# Question on legal knife length in Canada



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2011)

Is this knife legally allowed to be carried in Canada?

http://www.crkt.com/M16-13-Special-Forces-Tan-G10-Handle-Tanto-AutoLAWKS-Veff-Combo

Website says the blade length is 3.5"
Box says it's 3" and measuring the actual cutting edge of the blade it's 3"


----------



## DexOlesa (18 Dec 2011)

I believe anything under 5 inches is allowed


----------



## Container (18 Dec 2011)

there is no restriction as long as it isnt concealed and you are carrying it for a lawful purpose. Self defense isnt a lawful purpose- so a sword to cut seat belts would be confiscated.

I have this in black I believe and carry it in my kit. I know several others with this style and size.


----------



## GAP (18 Dec 2011)

What is considered concealed? In a sheath on your belt or something similar would be acceptable, would it not?


----------



## Container (18 Dec 2011)

In my experience in several provinces is concealment is in the intent. As in it appears you are attempting to conceal its presence- not merely covering it. Lika a regular knife in your pocket would be by definition concealed but your intent is just to transport it.

My duty knife is in my pocket with the clip outside. Being on your belt in a sheath, and taking it off before entering places where it isnt allowed, or taking it out of your pocket wouldnt be considered, again in my experience, concealing a weapon. Its a tool- there are alot of legitimate uses for knives that arent killing folks. It only becomes a concealed weapon when you wear it inside your pants for self defence....

does that make sense? Its a very difficult thing to get charged for. Usually it comes about when two idiots are fighting drunk and one guys buddy produces a tanto from his waist band.

YMMV


----------



## Container (18 Dec 2011)

that said- I currently work with a police officer stupid as the day is long. She would more than likely charge anyone for any knife she didnt notice right away.

Best practice is if your carrying it have it at least partially visible or in a sheath that looks like a knife sheath.

Until we figure out how to fix cops with no common sense the rest of us have to stay a step above even the accusation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2011)

Thanks all for the replies. I've never carried a knife before, I'm going to carry it in my pocket with the clip on the outside.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> that said- I currently work with a police officer stupid as the day is long. She would more than likely charge anyone for any knife she didnt notice right away.
> 
> Best practice is if your carrying it have it at least partially visible or in a sheath that looks like a knife sheath.
> 
> Until we figure out how to fix cops with no common sense the rest of us have to stay a step above even the accusation.



I know what you mean, sorta.

I had my cities 'chief firearms officer' argue with me telling me it was legal to have a 9mm automatic with 15 round magazines but .45 because it's a special caliber, you are only allowed a magazine of 5.
The police were helping me get confiscated pistols back so it was a very polite argument on my behalf 

Kinda weird rules around knives. A butter fly knife or 4 inch German ww2 gravity knife would be illegal, but a 9 inch hunting knife isn't.
It's too bag push daggers are illegal too.


----------



## Container (18 Dec 2011)

id say the only thing "special" about your situation is the "Chief Firearms Officer"


----------



## ballz (18 Dec 2011)

Container,

Whats the word on assisted-openers? I couldn't get a sog trident assisted-opener from knifecenter.com because they were getting too many stopped at the border, but I know a store in Ottawa that sells them now.

Even though I think automatics should be legal, it stands to reason that since they aren't then assisted-openers would also be illegal.


----------



## DexOlesa (18 Dec 2011)

> I had my cities 'chief firearms officer' argue with me telling me it was legal to have a 9mm automatic with 15 round magazines but .45 because it's a special caliber, you are only allowed a magazine of 5.



Just....Just.... :facepalm:


----------



## Container (18 Dec 2011)

If you mean those one hand opening knives/ assisted knives- they are legal as far as I know. I dont have my criminal code in front of me- but being legal and not having a CBSA agent tie your item up for years in red tape and appeals are two different things. 99% of those agents are fine. But I always seem to get a 1% guy.

I lost a lazer, dont ask, to CBSA that was completely legal. Body builiding supplements, firearms parts, tac gear......all to be never seen again because some guy who grew up in Toronto feels like he's doing the lords work by protecting Canada from items that resemble something thats prohibited.

I now buy my stuff in Canada if it even looks like it could confuse a city slicker so I avoid these types of situations.

Never apply reason to how things get prohibited- two basically identical items can wind up with one prohibited and one not. The people that make these calls generally dont understand the subject matter....that last part is opinion- but when two same things can have one be okay....something isnt firing correctly.


----------



## RememberanceDay (18 Dec 2011)

Would there be any length restrictions on sailing knives for recreational purposes? I plan on sailing in an area that's well-patroled come spring, rather be safe than sorry.


----------



## Container (19 Dec 2011)

Im sorry- Im not trying to be rude and I may just be completely ignorant of sailing- but if there is a "sailing knife" the utility of which is well known for being involved in sailing safely or efficiently why would there be a restriction on it?

Ive seen some gnarly diving knives that are machete sized that are fine for using while diving. Knives in bakerys....know what I mean?


----------



## Precept (19 Dec 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> If you mean those one hand opening knives/ assisted knives- they are legal as far as I know.



Believe the CCC says anything that is opened by the push of a button, gravity, or centrifugal force is prohibited. IE- Butterfly knife or a switchblade. I searched the "sog trident assisted-opener" on YouTube, and the one I saw opened with the push of a button, which is a no go.


----------



## Stoker (19 Dec 2011)

Precept said:
			
		

> Believe the CCC says anything that is opened by the push of a button, gravity, or centrifugal force is prohibited. IE- Butterfly knife or a switchblade. I searched the "sog trident assisted-opener" on YouTube, and the one I saw opened with the push of a button, which is a no go.



I buy Knives in the US on a regular basis and each and every one I tighten up the screws so a overzealous customs agents don't flick them open with one hand and seize it.


----------



## chrisf (19 Dec 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Container,
> 
> Whats the word on assisted-openers? I couldn't get a sog trident assisted-opener from knifecenter.com because they were getting too many stopped at the border, but I know a store in Ottawa that sells them now.



Check out the line of knives by CKRT in the sytle the original poster showed....

They've got a pair of teflon washers in them, and they open one handed, as fast, as smooth, and as easy as assisted opening knives, no springs to mess around with... just a pair of teflon washers, take it completely apart, clean, oil, and reassemble in a few minutes... I own several... including one very similar to the one shown by the original poster (Which, by the way, I don't recommen at all... the wide "guard" at the base of the knife doesn't serve any purpose other then looking cool... just makes it dangerous carry in a pocket... have a look at the M16 series, much better...)


----------



## Occam (19 Dec 2011)

RemembranceDay said:
			
		

> Would there be any length restrictions on sailing knives for recreational purposes? I plan on sailing in an area that's well-patroled come spring, rather be safe than sorry.



It was always easy to tell a "new" sailor on the ships - they were the ones carrying the fancy knives with 8" blades right out of a Hollywood movie.  Most seasoned bosuns would be seen wearing a sheath with one of these and a marlin spike, and get along with just about any ropework you'd find on a ship.


