B.O.W.I.E. Club - EDCing of an Illegal Knife.

[snatchel]

That 4 inches of steel would cause this kind of debate is kinda crazy once you think about it.

As a law abiding forum, such issues are discussed at length on a regular basis. The more debate, the more thorough everyone becomes in return. My favorite thing about this forum is that I can sit around "tactically cleaning my fingernails" for an hour or two while reading the various discussions in here and learn something!

[iratollah]

That's too good looking a knife to risk having it confiscated. If you want to be the test case, you should carry one of those cheap ones you saw at ChinaMart. But what's the point in going Croc Dundee on someone if you're not trained? May as well hand it over to them to use on you.

Kentucky allows CCW holders to carry weapons that are prohibited to others, including large knives, switchblades, etc. I wish our legislature would give us the same options. My Burger sword cane http://www.swordcane.com/ is quite stylish, fun to carry, and has great potential, but the law only lets me admire it at home so it remains a safe queen. I carry a Cold Steel cane when traveling overseas and other restrictive places. It's proven it's deterrent effectiveness.

[Dave2]

I'm almost only interested in the ability to carry an ASP (collapsible baton). Very intimidating, not near as lethal.

I'm not sure we disagree, but just to clarify... ASPs (and any other sticks) are quite lethal in the hands of someone who wishes them to be so. Most everyone is smart enough to run away from a knife and some large % of gunshot victims survive, but an opponent properly wielding a stick can leave you a paraplegic (on a good day) almost before you even know the fight has started.

[wharvey]

As to being able to carry illegal knives under you CHL, it is a very very gray area and discussed on many national level forums. The consensus seems to be that if you have a license that says handgun, that is what is covered. If the license says weapon then you are safe.

I must disagree along with most folks who read the law. This is not a GRAY area, it's rather black and white. What is grey is the bad information from uninformed folks who have seen nothing but hear say and wild speculation. Anyone who studies the matter or invests some time and it's clear what the law states.

This law is as clearly written as most laws. That is why two or more judges sometime disagree on what the various laws say, or don't say. Maybe these judges, like those SCOTUS judges who disagree on almost everything , are just uninformed and haven't properly studied the matter.

[Liberty]

While the words may seem to say one thing, The laws become muddy when the judges look at intent. Clearly the legislators were only addressing handguns when they drafted the bills. The intent is clear when one looks at the discussions and debate of the laws when the bill was introduced and discussed as it worked its way through the committees

[chuckybrown]

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

[HotLeadSolutions]

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

And I mean this in the most Christian - non sexual way possible...
I Love you man! Some of your responses just make me spit coffee on the keyboard!

[Commander Cody]

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

Now that should go to the Any Favorite Quotes thread.

[C-dub]

While the words may seem to say one thing, The laws become muddy when the judges look at intent.

Absolutely.

Clearly the legislators were only addressing handguns when they drafted the bills. The intent is clear when one looks at the discussions and debate of the laws when the bill was introduced and discussed as it worked its way through the committees

When writing the handgun laws, yes. They were only thinking about handguns. But, what about the people writing the knife and other illegal weapons laws? It seems pretty clear that an exception under what is illegal in those laws is if someone has a CHL and is carrying a gun for which they are licensed to carry. This is an exception just like the numerous exceptions in the guns laws.

I have no idea what those discussions were like and what their intent was. Does anyone know? What other intent could exceptions like this possibly have?

[speedsix]

The perceived vagaries of that quoted statute led me to NOT carry my "baby K-bar", even though it is less than 5.5 inches, due to the fact that it can be construed by LEOs as a "Bowie knife". I acquired a knife that does NOT fit into ANY of the descriptive categories in 46.02, despite having a fixed blade. I think the law should be a lot clearer; good old politics, combined with nervous nelly-types of citizens, puts that in the unlikely category. I'm not someone who considers myself skilled in the arts of knife fighting in any way; I see my knife as more of a tool and a last chance carry item. Good luck to the OP, but personally, I hope this never ends up with negative repercussions on CHLs in general. There are far too many opportunists out there who would jump at a chance to make a big stink about us to the media. You might say that is paranoid, but look at the current national administrator we ended up with...

