Knife Laws in Washington

[Bill Starks]

Updated 1st post with the list from Jim_Dandy..

[cowboycraig]

Guess I better leave this at home :)

GK & CO Kukri House Knife and The Fighting Kukri Get Them


PS: How are some people embedding youtubes?

Last edited by cowboycraig on Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[MadPick]

PS: How are some people embedding youtubes?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3917

[Benja455]

This is a really good resource. I hate how inconsistent knife laws are in this state.

[joao01]

so....I have a folding knife with a 4" blade. It is not spring. It apparently is not legal in most of those cities...is that correct?

silly.

[Bill Starks]

so....I have a folding knife with a 4" blade. It is not spring. It apparently is not legal in most of those cities...is that correct?

silly.

Correct

[dimwit13]

Read through most of the babble and charts.
What I come up with is.
I live in Redmond and I cannot conceal carry a knife with a blade longer than 3"?
What about open carry?
Can I have a 7" fixed blade, open carry on my back pack shoulder strap. (say that fast 10 times-backpack shoulder strap-lol)\I just bought a cold steel 4" folder for my EDC>
Bummer, off to look at new 3" knife.

-dimwit-

Ya, my answer is probably in someones post, but I just got up from my nap and the energy drink hasn't kicked in.

[jdhbulseye]

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.

[Ferryman]

Just saw this a day or two ago. Vice news report-

[martin248]

Sorry to bump an old thread but this seems like the right place to ask.

So after the cougar made an appearance on my property I attached my esee 3 knife to my belt, it's very light and not even really noticable so now it'sthere 24/7 (ie, it stays on the belt even when the belt isn't on me).

Well great, then I learned about this stupid concealed knife law. If it were a gun I'd be fine (have my CPL) but because it's a knife it's a crime?

My gun is a lot heavier and I don't wear it around the house all the time like the knife, plus I figure with the cougar if it ever actually attacks me it's going to be hand to claw fighting, I probably wouldn't get a shot off. Plus the knife turns out to be really useful for opening packages, weeding the garden, it's just useful to have.

Ok that's good, but if I put on a coat for sure the knife is concealed, it's on my belt, which is under the coat. Even most sweaters will end up draping over it and concealing it.

So is there a legal way to do this in WA?

[Massivedesign]

Well great, then I learned about this stupid concealed knife law. If it were a gun I'd be fine (have my CPL) but because it's a knife it's a crime?

What concealed knife law? You talking about the Issaquah specific one regarding blade length?

[martin248]

Well great, then I learned about this stupid concealed knife law. If it were a gun I'd be fine (have my CPL) but because it's a knife it's a crime?

What concealed knife law? You talking about the Issaquah specific one regarding blade length?

Post 1 of this thread quotes it.

"(b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other /dangerous weapon; or"

There's then a court case that a 3 inch paring knife is a dangerous weapon.

So then it comes to whether my 3.5" esee is considered concealed when it's on my belt but under a coat or sweater

[RockHopper]

Yes...covering is concealing. If you put a coat on over a gun it would be concealed.

The million dollar question is, what is "furtive" concealment.

[Selador]

Yes...covering is concealing. If you put a coat on over a gun it would be concealed.

The million dollar question is, what is "furtive" concealment.

I would define that as, you intentionally concealed with the purpose in mind, to carry with the intent to use the weapon in a crime, without being discovered before committing the crime.

[beckdw]

Yes...covering is concealing. If you put a coat on over a gun it would be concealed.

The million dollar question is, what is "furtive" concealment.

I would define that as, you intentionally concealed with the purpose in mind, to carry with the intent to use the weapon in a crime, without being discovered before committing the crime.

I doubt you will get any hassles if you go about normal law abiding citizen activities. Plus, concealed is concealed right?

If you are slinking around people's houses at night though... very furtive.