----------



## Stoker (20 Dec 2011)

RemembranceDay said:
			
		

> Would there be any length restrictions on sailing knives for recreational purposes? I plan on sailing in an area that's well-patroled come spring, rather be safe than sorry.



I see by your profile you're in the cadets and I assume you are talking about sailing on a cadet ship.

Here are the rules we follow in the Navy

2118. Knives
1. Switch blades, butterfly knives, double edge blades, or similar spring-loaded knives are prohibited.
2. No one shall have onboard a knife with a blade longer than four inches, unless the knife is carried openly
and required for seamanship purposes.
3. All personnel employed on the upper deck during the normal course of their duties shall carry the approved
seaman’s knife IAW the scale of issue. These personnel include, but are not limited to:
(a) Bosns;
(b) RAS Teams;
(c) Boats crews and lowerers;
(d) Part ship hands; and
(e) Pers standing upper deck watches.
4. All remaining members of the ship’s company shall carry a knife at sea.
5. Martial Arts weapons such as Fighting Sticks, Throwing Stars and any others prohibited by law, are
prohibited.

That being said a knife like the Russell Grohmman with marlin spike would suffice. It is the same issue knife as issued on surface ships.


----------



## Container (20 Dec 2011)

Precept said:
			
		

> Believe the CCC says anything that is opened by the push of a button, gravity, or centrifugal force is prohibited. IE- Butterfly knife or a switchblade. I searched the "sog trident assisted-opener" on YouTube, and the one I saw opened with the push of a button, which is a no go.



The location of the button is what would make it prohibited.


----------



## ballz (20 Dec 2011)

Precept said:
			
		

> Believe the CCC says anything that is opened by the push of a button, gravity, or centrifugal force is prohibited. IE- Butterfly knife or a switchblade. I searched the "sog trident assisted-opener" on YouTube, and the one I saw opened with the push of a button, which is a no go.



From Wiki, but it has citations:
Section 84(1) defines such knives as "a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife".

Obviously the important part to do with the SOG Trident Folder would be "hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device" and "in or attached to the handle of the knife."

The SOG Trident Folder doesn't have a button, it has a thumbscrew, but I suppose that's really an "other device." However, the thumb screw is on the blade, not "in or attached" to the handle... which is what Container said here:



			
				Container said:
			
		

> The location of the button is what would make it prohibited.



But the spring that is having pressure applied to it (via the thumbscrew) is obviously inside the handle, but does that count?... :-S

Sounds to me that the one-handed openers that Grimaldus and A Sig Op are talking about are the safest bets WRT avoiding legal troubles since "One-handed opening knives have been designated as legal to import by Canada Border Services as long as they don't fall into one of the prohibited categories" (needs a citation).... despite the fact that there is absolutely no difference between any of them... Container said it the way I've felt about it for a while: don't try to apply any reason or logic to this stuff.


----------



## Stoker (20 Dec 2011)

The sad part about it is that custom agents and police has their own set of rules to play by and you are taking a chance that their interpretation of the rules that your knife or whatever you are bringing in may be illegal in their eyes and seized. Then you are the one that has to prove that it isn't and most of the time there is significant time and cost involved.


----------



## chrisf (20 Dec 2011)

Or buy from inside the country... there's retailers in Canada selling spring assisted knives... let them assume the risk of dealing with customs.


----------



## ballz (20 Dec 2011)

As Chief Stoker mentioned, I'd be more worried about the risk of getting charged with possession of a prohibited weapon than I am about a knife getting stopped by customs. If it gets stopped by customs I lose the purchase price of the knife, if I get charged I lose the price of a good lawyer, which is about the same price of a good knife per hour :-\

Let's be serious, the Crown would probably charge you if you had anything remotely close, they've got an unlimited budget. And Sig Op you know the RNC would love to have "RNC seize prohibited weapon, man charged for possession" in the Telegram here in St. John's.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Dec 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> And Sig Op you know the RNC would love to have "RNC seize prohibited weapon, man *soldier* charged for possession" in the Telegram here in St. John's.



There, all fixed


----------



## chrisf (20 Dec 2011)

Ballz, check your PMs.

That, and *believe it or not* the RNC is fairly sensible about such things... the provinces chief firearms officer is usually pretty sensible as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2011)

Seems silly a 3 inch knife can be prohibited but a 7 inch knife wouldn't.  I guess switch blades and butterfly knives etc.. are scary and gang related dating back to the 50's or something.

I'm going to email the RCMP and ask for a prohibited license to possess auto-folders- they might get a good chuckle out of it.


----------



## Stoker (20 Dec 2011)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Ballz, check your PMs.
> 
> That, and *believe it or not* the RNC is fairly sensible about such things... the provinces chief firearms officer is usually pretty sensible as well.



Not by the RNC members that I know. These are the same police that want the public to have nothing on them such as knives and what not. That being said the chances that you are going to whip out said knife in front of a cop are pretty remote. Not many people carry a knife anymore, except for work. Yes there are cops with common sense but again a lot of the cops I know will think nothing of seizing a knife even if they don't know what the laws are, they will err on the side of caution and seize it. Then its up to you to prove your case to have it back and the cops know 99% will not do anything.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2011)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Seems silly a 3 inch knife can be prohibited but a 7 inch knife wouldn't.  I guess switch blades and butterfly knives etc.. are scary and gang related dating back to the 50's or something.
> 
> I'm going to email the RCMP and ask for a prohibited license to possess auto-folders- they might get a good chuckle out of it.



I know you're a convert already, but the same discussion can be made for handguns.

It's all about pretense and looks. It has nothing to do with the physical aspects of an inanimate object. Just the paranoid state of mind of the lawmaker.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Dec 2011)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Seems silly a 3 inch knife can be prohibited but a 7 inch knife wouldn't.  I guess switch blades and butterfly knives etc.. are scary and gang related dating back to the 50's or something.
> 
> I'm going to email the RCMP and ask for a prohibited license to possess auto-folders- they might get a good chuckle out of it.



A lot has to do with "intent," in other words what were you planning on using the knife for. For example, its mid-Nov and you're wearing an orange jumpsuit and you got a 7 inch knife clipped to your belt, you're probably OK (helps if you got a dead Bambi in the back); same knife and you're in a bar at midnight, then you better have a pretty good explanation why you have the knife with you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> A lot has to do with "intent," in other words what were you planning on using the knife for. For example, its mid-Nov and you're wearing an orange jumpsuit and you got a 7 inch knife clipped to your belt, you're probably OK (helps if you got a dead Bambi in the back); same knife and you're in a bar at midnight, then you better have a pretty good explanation why you have the knife with you.



Once again, people are being judged, simply for the sake of an inanimate object.

You are innocent until proven guilty. As much as the local Criminal Justice System says otherwise, that is the basic premise of our foundation of law.

