TexasCHLforum.com

I think it might fly.

The case I mentioned earlier (turns out to be Torres v. State 309 S.W. 2d 244) said that an otherwise legal hunting knife was not considered a "Bowie Knife" just because it had a sharpened clip point. It had to be both over the legal limit, AND be similar in size and shape to a real Bowie to be called a "Bowie Knife."

If you kept the blade design away from stiletto, it would probably work. I'm not sure how you would do that. A double-edged knife with two edges that run its full length is really only effective as a stabbing weapon (not that I have a personal problem with that), and that's what they're going for with the stiletto law. I guess if you wanted something like a hunting knife with a backbite, you'd be okay.

Two problems, though. I suspect that double-edged folders are all "switchblades" because it's tricky to open something double-edged without losing a finger. The only other practical alternative is a balisong design, and that's outlawed, too. A thumb stud on the blade might solve the problem, but it's still going to be a wacky design.

The second problem is that we're skirting the law on a technicality, here. Where it directly applies, like a 5 1/2 inch Camillus survival knife, you're probably okay. Stretching it to cover a folding double-edged knife with a back edge that in any way resembles a stiletto is what I would call "pushing it."

Bowie knife? If it's under the length limit, what's the point?

I don't think there is one. I'll dig around for the case, but I am absolutely certain that I read a court ruling that said for a knife to be considered a "Bowie knife," it had to be substantially similar in construction to the original Bowie knife. Basically, a knife of a legal length is not considered a Bowie just because it has a backbite on it. I was interested in this specifically because of those miniature Ka-Bar looking knives with the little sharpening stone in the sheath.

I'll find it and report back.