(Ammoland.com)- Since its inception, Knife Rights has had as a foundational position that knives are arms protected by the Second Amendment. Our logo includes the declaration, “Essential Tool – Essential Rights.”
However, actual court rulings on this issue are always appreciated. Recently, the Connecticut Supreme Court has affirmed that knives are arms protected by the Second Amendment in a case with potential wider implications.
In its decision overturning a prior conviction, the Court held that “the second amendment protects the defendant’s right to possess the dirk knife … in his home and, second, that the statute’s complete ban on transporting those items between residences unduly burdens that right.” The Court further said, “[t]hus, the safe transportation of weapons protected by the second amendment is an essential corollary of the right to possess them in the home for self-defense when such transportation is necessary to effectuate that right.”
The case revolved around the transportation of the defendant’s weapons collection including knives between a former residence in Connecticut to his new residence in Massachusetts. The defendant was originally convicted for having a weapon in a motor vehicle, a violation of Connecticut’s harsh anti-weapons laws.
Very cool. A good decision.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet another decision recognizing that the individual's right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment.
DeleteWhat other "arms" should be covered?
DeleteWhat other "arms" should be covered?
DeleteCrossbows, atlatls, halberds, cutting lasers, blow guns, cudgels, air guns, chainsaw bayonets, war hammers, hunting boomerangs--the list is kinda long, Mikeb.
...Morning Stars, sabers, sling shots, katanas (yeah, Baldr is happy!), throwing stars, staffs, brass knuckles, Klingon Bat'leths, baseball bats, pepper spray, tasers, Kevlar vests, 10" Chef knives...
Delete"Baseball bats" covered by the 2nd Amendment. Hahahahahaha
Delete"Baseball bats" covered by the 2nd Amendment. Hahahahahaha
DeleteTry to ban them, Giggles, and see who's laughing then,
Let's say someone tried to do just that. Do you think people would argue against it based on the 2A? (Try telling the truth, Kurt).
DeleteDo you think people would argue against it based on the 2A?
DeleteWhy wouldn't they? What other Constitutional protection against such a ban exists (here I refer to a state or local level ban--I realize that a federal ban could be opposed on Tenth Amendment grounds, at least for bats that did not enter interstate commerce)?
(Try telling the truth, Kurt).
Tried and succeeded effortlessly, as always.
Try presenting a single exception, Mikeb.
I have said it before, its the right to ARMS in the second CIVIL right. The amendment doesn't speak to firearms alone, or at all in this amendment, but ARMS, which includes a sharp stick or even a rock. Anything that can be used to defend yourself or country is an armament. A prohibited person can be charged with possessing a weapon if law enforcement determines a certain object in his possession could be used as a weapon. Firearms, knives, batons, baseball bat, pick handle and more can be prohibited for a felon to possess.
ReplyDelete"Well regulated" at the time of the writing meant well equipped, well supplied, well trained. If at the time all you had was a sword, a dagger, a stone to sharpen those arms, scabbards to carry them as well as the training to use them effectively and secure them, you were well "regulated" in your arms. This was/is protected in the second civil right. "Well regulated" actually covers any type of object or tool that can be used to defend. When calling for volunteers to defend more than just the individual himself, leaders, whom ever they may be, looked for well regulated individuals to form a group that falls under the control of that leader for the purposes of defending. Simply the possession of any arm doesn't exactly make you well regulated and may not get you in a group or militia when needed for the reasons to be called upon. It may, depending on the circumstance.
Oh, and Laci, I do understand the difference between "well regulated" and falling under the "authority" of which militias would be serving despite the strained reason that you use the term well regulated in a different way. Your reasons have a internal fault and contradictions.
The second Civil Right isn't about hunting, its a right to possess the means of defense. Hunting is a means of survival, but more a sport now. It means the government cannot take your arms away from you or restrict you from them EXCEPT by ones own felonious actions. Your rights can be removed by your wrong doings and that is also covered in the Bill of Rights if one would just bother to read the whole thing.
