TX Law + Loose Opinel = Switchblade?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnKSa

JohnKSa

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
20,231
Location
DFW Area
A loose (or even very smooth opening) Opinel #8 can be "flicked" open "by the application of centrifugal force" and since there are no springs, it has no bias towards closure.

A strict read of the law suggests that it fits the TX law definition of a "Switchblade knife"...

Am I missing something?

PENAL CODE
TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS
CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS
Sec. 46.01.

(11) "Switchblade knife" means any knife that has a blade that folds, closes, or retracts into the handle or sheath and that opens automatically by pressure applied to a button or other device located on the handle or opens or releases a blade from the handle or sheath by the force of gravity or by the application of centrifugal force. The term does not include a knife that has a spring, detent, or other mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure and that requires exertion applied to the blade by hand, wrist, or arm to overcome the bias toward closure and open the knife.​
 
The most simple of folding knives would not pass that language because they're simple friction folders and don't have a bias towards closure.
 
well the intent of the wording was to cover automatic and Balisong knives....

i honestly have a hard time believing that anyone in Texas would convict you of an illegal weapon over a opinel, of all knives.........unless of course the judge happens to really really hate you.
 
...i honestly have a hard time believing that anyone in Texas would convict you of an illegal weapon over a opinel, of all knives...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't argue against you. I seriously doubt anyone would even think to test an Opinel to see if it met the definition of a switchblade.

I'm just disgusted about the whole thing.

The TX knife laws need to be thrown out and redone from scratch. Any time a friction folder meets the legal definition of a switchblade, something has REALLY gone badly wrong.
 
The most simple of folding knives would not pass that language because they're simple friction folders and don't have a bias towards closure.
Click to expand...

As explained to me. the bias is towards remaining closed and said bias must be overcome to open the blade. I have a Buck 110 that I can open with a wrist flick which is centrifugal force, but it still has a bias towards remaining closed (closure) which must be overcome by the wrist to open.

The test is: hold the closed knife horizontal with the blade downward. If it remains closed, it has a bias towards closure. If the blade drops from the handle, it does not.
 
A properly adjusted Benchmade Axis lock knife would pass the test, but once the lock is pulled back it basically becomes a gravity switchblade. And can be opened and closed with a flick of the wrist.
 
As explained to me. the bias is towards remaining closed and said bias must be overcome to open the blade. I have a Buck 110 that I can open with a wrist flick which is centrifugal force, but it still has a bias towards remaining closed (closure) which must be overcome by the wrist to open.

The test is: hold the closed knife horizontal with the blade downward. If it remains closed, it has a bias towards closure. If the blade drops from the handle, it does not.
Click to expand...
That would be nice, except that the law is pretty clear.

An Opinel does not have a "spring, detent, or other mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure". And there is no "bias toward closure" that must be overcome by hand, wrist or arm. The only thing holding the blade closed is friction which has no bias toward anything other than resisting motion in any direction at all. If it's a bias toward closure then by the same definition it would also have to be a bias toward opening and that wouldn't make any sense at all.

"The term does not include a knife that has a spring, detent, or other mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure and that requires exertion applied to the blade by hand, wrist, or arm to overcome the bias toward closure and open the knife."​

Your Buck 110 has a bias toward closure. Open the blade and close it slowly. At some point the blade will "get away" from you and close the rest of the way on its own. That's a bias toward closure.
 
Last edited:
If the Opinel passes the gravity test I described, I suppose it could be argued that the knife is designed so that friction creates the "other mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure".
 
I've never heard of the gravity test and it doesn't make sense (although I should know better than to expect the law to make sense by now). The only test I'm aware of is closing the blade slowly to see if at some point it demonstrates a bias toward closure--that at some point in the closing process it closes the rest of the way on its own.

I've never heard it claimed before that a bias toward closure is the same as a bias toward remaining closed.
 
Besides the Buck, I also have a S&W Extreme Ops that exhibits no such bias towards closing but does remain closed, apparently due to friction.

All I can say is that the "gravity test" was demonstrated to me by a Texas LEO when he provided the explanation. For all I know, it may be the test he personally uses so YMMV. I agree that the entire Texas code regarding prohibited weapons needs to be rewritten.
 
The problem with the gravity test is that it would mean even a switchblade isn't a switchblade unless the blade falls open when you hold the knife horizontally with the blade downward.

If that's really how TX LE is being taught to test knives, that would be nice...
 
There is no "gravity test".

Any friction folder resists opening and closing simply because of...the friction at the pivot. There's no bias.

The bias wording is a result of the California law where the knife industry worked with the legislature to prevent assisted openers and any one hand opener from being treated as an automatic. Since modern American made knives can provide a "bias towards closure" by putting a detent in place that was the expedient that was used.

You could argue that a friction folder resists opening, but it won't fit the bias towards closure description.
 
A properly adjusted Benchmade Axis lock knife would pass the test, but once the lock is pulled back it basically becomes a gravity switchblade. And can be opened and closed with a flick of the wrist.
Click to expand...

Huh. I haven't used it this way, but my Translucent Manix 2 can be used this way too. I'd gravity-closed it before, but never thought to open it this way...
 
Thats the thing about the axis, once you pull the lock back there is no spring to overcome. Pulling back on the lock takes all tension off the blade. However it does snap shut at 2/3 closed when the lock is left alone. They come adjusted a bit tight, but with a tweak, and a drop of lube they are amazing.
 
Last edited:
Any folding knife with a heavy blade and relitivly weak spring can be flicked open.
Click to expand...
That is correct. The relatively recent addition of the "bias toward closure" criterion in the law was actually a step forward. The Opinel just demonstrates that more improvements are necessary to make the TX knife laws reasonable.
 
Does anyone have an idea for a SIMPLE modification to the TX statute that would fix this problem?

If we can come up with something that looks promising, I may try to push this issue a little...

One option is to completely eliminate the clause about gravity and centrifugal force. i.e. strike this entire section from the law:

"or opens or releases a blade from the handle or sheath by the force of gravity or by the application of centrifugal force."​

But that might be a hard sell.

Probably the same for striking only the section: "or by the application of centrifugal force."

So, is there a simple way to fix the switchblade definition so it doesn't apply to friction folders?
 
Locking

It seems the original concern centered around things that would open quickly and lock in the open position.

Perhaps a qualifier to exclude knives having no locking mechanism (requiring hand pressure to keep open) or having a manually engaged lock (such as a twist ring)?

It should be clear that a knife that can be flicked open, but which will not stay open without manual intervention, is outside the original intent of the law.

 
That's a good idea.

The proposed law, after the change, would read:

(11) "Switchblade knife" means any knife that has a blade that folds, closes, or retracts into the handle or sheath and that opens automatically by pressure applied to a button or other device located on the handle or opens or releases a blade from the handle or sheath by the force of gravity or by the application of centrifugal force. The term does not include a knife that does not automatically lock open or that has a spring, detent, or other mechanism designed to create a bias toward closure and that requires exertion applied to the blade by hand, wrist, or arm to overcome the bias toward closure and open the knife.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Texas Law May Ban One-handed Folders
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
Daniel T
D
J
  • Locked
Legality of a particular knife in NY
Replies
3
Views
520
joshk-k
J
hso
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Switchblade laws
2 3
Replies
58
Views
72K
hso
hso
hso
  • Locked
Colorado Switchblade Repeal Effort
Replies
0
Views
529
hso
hso
D
  • Locked
IL--Springfield police warning people not to buy Kershaw/Onion "switchblades?"
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
lee n. field
L
Back
Top