Knives And The Second Amendment
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 11 months ago
Last week, a divided Washington Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that carrying a paring knife is not a protected right under the Second Amendment. In the court’s majority opinion, Justice Charles Wiggins wrote that a pairing knife “is a utility tool, not a weapon” and so does not qualify as a constitutionally protected weapon.
The question was brought before the Supreme Court after a man pulled over for a speeding infraction informed a Seattle police officer that he was carrying a paring knife in a plastic sheath in his pocket, according to the ruling. Seattle prosecutors initially charged the man with the unlawful use of weapons, based on a city ordinance that declares it illegal for someone to “carry concealed or unconcealed…any dangerous knife.” The city’s law defines any knife with a fixed blade longer than 3 ½ inches as dangerous, Levi Pulkkinen reports for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The defense argued that posession of the paring knife was constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment.
The jury ruled in favor of the prosecutor, and the superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Though the Supreme Court upheld the ruling, it did so on different grounds. Wiggins wrote that because a cooking knife isn’t designed to be a weapon, it shouldn’t be protected as one, rendering the defense’s argument, whether or not the ordinance was constitutional, invalid, Munchies reports.
Washington state law does, however, consider things like police batons, billy clubs, dirks and switchblades as “arms.” While Wiggins’ ruling doesn’t specifically mention whether the Second Amendment extends to concealed carrying of these items, it does reinforce that the right to bear arms includes the “right to carry a weapon,” Eugene Volokh writes for the Washington Post.Still, a knife doesn’t necessarily need to be designed as a weapon for someone to use it as one. And while most people might not think to carry a paring knife with them when they leave home, this could be concerning for some professional cooks, many of whom take their personal knife kits with them to and from work.
Other than briefly lampooning the idiotic officer who started all of this and the idiotic jury who allowed it to begin with, we may observe the following about this case.
First step: man is charged with unlawful use of a weapon and concealment of a weapon by police. Second step: Lawyer argues that it’s protected by the second amendment as a weapon. Third step: Judge decides that knife isn’t really a weapon so it isn’t protected by the second amendment. Fourth step: Thus the conviction that the man was carrying a concealed weapon is upheld.
Good Lord. Do lawyers have to take classes in classical logic? No, I’m not even talking about the hard stuff like modal logic. Just simple schoolchild level classes to teach them how to think? If not, they need to.
On January 8, 2016 at 1:06 am, Fred said:
What about the practical application of other objects. If in self defense, one uses a key to the eye of an attacker, then what? The person at that point has declared the object to be a weapon and police will confirm it’s use as a weapon in any report so, is he then charged with carrying a concealed non weapon? What about a knee to the groin while wearing long pants? How does the officer take that non weapon into evidence? There is no end in site when logic goes out the window. They are well on their way to becoming Britain, where self defense is illegal. I believe, after they got the guns and pocket knives, over there, it then went to kitchen knives.
On January 8, 2016 at 10:36 am, tkdkerry said:
” Do lawyers have to take classes in classical logic?”
Apparently not. My extremely intelligent daughter was an exemplar of rationality until she studied law. Now her arguments suffer from assumptions and leaps of illogic. At the hooding ceremony the dean of the law school asked with a smirk if parents won arguments with their children anymore, implying they didn’t. My answer was of course, with great frequency, but the difference was that my daughter no longer recognized she had lost. To be fair, she is quite skilled at arguing the law, but I find myself reminding her that the law often bears little resemblance to real-world rationality.
On January 8, 2016 at 10:49 pm, rumcrookâ„¢ said:
What the ruling really means is the same as it has always meant, don’t get caught carrying a weapon the powers that be don’t like. They will jump through hoops to criminalize what you did.
On January 9, 2016 at 12:36 am, milesfortis said:
Yes, they will strain at a gnat, or swallow a camel if it’s to their advantage and against yours.
The problem is that the ruling class really doesn’t like the unwashed masses carrying any concealable weapons.
Much too dangerous if someone decides that their policies are not liked and decides to actually do something about it.
One of the first things the euro rulers did was start outlawing pistols when ignition systems became discreet (kinda hard to hide burning slow match) and reliable, making political assassination much easier.
Out current crop of politicians and justices use the law and the constitution to their purposes, and disregard the same when it isn’t.
On January 9, 2016 at 11:10 pm, gyrwan said:
“Do lawyers have to take classes in classical logic?”
Not only “No”; but “Hell NO!”
The LSAT is divided into three sections: Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning, and Logical Reasoning. The LSAT is usually the aspiring law student’s first encounter with either logic or reasoning, and is definitely their last acquaintance with it. One could not succeed (pass) in Law School if one insisted upon applying logic, reasoning, or any form of critical thinking. Law professors become quite adamant about this when grading students, and students learn quickly to abandon logic and reason or fail/quit law school*.
Reading Comprehension (as it is measured by the test), however, is not merely handy; but is the one and only fundamental skill of the law student or the lawyer.
Admittedly, this is based on experience at a single law school. However, having since met, dealt with, or read the writings of myriad lawyers from law schools across the country, I have never seen an iota of evidence to suggest that their schooling did not exactly mirror my own.
If logic, reasoning, or even coherent rational thought were applied to the study and practice of law, or to the law itself; then our entire legal system would crumble. (cf. Marbury v. Madison, et al).
* It may also interest you to know that that the word “justice” — except as an honorific for judges on the Supreme Court — is strictly verboten.
On January 10, 2016 at 7:10 pm, Crusty Curmudgeon said:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In what world does “arms” not include “knives”?