I behooves the law to prove you have criminal intent.

The latest catch all that they're using, in court, is Pubilic Safety or Dangerous to the Public Peace.

They still have to prove intent. They will normally try to plea bargain you away from that charge.

Who really cares if I carry a 7" blade as protection against wild dogs in my neighbourhood. That's my excuse.

They can't prove otherwise. No more than me carrying animal spray in the city. It's allowed to carry it for that purpose.

If I happen to use either to protect my life during an assault, it was only because I had it and it was expedient and I feared for my life.

Prove otherwise.


----------



## ballz (20 Dec 2011)

"Possession" of a prohibited weapon has nothing to do with intent though...

It doesn't matter whether you are using a 3" switchblade for hunting or for work, or whether you have it in your pocket at a bar, it's prohibited and therefore you get charged and most likely convicted, with a max sentence of 5 years in prison, no matter what your intentions were.

The reason these specific knives are prohibited is, as recceguy and Grimaldus have said, the hollywood-driven "scare" factor. Some people, scared of their own shadow and whatnot, think it's more painful or more lethal or somehow worse to get stabbed with a 3" switchblade than a 3" fixed blade.

EDIT: Terrible grammar...


----------



## lawandorder (21 Dec 2011)

Your best bet to carrying a knife is to carry one for work only, or in a circumstance you actually need one.  IE Hunting, camping, adventure training.....otherwise I'd suggest leaving it at home.  It automatically ups the ante in many situations, not always in your favour.

The restriction on knives is well warranted.  No need for most people to carry a knife daily.  A person with a knife can turn a fist fight in to a murder/death fairly quickly.  By the person who is carrying it, or by someone who takes it from that person in the course of the fight.  

In 2006, 18% of violent crimes had a weapon used in the commision of the offence.  The highest % was with knives, 6.2% compared to guns at 2.4%.  34.5% of homicides used a knife compared to 31.4 - Robbery was 18.9% knife compared to 13.9 gun.  Sexual assault 1.1% compared to .3%.  Some of those figures seem small, but theh are important. People aren't being judged because of the possesion of an inanimate object, they are being judged on the reality that knives are used more often in the commision of serious violent offences then any other weapon.  The more restrictions you have on knives, the less options available.  If someone buys a knife and illegaly transports it across the border, uses it in the commision of an offence, gets caught, it becomes additional charges added against the original charge.  If the crowns case on the robbery is weak, at least the person will be charged with the possesion of a prohibited weapon etc.

If you want to carry a 7 inch blade around for "vicious" animals, you better have justification to a judge that there are "vicious" animals around.  I am not saying that its not a legit reason, but judges aren't dumb either, and semantics don't really impress them.  There is probably case law on it.

I wouldn't carry a knife If I didn't need one and generally don't outside of work.  21 Foot rule for police is a big thing and a knife is a good way to get a gun drawn on you.

*edited for spelling*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> Your best bet to carrying a knife is to carry one for work only, or in a circumstance you actually need one.  IE Hunting, camping, adventure training.....otherwise I'd suggest leaving it at home.  It automatically ups the ante in many situations, not always in your favour.
> 
> The restriction on knives is well warranted.  No need for most people to carry a knife daily.  A person with a knife can turn a fist fight in to a murder/death fairly quickly.  By the person who is carrying it, or by someone who takes it from that person in the course of the fight.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry. I don't agree.

A knife is a tool. An inanimate tool. 

If there is no law against carrying a particular model, people should not be cajoled into being afraid to carry one.

People have to start asserting their rights. They have the right, during lawful activity, to protection against unwarranted search and seizure as well as the right to self defence, to name a few.

And others, including LEOs, should not be councelling them to abrogate those same rights. They should be defending them in pursuit of those rights.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> I wouldn't carry a knife If I didn't need one and generally don't outside of work.


What MP work in Ottawa do you believe requires a knife while on duty?


----------



## lawandorder (21 Dec 2011)

A lot of police will carry a utility knife in order to cut seat belts in case of a serious motor vehicle accident.  Though currently I have one in the patrol bag in the vehicle. 

Also while doing anything in any training area while wearing combats, I generally carry a small CRKT clip knife.


----------



## lawandorder (21 Dec 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. I don't agree.
> 
> A knife is a tool. An inanimate tool.
> 
> ...



Who said anything about unwarranted search and seizure?  I didn't. I can only speak for myself, but unlawful search and seizure is a bad practice and any criminal charges laid from it is easily thrown out.  I never once mentioned that a person should be allowing Police to unlawfully search them. Agree or don't agree, facts are facts. I never once mentioned people should give up their right to self defense either.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> A lot of police will carry a utility knife in order to cut seat belts in case of a serious motor vehicle accident.  Though currently I have one in the patrol bag in the vehicle.
> 
> Also while doing anything in any training area while wearing combats, I generally carry a small CRKT clip knife.




So you don't see the need for a tool to cut seat belts when you're off duty?


----------



## Journeyman (21 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> A lot of police will carry a utility knife in order to cut seat belts in case of a serious motor vehicle accident.  Though currently I have one in the patrol bag in the vehicle.


Ah, so I'm OK carring a utility knife, since I'm a First Aid trained, potential first-responder.

It's rhetorical. I've carried a utility knife for several decades without actually committing a crime with it, or being shot by the police. I can't imagine changing now, based on an anonymous internet source.


----------



## Container (21 Dec 2011)

the 21 foot reactionary gap doesnt really apply to a knife in a sheath on a belt. I cant imagine being that antsy about that- the world is filled with weapons of opportunity. I routinely deal with hunters with loaded guns who have commited one provincial offence or another. I dont draw down on every body. Intent is not articuable in those situations. Just like it wouldnt be when its in a sheath on a belt or a clip. "Hey partner why dont you toss that in the grass over there while we talk" gets you farther.
 if required at all. Or if theyve done something wrong a pat down search prior to talking and holding the knife while you do your investigation.

A dick going to use a knife is a dick going to use a knife no matter what. To each his own I guess.


----------



## lawandorder (21 Dec 2011)

No I don't actually feel the need to carry a knife to cut seat belts while I am off duty. I would be doing other things if I was the first person on the scene of an accident.

I never said no one should carry a knife on the streets.  I stated in my post, I wouldn't.  Me, Myself, and I. 
Sorry, I should have posted the link for the stats I provided.  

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm

Everyone seems to be under the impression that I would draw down on anyone carrying a knife. I don't.  Please, the world is not black and white. Maybe I didn't articulate myself in my post, or maybe people are coming to conclusions too early.  If its the former I do apologize.  I also didn't really clarify when I wrote about carrying a knife.  Maybe I assumed someone was carrying it in their hand.  I wasn't talking about a sheathed knife on a belt or something, especially when talking about the 21 foot rule. So again I suppose I should have clarified that.