...thank you!!!

[denwego]

While the words may seem to say one thing, The laws become muddy when the judges look at intent.

Absolutely.

Clearly the legislators were only addressing handguns when they drafted the bills. The intent is clear when one looks at the discussions and debate of the laws when the bill was introduced and discussed as it worked its way through the committees

When writing the handgun laws, yes. They were only thinking about handguns. But, what about the people writing the knife and other illegal weapons laws? It seems pretty clear that an exception under what is illegal in those laws is if someone has a CHL and is carrying a gun for which they are licensed to carry. This is an exception just like the numerous exceptions in the guns laws.

I have no idea what those discussions were like and what their intent was. Does anyone know? What other intent could exceptions like this possibly have?

I also think that they were concentrating on handguns with the CHL exception, but I think they were concentrating on handguns when they passed the MPA as well - nevertheless, it's now perfectly legal to carry all manners of knives and clubs in our cars without a CHL just as much as a handgun (and arguably more so, since knives and clubs don't need to be concealed in cars). I'm actually really glad that Texan judges focus as much as they do on intent, because there are many states which don't. At the same time, however, the law as-written should allow for 46.02 negation; if it went to an appellate court, I bet they would overturn a conviction (if applicable) and then admonish the legislature to "remedy this defect in the law" in their written opinion. That's my 2¢ armchair quarterbacking, at least.

[gigag04]

This is not a GRAY area, it's rather black and white. What is grey is the bad information from uninformed folks who have seen nothing but hear say and wild speculation. Anyone who studies the matter or invests some time and it's clear what the law states.

At this point, it would honestly just serve for entertainment purposes, but can you explain what it is that you've seen and/or done to qualify you as such an emphatic expert on the topic?

What have you done to study the matter or invest time?

Have you interviewed prosecutors?

Have you (knowingly) heard opinions from LEOs?

Have you weighed in on what Judges think?


You're in your third day of membership. Perhaps you might stick around and learn the backgrounds of some of the people you find to be ignorant of carry laws, and criminal processes.

[C-dub]

nevertheless, it's now perfectly legal to carry all manners of knives and clubs in our cars without a CHL just as much as a handgun (and arguably more so, since knives and clubs don't need to be concealed in cars).

Does it really say this? That doesn't quite sound right. If one does not have a CHL and are carrying one doesn't get the exception. I don't remember, but does the MPA address these other generally illegal weapons?

[sugar land dave]

Yet again we have a "new to the forum person" whose first post is something highly controversial.

Whatever happened to "Hi, I'm Joe and I'm new to the forum. I look forward to learning new things here and hope to better know those who have come before me."

Is there any sense of decorum left in the younger generations? Have we failed them in the teachings and trappings of civility? If so, I believe the blame is ours for failing to not entertain such shortcomings.

Forgive me, as I am feeling rather sad for us at the moment. If we have everything, but have lost our social mores, what do we really have? Oh! Wait a minute! Someone said that better than me in a Good Book!

Open carry of Bowie Knives.......

[Liberty]

When writing the handgun laws, yes. They were only thinking about handguns. But, what about the people writing the knife and other illegal weapons laws? It seems pretty clear that an exception under what is illegal in those laws is if someone has a CHL and is carrying a gun for which they are licensed to carry. This is an exception just like the numerous exceptions in the guns laws.

I have no idea what those discussions were like and what their intent was. Does anyone know? What other intent could exceptions like this possibly have?

The law as it was written had no exceptions, they clearly didn't want people running around with these types of weapons. The CHL part was written afterwards and created the exceptions. ..

I don't claim to understand how this would unfold in any court. While it seems clear that it could be legal to carry, as seen in this thread it is open to interpretation.

Knife people might consider the consequences of being on the bleeding edge of the law when carrying.