The second Civil Right isn't about sport shooting, competition, or any other strained reason some have come up with. It is about protecting the right of owning and carrying them for what ever LAWFUL reason a person has. Its about what ever tool that can be used, not just firearms.
"baseball bat, pick handle and more can be prohibited for a felon to possess."
DeleteHahahahahaha
Laugh it up fuzz ball. Prohibited persons and/or gang members are arrested here all the time for carrying "weapons" The news reports are that (insert name here) were found to be ARMED with baseball bats and lengths of pipe or other such items that could cause great bodily injury or death and have been charged with in possession of those items with intent to commit crimes.
DeleteThat's ARMED with such items Mike, or does the concept that committing a crime with anything besides a firearm escape you? A person that has committed crimes in the past, convicted of such, is PROHIBITED to possess ANYTHING that can be used as a weapon if such an item is not necessary for any reason for the person to have.
Maybe you need to read and LEARN some state laws on the matter of felony convicted restrictions on certain items that a prohibited person can possess. It is a broad category and is left to the officer, prosecutor and judge as to the item or type of potential weapon involved.
Maybe you can provide a link to a story about someone who is prohibited from owning a baseball bat or a lead pipe, or according to your bizarre take on things, a nail clipper or kitchen spoon, presumably because he had committed some violent act with one of those things. I'd really love to see that.
DeleteOtherwise, you must admit you're just making shit up again.
Gunsmoke doesn't need me to speak for him/her, but I don't read his/her contention as being that anyone is prohibited from owning these things, but from possessing them with intent to commit violent crime.
DeleteI can show you an example of a charge of "assault with a dangerous weapon," (said charge then subsequently lowered to "possession of a prohibited weapon"), with the weapon thought to have been a beer bottle:
Senior Isabella Bacardi was arrested for assault with a dangerous weapon - a felony charge - at McFadden's Saloon Oct. 21. Bacardi is accused of hitting a 29-year-old Alexandria, Va., resident on the head with a glass object [later described as probably a beer bottle], a court document states.
This excerpt from the article, quoting Channing Phillips, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C., is perhaps instructive:
"D.C. statute states anything that you use in a prohibited manner can be considered a prohibited weapon," he said. "Even a writing pen could be considered prohibited under certain circumstances."
Whether or not "the pen is mightier than the sword" has perhaps not yet been quite settled, but it can evidently be just as illegal.
Mike, all you need to do is pick up a paper, watch the news or scour the Internet news for a wealth of evidence. I for one have never "made up shit again" or in the first place. Just because you deny it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just hurts your agenda to admit it does happen.
DeleteI presume you looked for a link to a story that would back up your bullshit statement and came up empty. But of course you lack the integrity to admit your mistake.
DeleteKurt, I think Gunsmoke does indeed need you to come to his rescue. Who else by you could come up with a spin like this:
Delete"but from possessing them with intent to commit violent crime."
Actually, we were comparing baseball bats to guns. When one becomes a prohibited person for guns, they are not allowed to own them, period. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. Gunsmoke said the same goes for baseball bats and pipes and I challenged him to prove it with a story to that effect.
Who else [but] you could come up with a spin like this . . .
DeleteCan't imagine why anyone else would have trouble "com[ing] up with" the "spin" you mention--it's a simple paraphrase of what Gunsmoke said (bold emphasis added):
. . .were found to be ARMED with baseball bats and lengths of pipe or other such items that could cause great bodily injury or death and have been charged with in possession of those items with intent to commit crimes.
Then I demonstrated that Washington D.C. Law provides a mechanism for charging people with "possession of a prohibited weapon," when said "weapon" is a beer bottle, a pen, etc.--depending on the manner in which said "weapon" is used.