Journeyman: You're also in a sub culture that serves the country, and probably has some professional courtesy towards the police and other emergency servicest.  I never said just because someone carries a knife they are criminal, or would get in trouble by the police.  Step 1 is doing something to even be noticed by the police, before a knife even comes in to the equation.

Container: "A dick going to use a knife is a dick going to use a knife no matter what. To each his own I guess" absolutely, and as soon as a person is identified as having a knife your mental checklist goes, including the 1 + 1 rule.  If you can take possesion of it during your conversation then good, or if he can leave in the grass or on top of the car, good. I didn't say I draw down on anyone with a knife, I said the 21 foot rule is an important one and becomes a factor when responding to any call.

Carry a knife, most people won't come across any issues while doing so. I was saying when you do so, you bring a weapon in to a situation that maybe it shouldn't be.


Edit

Actually I did sugges tif you don't need a knife to leave it at home.  I stand by that. If you carry a 7 inch knife around daily thats your choice, but unless you live in the woods or need it regularly I wouldn't.


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> No need for most people to carry a knife daily.



I don't need a spare tire on a daily basis but I keep it in my car anyway, along with a few other "just in case" items in an emergency kit. People that carry first-aid kits don't need them on a daily basis (hopefully).

Whether a law-abiding free man in a free country wants a knife on his belt or not should ultimately be up to him. Your feelings on whether he "needs" it or not shouldn't be imposed on him.



			
				Law & Order said:
			
		

> In 2006, 18% of violent crimes had a weapon used in the commision of the offence.  The highest % was with knives, 6.2% compared to guns at 2.4%.  34.5% of homicides used a knife compared to 31.4 - Robbery was 18.9% knife compared to 13.9 gun.  Sexual assault 1.1% compared to .3%.  Some of* those figures seem small*, but theh are important.



You can say that again, those are some of the most unconvincing statistics I've ever seen.



			
				Law & Order said:
			
		

> If the crowns case on the robbery is weak, at least the person will be charged with the possesion of a prohibited weapon etc.



You're arguing it should exists so that if the crown doesn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed an offence, they can throw an otherwise potentially innocent person in jail for something else? That's a rather scary argument.



			
				Law & Order said:
			
		

> I wouldn't carry a knife If I didn't need one and generally don't outside of work.  21 Foot rule for police is a big thing and a knife is a good way to get a gun drawn on you.



I have more faith than our LEOs aren't complete wing-nuts than that.


----------



## lawandorder (21 Dec 2011)

"You're arguing it should exists so that if the crown doesn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed an offence, they can throw an otherwise potentially innocent person in jail for something else? That's a rather scary argument."

Sorry thats not my argument.  A person unlawfully carrying a prohibited weapon is not innocent. They are in possesion of a prohibited weapon and is a crime in Canada. Maybe you disagree with that law, write your Member of Parliment and lobby them to change it.

You're also saying that its unconvincing that almost half the murders in Canada are commited by Knives?

"I wouldn't carry a knife If I didn't need one and generally don't outside of work.  21 Foot rule for police is a big thing and a knife is a good way to get a gun drawn on you.

I have more faith than our LEOs aren't complete wing-nuts than that."

Sorry I didn't outlined all the steps an LEO would take prior to drawing their gun.  You jumped to conclusion that that is the first option, maybe my statement made it seem that way.  But there are steps to be taken first. Its not 0-10, sorry you made that assumption.


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> Sorry thats not my argument.  A person unlawfully carrying a prohibited weapon is not innocent. They are in possesion of a prohibited weapon and is a crime in Canada. Maybe you disagree with that law, write your Member of Parliment and lobby them to change it.



Your argument for having the weapon prohibited is so that you can put a person who you couldn't prove committed a crime in jail for a completely unrelated reason. 

He would be innocent if not for the law prohibiting the weapon, and your saying the weapon should be prohibited for the purpose of putting him in jail.

What you're advocating is pure injustice, it is quite scary, and your mindset as an LEO of finding a reason to put someone behind bars because you *think* they did something wrong is retarded. How would you like to be investigated for a crime, acquitted, and then thrown in jail for having a prohibited pencil.



			
				Law & Order said:
			
		

> You're also saying that its unconvincing that almost half the murders in Canada are commited by Knives?



It is quite unconvincing. What do you want to do? Start a knife registry? Even if you could use legislation to stop knives from being used (and I'm not saying you can, the UK is proof you can't), people would just use a hammer or something instead.

Firearm legislation in this country has already proven that targeting the tool instead of the criminal yields absolutely no results.



			
				Law & Order said:
			
		

> Sorry I didn't outlined all the steps an LEO would take prior to drawing their gun.  You jumped to conclusion that that is the first option, maybe my statement made it seem that way.  But there are steps to be taken first. Its not 0-10, sorry you made that assumption.



I did not make any assumptions. You are trying use the scare tactic of someone getting a gun drawn on them to convince people they ought not to carry a knife.

The only way I would ever get a gun drawn on me is if it were 0 to 10, because I'm pretty cooperative with police so I wouldn't have to worry about ever getting to 10 if it went 0,1,2,3... And given that I have faith in our LEOs using the 0,1,2,...10 scale, I am not going to be scared into believing that carrying a knife is a "good way to get a gun drawn" on me.


----------



## krustyrl (21 Dec 2011)

I am finding this particularly interesting.....       op:


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2011)

So I'll probably have to return these;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdkemsRmvCA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPozBOEdUsM&feature=fvwrel

You're right Recceguy, just like firearms and hand guns. No logic behind some of these decisions.


That whole innocent until proven guilty lasts all of 2 seconds when dealing with a lot of cops I'm starting to notice, unfortunately.

Ballz, hammers would be okay unless they are black or an aggressive colour


----------



## Container (21 Dec 2011)

Your knife statistics are already skewed- murders in the home during domestic violence dont use knives off belts. They use what available. Domestic violence is a huge portion of violent crime. The absolute lowest of my concerns are knives on belts- a person carrying for the purpose of shanking someone at the bar is different that the person this thread is aimed at- they've already been advised to keep them off the belt if they are going out boozing. 

You introduced the idea of police officers pointing guns at folks first- Im saying that my mouth would be agape if I saw a fellow cop point his gun at someone with a sheathed knife.

Perhaps im used to it now policing first nations for 10 years. Who knows? I also dont think anyone has suggested carrying a 7 inch rambo knife at all times. So we're coming at this from opposite ends. Im of the opinion that a scrote carries a knife no matter what the law- he'll prove to me in the first 30 seconds of contact whether he wants to go to the hospital or his house.  Regular folks carry knives for real reasons and by the same token they prove their intentions as well.

