jim_dandy wrote: see previous list
From the looks of this "list" it's about time for the Legislature to step in and pass another "Preemption" bill.
Just think, in Seattle you can be arrested for carrying a paring knife you carry in your lunch box to cut your salami and cheese. It's a fixed blade, right?
I'd be truly f***ed if I carried my K-bar in Seattle. Screw-em. I think I'll just carry my CZ that holds 20 rounds instead
I saw this thread and this post and it reminded me of how badly this case got my goat when I read about it.http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 18/?no-ist
Here were my thoughts at the time of reading the story as expressed to a friend:
So the judges argument to uphold the case is that the knife isn't a weapon and therefore cant be protected under the 2nd amendment. Yet the charges in the case are "unlawful use of weapons", based on a city ordinance that declares it illegal for someone to “carry concealed or unconcealed…any dangerous knife.” So how could the guy be charged with unlawful use of a weapon if the object in question is not, according to the court, a weapon and further to that the guy wasn't using it as a weapon at the time?!?!?! Am I the only one that sees the ridiculous amount of cognitive dissonance required to believe this line of so called logic?
It either IS a weapon and therefore is protected under the 2nd amendment and could be construed by a "reasonable person" (in this circumstance as described) as being "used" or carried as a defensive weapon OR; The knife is not a weapon and therefore NOT protected by the 2nd amendment AND therefore, given that this person was by all outward signs peacefully driving along minding his own business a "reasonable person" would conclude that the knife was on his person for some legitimate and legal use consistent with its design intent, i.e. maybe the guy really liked f&*%ing pears!
Focusing on the original design intent of the object in question is a seriously flawed starting point for answering the legal question here. The legal question here should be answered starting from looking at the intent of the person in possession of the object (based on the details given I see no nefarious intent and I assume that is what a "reasonable person" would conclude. In addition considering a 2nd amendment defense's validity based on the assumption that the foundation of the amendment was that people should have the right to carry arms is hugely flawed and is only a skin deep view of the amendment. The foundation for the amendment, backed up by historical record, is that the people as individuals and as a body whole, have the right (predating and innumerated in the constitution) to defend themselves. Defense is the object of the amendment! Not simply bearing arms! For f&*% sakes! Why is this so difficult?
Nearly anything can be used as a weapon. Just because it wasn't designed as a weapon shouldn't preclude its possession just because some judges or lame-brain on the street think its scary. An objects use or intended use is what should be protected or prosecuted, regardless of the original design intent of the object.
It is seriously that f&*%ing simple. F&*%ing liberal fascist t^@t c*&t-face f&*%wad Judges.