Granted, this was pre-Heller. I don't know if that altered Second Amendment jurisprudence to the extent that such regulation is considered to be in conflict with the right to keep and bear arms (and I don't really feel like wading through D.C. weapons laws to find out if that law has changed), or not. Knowing D.C. attitudes, I suspect not.
Where in my statement did I say anything about owning a baseball bat Mike? Nowhere. So now who is making stuff up? It isn't me. I said POSSESSION of such item with CRIMINAL INTENT.
DeleteIts not hard for the police to figure out when someone is not up to anything good if said police pull someone over for looking suspicious, IE: doesn't belong in the area, driving around looking for something, ARMED with a baseball bat when there isn't any game around and has been convicted for assault in the past using a baseball bat or similar items. ARMED with a baseball bat (no glove or ball, no base ball field in the area and so on) or in possession of a deadly weapon (baseball bat) and he is a known actor of violent crime, cant answer questions without contradiction or too vague to be fact is going to be charged with being ARMED with CRIMINAL INTENT.
Maybe he didn't own the baseball bat, maybe he stole it.
If you want me to look up thousands of examples, pay me and I will be your secretary. Time is money, I use my time to make money. I spend enough time here to cost me some money when it should be spent elsewhere making money. Pay me for my time and I will be glad to do some of your homework for you. Otherwise look it up for yourself.
"Where in my statement did I say anything about owning a baseball bat Mike? "
Delete"were found to be ARMED with baseball bats"
That's not owning? Found to be in possession of is not owning?
I know TS and Kurt started the nonsense of baseball bats, but you picked right up on it. Now you want to get all semantic about owning and criminal intent? Your bogus, man.
Nope, that's not owning. It's that same as being in possession of a car does make you own it. Just because you are occupying a house does not make you the owner. And when it involves criminal intent or criminal action ownership is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
Delete" It's that same as being in possession of a car does make you own it."
DeleteI again omitted one word. So correction follows,
It's that same as being in possession of a car does NOT make you own it.
The issue is this: if a person commits an assault with a baseball bat, are they going to be prohibited from owning baseball bats in the future in the same way people who commit an assault with a gun are likely to be prohibited from owning guns in the future?
DeleteSometimes it will Mike, in Texas at least.
DeleteIn Texas for example, if you get stopped and the officer will ask you if you have any weapons in the car that includes the following list from A to Z that DOES include a baseball bat by the way, you'd better say yes if you have it. If you say no and they search your vehicle and find one, your butt is in big trouble. Even if you have a squeaky clean record, you won't have one after that. You better have a ball or two and a glove at least to go with that bat and a good explanation as well. In Texas, a baseball bat IS considered to be a deadly weapon and if a person has been convicted of a violent crime, possession of a deadly weapon is a FELONY. The convicted person can own it, just can't willy-nilly be in possession of it.
Guns would be prohibited from ownership because of the infringement laws imposed on them. A 4473 is not required to buy the bat. But a bat can still be a deadly weapon. And a judge upon his conviction can even prohibit his ownership of a bat (which is almost impossible to enforce) and if it is in his record and he gets caught with one, even if the intent is above board, it's an automatic felony weapons charge.
Just look up illegal weapons for Texas, in the subsection it includes weapons prohibited for convicted persons. Weapons is a very broad term in Texas.
Even in Texas, a Bowie knife is illegal to possess, not own but possess and Texas is known for Bowie knives. You can trot down to the local Wally World and buy one but a receipt of it and it in the box going straight home is the only thing that will keep you out of trouble for the possession of it, unless your a prohibited person. It and other knives are strictly enforced in Texas prohibited weapons laws.
Mike, if you just look up the different state laws before you make these ridiculous claims of things that you don't believe are true would go a long way towards the understanding prohibited weapons for prohibited and non prohibited to possess. Also pay real close attention to the words "including but limited to" that make other seemingly innocuous items to be a weapon. It's that gray area that you like to have, like your "hidden criminal" and your "50%" terms that you like to use.