I've had guys tell me I start talking to them that they have a knife on their belt. Thats good. I had a guy with no belt knife jump off a balcony with a hatchet and try and bury it in my skull. I can tell you which one got a gun pointed at them. I, and most cops I know, are fine with knives on belts- and everyone in this thread would more than likely never find themselves in that position. And for the cops I've met who are slightly jumpy- saying to the police officer, "I have a knife in my right pocket would you like it while we talk?" or if you are a witness not even bringing it up (always mention it before you are pat down searched if that comes up) is a good rule of thumb.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2011)

I was thinking about that Container.  
Container, Law&Order, What would an average patrol cop's reaction be if within the first exchange I were so say 'Just to make you aware I have a knife in my pocket do you want to hold on to it while we speak?'.
Most of us would (may) logically assume that it would be a smart enough thing to do, you're just letting the cop know you have a knife more I'd say to show respect to the officer than to actually appraise him of danger.

However on the same note I've been pulled over buy the police. It was late at night so I rolled down my window turned my car off turned the interior logs on and rested my hands at 10& 3. The cop was a little more aggressive with me than was called for in my opinion so I actually called him on it. Afterwards (and having played the name game) he said that my actions were very suspicious and he and his partner expected me to try something.  I've also had a cop say the same thing (expected me to try something) when I was very compliant and polite in a conversation.

Could "I have a knife on my belt, just so you know" be taken as a sort of threat? I'd imagine the context could possibly get mistaken pretty easily?


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Dec 2011)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Could "I have a knife on my belt, just so you know" be taken as a sort of threat? I'd imagine the context could possibly get mistaken pretty easily?



As your Mum said, "it's not what you say but how you say it".  When I was active in LE, I was not on the whole worried I might face a gun.  A knife, however, was always in the back of my mind as more of a possibility when dealing with a member of the public.  That being said, I never had a bad experience from a member of the public in that regard either.


----------



## lawandorder (21 Dec 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Your argument for having the weapon prohibited is so that you can put a person who you couldn't prove committed a crime in jail for a completely unrelated reason.
> 
> He would be innocent if not for the law prohibiting the weapon, and your saying the weapon should be prohibited for the purpose of putting him in jail.
> 
> ...



Learn to read Ballz.  You do make assumptions.  

Nowhere did I say I arrest people because I *THINK* someone committed and offense.  My post mentioned a hypothetical situation where someone is found to be in possession of a prohibited weapon during the commission of an offense. Therefore, the arrest was made based on the commission of the offense.  The weapon was discovered in their possession on the search incident to arrest, which brings additional charges. That weapon only brings the additional charges if it is not legal.  I'm not talking about legal knives on belts, or steak knives, or Gerbers. I am talking about a prohibited knife. Not a pencil.  No where did I say all knives should be prohibited, or that a "knife registry" should be implemented.  Your lack of reading and comprehension skills scare me.  In all my posts I state my concern is with people unlawfully carrying, unlawful items, while in the commission of the offense.  Also, its how the law works now.  You commit an offense, you'll be charged with multiple items in order for a plea bargain, or if the crown can't proceed with certain charges, at least minor ones will stick.

I am not advocating injustice, I stated what I would do. I even state in one of my replies that you can carry a knife and most people won't find themselves having an issue with it.  Again, I guess your reading and comprehension skills are lacking.

I also clarified what I defined in my posts as carrying, as in, in a persons hand, and not in a sheath. I even apologized for making an assumption about it. If you were carrying a knife in your hand, and were doing something that caused the police to respond, IE committing a crime, there is no doubt in my mind a gun, or a taser, would be drawn.   Also note my note towards Journeyman.  I said he belong to a subculture with a professional courtesy toward police an other emergency services. He is/was a member of the Canadian Forces.  As are you presumably.  I never said you "Ballz are a criminal because you have a knife and wouldn't drop it blah blah"  No.  That never happened.  Lowest common denominator.  People getting dealt with by police are generally not "doing nothing" and just going about their business.  I can't speak for others, but I don't stop or talk to people that are going lawfully about their business.

"Your argument for having the weapon prohibited is so that you can put a person who you couldn't prove committed a crime in jail for a completely unrelated reason. "  Again not my argument.  You can't get basic facts right.  If the crown's case is not strong enough, it does not mean a person is innocent.  He may be found not guilty due to reasonable doubt, but that does not prove innocence. There are plenty of disgusting dirt bags that are found not guilty, or the crown doesn't proceed with certain charges because the cases are weak, but that does not mean those people are innocent, and it does not mean they didn't commit the offense. 

I


----------



## lawandorder (21 Dec 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> You introduced the idea of police officers pointing guns at folks first- Im saying that my mouth would be agape if I saw a fellow cop point his gun at someone with a sheathed knife.
> 
> I've had guys tell me I start talking to them that they have a knife on their belt. That's good. I had a guy with no belt knife jump off a balcony with a hatchet and try and bury it in my skull. I can tell you which one got a gun pointed at them. I, and most cops I know, are fine with knives on belts- and everyone in this thread would more than likely never find themselves in that position. And for the cops I've met who are slightly jumpy- saying to the police officer, "I have a knife in my right pocket would you like it while we talk?" or if you are a witness not even bringing it up (always mention it before you are pat down searched if that comes up) is a good rule of thumb.



You're right.  I would also be very surprised.  I mentioned "carrying knife"  I was under the impression the person was carrying it, as in hand.  Not sheathed.  We were saying the same thing but the definitions were different.  For that I truly apologize. When I was painting the picture in my head of someone carrying a knife, it was of a guy walking around with a knife in hand.   Not a dude walking down the street with a sheath attached to belt.  That's probably my fault, but that's sometimes the problem with written communication I guess.


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> I also clarified what I defined in my posts as carrying, as in, in a persons hand, and not in a sheath. I even apologized for making an assumption about it. If you were carrying a knife in your hand, and were doing something that caused the police to respond, IE committing a crime, there is no doubt in my mind a gun, or a taser, would be drawn.



Of course it would, that's as certain as your comment is irrelevant. Several times the context in which you used the word "carry" and "carrying" indicated that you weren't talking about carrying it in your hand. Such as "no need to carry a knife daily." That clearly wasn't referring to carrying it your hand. We were all also clearly talking about knives in sheaths and in pockets and whatnot. My reading comprehension is more than sufficient for this conversation, your communication skills are insufficient.

As for the rest of your post, you can try and spin your argument or re-word it however you please, I don't need it explained, I understand exactly what you are saying. Perhaps you should advocate making "prohibited" pens, so that you can catch white-collar criminals... I mean, I'd bet 100% of white-collar criminals use a pen during the offense, and then when you can't prove he's committed a white-collar crime, you can toss him in the slammer for 5 years anyway, because he was using a prohibited pen. Now that would be injustice justice.


----------



## lawandorder (21 Dec 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Of course it would, that's as certain as your comment is irrelevant. Several times the context in which you used the word "carry" and "carrying" indicated that you weren't talking about carrying it in your hand. Such as "no need to carry a knife daily." That clearly wasn't referring to carrying it your hand. We were all also clearly talking about knives in sheaths and in pockets and whatnot. My reading comprehension is more than sufficient for this conversation, your communication skills are insufficient.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, you can try and spin your argument or re-word it however you please, I don't need it explained, I understand exactly what you are saying. Perhaps you should advocate making "prohibited" pens, so that you can catch white-collar criminals... I mean, I'd bet 100% of white-collar criminals use a pen during the offense, and then when you can't prove he's committed a white-collar crime, you can toss him in the slammer for 5 years anyway, because he was using a prohibited pen. Now that would be injustice justice.



