example.

the vast majority are designed for utility use but indeed some are designed for self defence and forces use.

But that doesn't matter because weapons legislation of the past shows us that they wish to only capture a specific type of knife to the point where not even one 'innocent' knife can be caught under the legislation, case in point Knives act 1997.

We would just need to focus on making the utility AO's viewed as innocent utility tools - which they are.

[MushiSushi]

Also, many assisted openers are indeed designed to be weapons (or at least this is part of their design consideration), the Benchmade Nitrous Stryker for example.

I'd have to agree with that statement. The "Swedge", or false edge serves no other purpose that I am aware of than to make the tool better suited for puncture.There are very few times that you need a tool for puncture in that way, unless that tool is used as weapon and to look "tactical". It's why I have an aversion to them on a folding work knife.

Although I do appreciate them on a Bowie, but then that has a more iconic status and I think necessary for the aesthetics, sometimes.

[lozofbuk]

From memory I think this has already been addressed by the courts, but the case escapes me at the moment. Or I might have made it up. I'll get back to you...

In the UK, I think it was addressed briefly by a solicitor for the defence in one of the 'folding knives' cases but in this instance it would not have been particularly relevant given that the judges based their decision on the foldability of the knife.

Plus, and I'm guessing here, in those cases they are dealing with what type of knife can be carried in a public place, if they rule against the locking folder then the decision has no serious consequences, a decision on AO's has more siginifcant consequences that would affect businesses in the UK, surely that must be taken into consideration when making a decision ?

Is it possible if the CPS were ambused by a good many knife dealers on a case they were considering prosecuting, that they may stop and just refer the matter to the Home Office for a legal clarification ?

Right now, in the UK, you have a situation where a couple of HMRC guys have sat around a table and decided AO's can be seized, these are not knife experts, they do not know and have not taken into consideration the impact this decision would have on the UK knife industry, nor the potential backlash from Uk and U.S manufacturers who I'm sure would lend their support, nor the practicalities of compensation for existing stock, nor the good faith of current knife owners etc. etc.

This is probably why they have not yet intervened in company shipments, it's a low level decision.

Martyn would tell us 'the law is the law and must be obeyed however and whoever is determining what the law is this week (forgive my paraphrasing)

I agree the law must be obeyed but given that even customs have changed their minds on how the law should be interpreted, there needs to be some clarification from the top and if we can assist the decision makers by making sure they have all the facts and relevant information to aid that decision, then why would we not.

[Noiseif]

I would have to disagree with these statements, the wording behind the U.S law stated the knives were 'weapons for thugs with little or no utilatarian value'

Regardless of the arguments made in favour of the law, the law does not specify weapons. The handgun ban does not just cover the Browning service pistol and Smith & Wesson revolver used in Dunblane, it also covers Hammerli target pistols and Ruger hunting revolvers. Drug laws don't just ban the recreational drug, they ban it regardless of for what purpose it was made (medicinal cannabis and heroin etc). You can't get caught with heroin or a handgun and say to the judge "Well, heroin was only banned to stop people taking it for kicks, but I'm taking it for medical reasons so it's ok," or "Handguns were banned to stop people shooting up schools, but mine is for targets so actually it's not banned." You're confusing arguing against the law's existence with arguing that something isn't covered by the law.

If lawmakers had wanted to exempt non-weapons they could have done.

while you could say it was a utilty knife for the injured paratrooper, it really doesn't have a legit purpose outside of this setting, within the general populus this item could only be viewed as a fast deploying german weapon

Well just because a rescue knife is made to be used by emergency services doesn't mean it's a weapon in any other context. Just because an American slipjoint was intended for the castration of cattle doesn't mean it's a weapon if you carry it down Oxford Street.

You've just been saying how anyone can find the speed of deployment offered by AOs useful - why not the speed of a gravity knife?

[lozofbuk]

Regardless of the arguments made in favour of the law, the law does not specify weapons. The handgun ban does not just cover the Browning service pistol and Smith & Wesson revolver used in Dunblane, it also covers Hammerli target pistols and Ruger hunting revolvers. Drug laws don't just ban the recreational drug, they ban it regardless of for what purpose it was made (medicinal cannabis and heroin etc). You can't get caught with heroin or a handgun and say to the judge "Well, heroin was only banned to stop people taking it for kicks, but I'm taking it for medical reasons so it's ok," or "Handguns were banned to stop people shooting up schools, but mine is for targets so actually it's not banned." You're confusing arguing against the law's existence with arguing that something isn't covered by the law.

If lawmakers had wanted to exempt non-weapons they could have done.

I didn't think I was argueing anything . . . that's already been done, I'm just repeating some of the reasoning the defence lawyers have been using in the U.S that I happen to think sounds reasonable and I would believe to be relevant if a similar motion was pushed over here.

Bear in mind no case has been heard in the U.K involving any AO's to my knowledge so we don't even know if they are technically covered under the 1959 law, initially U.S customs accepted that they did not meet the definition of switchblades as a button was not depressed that would cause the blade to automatically open, something which is even better defined in the UK law as a 'button on the handle'

U.S customs then repealled their intital decisions as they decided that as little 'human manipulation' is used to open the knife, it should therefore be classed as a switchblade

I'm afraid I don't have any definitive legal arguments, just a good many 'fair comments' which when put together have convinced me that these should be legal and seem to have convinced the senators too. Sadly though, this country is run by campaigning housewives who will probably take a different, less reasonable, view.