Interesting article - Knives and Heller

[hso]

[URL='http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/554/570.html']District of Columbia v. Heller

was a watershed moment in the legal history of the right to bear arms. Despite the Second Amendment being in existence since the beginning of the Republic it wasn’t until only a few years ago that the US Supreme Court got a chance to interpret the Second Amendment directly. Firearms owners rejoiced. But what about knives? Here is the simple question:

Are knives protected the by Second Amendment under the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller?

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2018/08/23/knives-second-amendment/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2018-08-25&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter[/URL]

 

[herrwalther]

Alloutdoor is trying to do a hail mary on extending Heller to protect knives. Knife was only mentioned ONE TIME in the Heller decision, and it was written by Justice Scalia as a historically practice for Quakers. The states have a (very bad) patchwork on firearm law. Knives are even worse. What is considered a "weapon" knife in one state is not in another. And there isn't much chance a knife law will make it to SCOTUS.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Several years ago I attended a continuing legal education seminar on firearms law at which one of the presenters was Alan Gura. For those who don't know, he is the attorney who argued and won Heller. I asked him whether he thought the Second Amendment would cover knives under Heller. He replied that he hadn't considered the issue up to that point, but didn't see why it wouldn't.

 

[CapnMac]

Tench Coxe, writing in support of the Bill of Rights used the phrase "...words and every terrible implement of the soldier..."

Which could be meant to mean that halberds, spontoons, and the like are the "Arms" the people are meant to be allowed to carry without infringement.

Unfortunately we live in a time that exists after a century of rules, regulations, and laws that would prohibit just such a simple answer to the question.

Personally, I would not be bothered by the sight of a person bearing a spontoon or assagai, unless they were bent on skewering me with same. Sadly, I cannot speak to the sensibilities of others in other places.

Now, personally, the sight of someone with their thumbs on their digital device frightens me no end, as those people are likely to blunder into me bodily, both in person, and also while encased in 3000# of semi-guided automobile. Driving with both hands at "12" the better to text, being deeply troubling to me. In ways that carrying a Paul Hogan or John Rambo blade would not bother me in the slightest.

 

[hso]

And there isn't much chance a knife law will make it to SCOTUS.

That used to be a sure bet, but now with Knife Rights and AKTI there is a chance that this could change.

BTW, there are state constitutions that go beyond firearms for 2A equivalents.

 

[danez71]

Caetano v. Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had said her stun gun was "not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection”

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

(In concurring opinion)

Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe".[15]

 

[22-rimfire]

I think the reason knives weren't mentioned in the Second Amendment is that just about everyone carried a knife at that time, at least men did. They were so common place that it wasn't worth mentioning. It would certainly be interesting if a good case went all the way to the Supreme Court for a ruling and they agreed to hear it.

 

[CapnMac]

They were so common place that it wasn't worth mentioning.

Which makes things a tad tricky.
Knives were common enough. As were swords--if more among the English peerage.

Swords were a "sort of" bit of military kit. Officers, being gentlemen, were expected to provide their own. Dragoon and Cavalry enlisted were issued swords (also pike and lances, too) which were typically sourced from whoever raised the unit, and would not be personally-issued per se.

Which is why I brought up halberd and spontoon before. A Line Leader or a Line Closer--what we would call a "corporal" today--was specifically armed with a spontoon. (That custom is where we get the rank of "lance corporal" from.) More than a mere badge of office, it's also a sign of military accomplishment (how more "regulated" can one get than being able to form privates into either marching or combat lines within a platoon?) Halberd and pike were how Color Guards were armed, the better to protect the Colors (which often sported a blade or pike point themselves).

All of which makes bladed and edged weapons ought be considered under the Second Amendment complicated.

But, if we pursue English militia history back far enough; the yeomen wre expected to bring their own halberd, pikes, and the like when called up.

Now, whether that can be extended successfully into 21st century jurisprudence is beyond my ken.

 

[hso]

I think the reason knives weren't mentioned in the Second Amendment is

The 2nd doesn't mention rifles or firearms at all. Instead it say "arms" with arms being swords to cannon and anything made for offense or defense. Remember that pikes and partisans were still in use and that axes and swords were common weapons as well as cannon or other firearms. That's why "arms" means any military weapon from naval dirks to swords to pikes to boarding axes to pistols and rifles and even cannon.

 

[herrwalther]

For better or worse, the modern pocket knife has fallen to much more of a tool than weapon. They have not faced the demonization firearms have. Your pocket knife, like mine, is much more commonly used to open a letter you got in the mail than to defend against an attack or tyranny government. As such being tools, they are often looked over in firearm court decisions, such as Heller. The downside to them being tools is the states can often have a running ball with where they draw the line from tool to weapon when it comes to knives.

Would I like to see a common, nationwide accepted definition and enforcement of tool vs weapon when it comes to knives? Sure would. Do I think it is going to happen at the national level? Nope. And I do not expect a knife law case to go before SCOTUS anytime soon.