You're not even making sense anymore, nor do you have a grasp of the CCJS. You fail to realize I wasn't advocating anything that isn't prohibited should be.  But this again comes down to your reading and comprehension skills.


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> You fail to realize I wasn't advocating anything that isn't prohibited should be.



I have not failed to realize this. You are advocating that certain knives should be prohibited, because you will be able to catch criminals who choose to use them during a crime.

I am simply drawing a parallel to your example to outline how senseless that argument is. I'm glad you agree that it would make no sense to make certain pens, but not others, prohibited.

You can blame my reading comprehension all you want, everyone on this site knows I'm quite capable with the English language.


----------



## lawandorder (21 Dec 2011)

No.  I am stating that some knives already already are prohibited, and is another tool in the tool box to put bad guys away. Just like when an illegal firearm is used in an offense, the slew of firearms charges gets added on.  Or if controlled substances are found, those charges get added on.  Its a matter of fact.


----------



## ballz (21 Dec 2011)

You stated



			
				Law & Order said:
			
		

> The restriction on knives is well warranted.



and then you went on to support that opinion with a variety of weak statistics and this whole "another way to put a criminal in jail" argument.

That's quite different from stating the fact that there are already knives prohibited.

I am stating that the "another tool in the tool box" argument is a weak one to support prohibiting certain knives. It leads to injustice, and it doesn't prevent crime... much like prohibiting blue pens wouldn't prevent white-collar crime, but it would put a few people behind bars for a stupid reason.


----------



## bcbarman (21 Dec 2011)

The resrtiction of the prohibited knives in Canada comes down to knee-jerk reaction, but why do you want a swithblade or push knife that is prohibited in the first place? My manual opening knife is faster and more eficient then a switchblade.  It the LCF, and we all have barrack boxes full of junk kit we bought for the LCF, I know I do.  

It gets down to intent, and I take away stuff due to intent.  May be cool and legal in the Philippines, but its lame and illegal here.  

And Ballz, if our judges had enough of your name to actually throw anyone in jail, I would be amazed. Arrested for posession of a restricted knife, sure, happens as incidental to the real reason for arrest.  Conviction for that crime, with jail time! HA! community service with a dash of probation.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Dec 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> Journeyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry if four syllables overwhelmed you.



			
				Law & Order said:
			
		

> Learn to read Ballz.


Perhaps he's not alone in that need.

Since my initial response obviously baffled you, I've made it easier for you -- you're set to <ignore>   :

(If it makes you feel special, of the site's 31,149 members, I have only four on ignore)


----------



## PJGary (22 Dec 2011)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Seems silly a 3 inch knife can be prohibited but a 7 inch knife wouldn't.  I guess switch blades and butterfly knives etc.. are scary and gang related dating back to the 50's or something.
> 
> I'm going to email the RCMP and ask for a prohibited license to possess auto-folders- they might get a good chuckle out of it.



I couldn't help but have this come to mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8R9GiLImSw

IMHO there is some merit behind the argument that _occasionally_ carrying certain items can display intent. For example: I worked for a while as a bouncer and one of my jobs was doing pat-downs at the door. I caught one certain gentleman who had a set of spiked brass knuckles in his back pocket. After staring at them in confusion for a couple seconds I simply asked him; "Man...why do you even HAVE these? And WHY are you trying to bring them into my bar?!".


----------



## wisnoskij (9 Dec 2012)

Container said:
			
		

> there is no restriction as long as it isnt concealed and you are carrying it for a lawful purpose. Self defense isnt a lawful purpose- so a sword to cut seat belts would be confiscated.
> 
> I have this in black I believe and carry it in my kit. I know several others with this style and size.



So what about backpacks or bags? Is that considered concealed? Or is that transporting instead of carrying and allowed?

As an aside, how is cutting seat belts considered self defence? And when you say self defene, you mean against anything that could harm you (animals, seat belts, etc)?

Also does that mean that it is very illigal to use a knife for defence? Or is it just premeditated defence (carrying it around in-case something happens)?


----------



## Bluebulldog (10 Dec 2012)

wisnoskij said:
			
		

> So what about backpacks or bags? Is that considered concealed? Or is that transporting instead of carrying and allowed?
> 
> As an aside, how is cutting seat belts considered self defence? And when you say self defene, you mean against anything that could harm you (animals, seat belts, etc)?
> 
> Also does that mean that it is very illigal to use a knife for defence? Or is it just premeditated defence (carrying it around in-case something happens)?



....and the award for resurrecting a long dead thread simply for purposes of being a drop in A$$ goes to this guy......


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Dec 2012)

I cannot figure out what that phrase is supposed to mean. If I have broken some unwriten code fo conduct, I am sorry.
I though resurrecting an old thread to ask for clarification would be better than starting a brand new one.


----------



## Bluebulldog (10 Dec 2012)

wisnoskij,

If you had read the entire thread, you would have your answers.

Now giving you the benefit of a doubt, and assuming you're not a troll ok, here goes.

Backpacks or bags....well it all depends on intent. As you would have read in the previous threads. A knife being carried in a schoolbag by a student at college is highly suspect. In a schoolbag by a student going on a boy scout trip...not so much.

Nowhere was the act of carrying a knife for the purposes of cutting seat belts defined as "self defense" simply a purpose, and perfectly legal reason for carrying a knife.

There is no such thing as "very illegal" it either is or it is not. Carrying a knife to defend yourself may be a justifiable defence depending on circumstance, but chances are, you will be dealing with the justice system by the time that happens, regardless.


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Dec 2012)

I had read the entire thread, though it is possibly I missed something. I saw Container's very next post where he expanded on that statement.
Still the focus was on the body, inside and outside of your clothes. I was wondering what people with experience though carrying it around in a bag/napsack, as that would likely be my "playing it safe" alternative, except I do not know how safe I would be from concealed weaponry charges.


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Dec 2012)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as "very illegal" it either is or it is not. Carrying a knife to defend yourself may be a justifiable defence depending on circumstance, but chances are, you will be dealing with the justice system by the time that happens, regardless.



Really, so if you have a justifiable reason to expect you need to defend yourself then self defence is a justifiable reason? I thought the reasoning went that, Canadians are simply never allowed concealed weapons, and if a knife is for self defence it is a weapon; Therefore self defence is never an acceptable excuse for a knife?

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Dec 2012)

"Self defense isn't a lawful purpose- so a sword to cut seat belts would be confiscated."

Well this is what confuses me. It implies that cutting seat belts is self defence.

Also, "lawful purpose" does not seem to imply "necessary" or "utilitarian". The law seems to say that I could carry around a sword simply because I like the look of it, or to cut up my sandwiches (both are lawful, just not nessesary or very utilitarian). But this quote from an experienced professional seems to imply that I would not be able to. So would you agree that it would be right to say a better expaination of the law would be: "lawful and reasonable" reason.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Dec 2012)

As I understand it, intent is all consuming.  If for some reason a cop finds you in possession of a knife of any description and asks you why you have it, and you answer it's for self defence purposes, that's illegal, as you show intent to harm or threaten someone with it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Dec 2012)

Sir to cut my finger off if I dishonour my regiment sir.


----------



## Bluebulldog (10 Dec 2012)

wisnoskij said:
			
		

> Really, so if you have a justifiable reason to expect you need to defend yourself then self defence is a justifiable reason? I thought the reasoning went that, Canadians are simply never allowed concealed weapons, and if a knife is for self defence it is a weapon; Therefore self defence is never an acceptable excuse for a knife?
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.



Wow......your extracting that nugget from the reams of info provided in three pages of posts, shows that you are either a troll simply out to argue, or you're willfully ignorant. Either way, I have wasted way too many keystrokes already.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

How about you familiarize yourself with that particular site, and pertinent legislation, and come back with how you interpret the C.C. I'm sure the folks on here who are directly involved with Law Enforcement would love to hear your opinions.

Personally, I stand by my earlier call.


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Dec 2012)

I had a read through the laws a little, but they are hard to understand. Laws are nto designed to be read or understood by the average person.

One question, as I am reading through it.
What do they mean when they say "Former Prohibited", as in


> Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 1
> 
> 1. Any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge therefrom of
> (a) tear gas, Mace or other gas, or
> (b) any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person.



It is saying that these are not prohibited any longer, but were at some time?


----------



## mariomike (10 Dec 2012)

wisnoskij said:
			
		

> I had a read through the laws a little, but they are hard to understand. Laws are nto designed to be read or understood by the average person.



You may find this discussion helpful.

The Legality of Self Defence In Canada  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97769.0
7 pages.


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Dec 2012)

OK, I browsed it for all pertinent information, all relevent quotes are included below post.

First off, while the document uses “restricted weapon” a lot, it never defines what it means by that.
Specifically this is the only definition it gives:


> “restricted weapon”
> « arme à autorisation restreinte »
> “restricted weapon” means any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a restricted weapon;


So a restricted weapon is a any weapon that is defined as a restricted weapon by law.... That is a meaningless phrase, and can tell us nothing about what “restricted weapon” means (unless there is another unmentioned document that gives a better description, or a list of these restricted weapons). Note: there is a list of restricted firearms, but there does not appear to be any for generic weapons, at least none mentioned.

But forgetting that, lets assume we are talking about a generic knife that is neither restriced nor prohibited.

My interpretation of these laws.

A knife is a weapon if you intend it as a weapon or deterrent or it was designed as a weapon.
Which seems to me a bad definition. Personally, I would say it needs "primarily" added to that definition. Any and all hunting or survival knife where designed at least partially as a self defensive or even offensive measure against animals, and a person is a subclass of the animals.

You are not allowed to own any weapon if you own it for a "purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence". I have not idea how the law goes about determining what is "dangerous to the public peace" if it is not an offence. If the purpose is not illegal, then why should it be an offence to do it????
Basically, don't do illegal stuff with your knife, and do not even look like you might if you want to play it safe.

You are not allowed to attend a public meeting (not sure that the legal definition of a "public meeting" is) with a weapon, unless you have a lawful excuse.
Seems like a very specific and easily circumvented law.

You cannot conceal any weapon for any reason.

But, the most important point to make is that a knife is not necessarily a weapon.

*Summery, according to the letter of the law:*
You can own any knife, sword, etc. (minus a very few specifically prohibited ones).
You can go into public with any knife, sword, katana, 13" long blade Khukri (again, minus the few prohibited ones).
You can only conceal a knife if it is not a weapon.
All survival/hunting/wilderness knives are weapons, at least technically in my opinion (though I disagree with the definition).

So if self defence is legal (will read that thread next), self defence should be an acceptable excuse for owning and carrying non-concealed weapons in public.



> “weapon”
> « arme »
> “weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
> 
> ...



Note: there are other sections dealing with Search and Seizure, Disposition, and Certificate of analyst that are not relevent to out discussion at this time.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Dec 2012)

Offensive measure against animals?

Here's the bottom line.

Don't treat cops like they're stupid. Their going to have a good feel on why you're carrying a knife. If you have a pocket knife in your pocket you're good to go. If you have the assassins creed wrist dagger then you better have got a 95% in drama class when trying to explain how you use it for self defense against animals.


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Dec 2012)

I have read up on everything in the self and property defence sections.

In general you are allowed to defend yourself, to the extent that you have to.
And unless it is covered in anouther setion, the law does not even come close to banning you from carrying around weapons to defend yourself. Anyone know where it it supposed to say this? Because everyone has told me over and over again that you are not allowed to carry knives for self defence, but I just read the law and it specifically does not mention that. Is this one of those unwritten laws, or am I just missing something here.

So self defence is legal, carrying weapons in public is legal. So strapping a sword to your back (in a non-concealed way) to defend yourself seems to be considered legal by the letter of the law.

Interestingly, you are not allowed to harm someone trying to take your stuff, unless they "persist". But if they are "forcibly breaking" into your house or "trespassing" you can kill them or do anything else that is necessary immediately.




> 34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
> Marginal note:Extent of justification
> 
> (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
> ...






> 38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
> (a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
> (b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
> if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
> ...


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Dec 2012)

So, I might just not be thinking straight. It is possible I missed something, or something that significantly effects the law regarding self defence or weapons is in another section entirely. But it really seems to me that the police enforcement of their law is unrecognisable from the letter of the law. Is there no mechanisms in place to ensure that police action is in accordance, at least generally, with the letter of the law?

Or what am I missing, everything said here by experts seems to not be that the letter of the law says.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Dec 2012)

SO?   At the end of the day, in layman's terms, what is it you are REALLY _trying to ask to be able to do_?

If you want to carry a two headed axe, wear red flannel shirts and be a lumberjack.  That is okey.


If you want to buy a sword to mount on your wall, it is okey to purchase it, carry it to your car, take it home, mounted on your wall and be happy.


If what you want to do doesn't fall into one of those two categories, what is it you REALLY want to do?


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Dec 2012)

@George Wallace:
For me this has mostly turned into an interesting academic discussion.
Which is not to say that there is not a utilitarian reason.

I like knives, all kinds of knives. And I plan on collecting a little bit and using a lot on my property (there are a lot of of uses for knives on my farm).
But if I am going to own a 12" blade Khukri or even just a belt knife then I better know how to legally transport it through public and what to do if I forget about the blade at my belt and end up in town. Personally, I would love to have a nice survival knive with my at all times, as you never know when you have to cut something open; And like being prepared for anything (when I packed for a Flordia vacation I packed string and zip lock bags, among other thing, and was laughed at for that, but we ended up using both). This preparedness I guess if I was being honest includes a tiny amount of self defence (if I am legally allowed), though I cannot imagine someone my size being a likely target of random violence.

The really annoying part about the law with respect to my specific situation is that pretty much all general knives are easily proven to be weapons by the law's definition. I think they are aimed at a mostly American crowd because their descriptions always talk about using it on others. Take the wonderful Ka-Bar USMC, short. It is the exact length suggested by everyone for a general utility/survival knive (4-6", in this case 5.25") and is in the top of many lists for general utility/survival knives. But it is an american knife and is called a fighting knife for some reason. I guarantee you that some thought was put into the design about using it to cause death and injury.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Dec 2012)

Please, go ahead and carry if you wish. Unless you have the training and mindset for self defense with an edged weapon you'll only suceed in getting yourself killed . Thereby, allowing us to ignore your one person conversation.

You've gone well past the discussion phase. No one is listening anymore.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Dec 2012)

I walk out the door every morning with one of these, http://www.frosts.se/construction/craftline-q-allround-carbon-steel , on my belt.  I use it a dozen or more times a day at work, and it stays there when I go to town.  Lots of cops have seen it, none ever said a thing about it.


----------



## Bluebulldog (11 Dec 2012)

...and I never leave the front door without the Swiss Army knife that I've carried in my pocket for going on 20+ years. It seems to suffice in 90% of the tasks I need to use a knife / utility tool for.

Probably wouldn't do for self defense, but then.....I don't go looking for trouble either.......


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2012)

wisnoskij said:
			
		

> @George Wallace:
> For me this has mostly turned into an interesting academic discussion.
> Which is not to say that there is not a utilitarian reason.



You're still coming across kinda nuts.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2012)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> ...and I never leave the front door without the Swiss Army knife that I've carried in my pocket for going on 20+ years. It seems to suffice in 90% of the tasks I need to use a knife / utility tool for.
> 
> Probably wouldn't do for self defense, but then.....I don't go looking for trouble either.......




To sidetrack the subject, but on the topic of self defense, everything available would be like a "Swiss Army Knife" when it comes to self defense.  A rolled up newspaper, a walking stick, a pen, your house/car keys, exacto knife; anything within the realm of your imagination can be used to defend yourself.  The only limits are your imagination.

Other than my army issue Gerber multi-tool strapped to my uniform, I do not need to carry a knife with me everwhere I go not in uniform.


----------



## Bluebulldog (11 Dec 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To sidetrack the subject, but on the topic of self defense, everything available would be like a "Swiss Army Knife" when it comes to self defense.  A rolled up newspaper, a walking stick, a pen, your house/car keys, exacto knife; anything within the realm of your imagination can be used to defend yourself.  The only limits are your imagination.
> 
> Other than my army issue Gerber multi-tool strapped to my uniform, I do not need to carry a knife with me everwhere I go not in uniform.



But you'd be absolutely surprised at how many times I'm at a gathering with other folks, and the corkscrew, or bottle opener on my Wenger wind up getting used.......now if Gerber had only thought to put a corkscrew on the issued tool.........you'd probably have occasion to carry it more.


----------



## Bluebulldog (11 Dec 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> You're still coming across kinda nuts.



Roll of tin foil and folding instructions are in the mail.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2012)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> But you'd be absolutely surprised at how many times I'm at a gathering with other folks, and the corkscrew, or bottle opener on my Wenger wind up getting used.......now if Gerber had only thought to put a corkscrew on the issued tool.........you'd probably have occasion to carry it more.



A BIC pen works.  Messy, but you push the cork in......not dig it out.  Champagne corks are another story, but a knowledgeable swordsman has a good method of running the blade along the side of the bottle and then a quick slice and top of bottle and cork are off.       ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2012)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> Roll of tin foil and folding instructions are in the mail.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbVGGMi8QGM

She seems to really enjoy her work.


----------



## Bluebulldog (11 Dec 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A BIC pen works.  Messy, but you push the cork in......not dig it out.  Champagne corks are another story, but a knowledgeable swordsman has a good method of running the blade along the side of the bottle and then a quick slice and top of bottle and cork are off.       ;D



....and we come full circle.....now all wisnoskij has to do, is tell them he's a somellier.......and he can carry his sword!!


----------



## Container (10 Jan 2013)

wisnoskij said:
			
		

> I had a read through the laws a little, but they are hard to understand. Laws are nto designed to be read or understood by the average person.
> 
> One question, as I am reading through it.
> What do they mean when they say "Former Prohibited", as in
> It is saying that these are not prohibited any longer, but were at some time?



The beginning of that section stated:

The firearms listed in Part 1 of the schedule are prohibited firearms for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition “prohibited firearm” in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code.

That means those are still prohibited despite the labeling.

The questions you asked before this were answered well. The intent is what makes a weapon when it comes to little knives. Are you carrying it as a tool? Then its fine in your backpack while you hike. Is it a steak knife in your shirt while you smoke rock? Then its a weapon....and thus concealed.



			
				wisnoskij said:
			
		

> OK, I browsed it for all pertinent information, all relevent quotes are included below post.
> 
> First off, while the document uses “restricted weapon” a lot, it never defines what it means by that.
> Specifically this is the only definition it gives:So a restricted weapon is a any weapon that is defined as a restricted weapon by law.... That is a meaningless phrase, and can tell us nothing about what “restricted weapon” means (unless there is another unmentioned document that gives a better description, or a list of these restricted weapons). Note: there is a list of restricted firearms, but there does not appear to be any for generic weapons, at least none mentioned.
> ...



WTF?????

Weapon is defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code. You can carry a sword......as long as its not a weapon. Like youre at Comicon and its part of your outfit or youre transporting it. But if you wear it slung on the back for self defence its carrying a weapon for a dangerous purpose.



			
				wisnoskij said:
			
		

> I have read up on everything in the self and property defence sections.
> 
> In general you are allowed to defend yourself, to the extent that you have to.
> And unless it is covered in anouther setion, the law does not even come close to banning you from carrying around weapons to defend yourself. Anyone know where it it supposed to say this? Because everyone has told me over and over again that you are not allowed to carry knives for self defence, but I just read the law and it specifically does not mention that. Is this one of those unwritten laws, or am I just missing something here.
> ...



Oh man. You are commiting an offence under 88 of the Criminal Code unless you can prove that the sword youre carrying in public was a reasonable choice to defend yourself, with just enough force to stop the threat, and the threat you believed against you was also reasonable. 

Im not sure where samurai sword would ever fit into that. Where do you live?



			
				wisnoskij said:
			
		

> So, I might just not be thinking straight. It is possible I missed something, or something that significantly effects the law regarding self defence or weapons is in another section entirely. But it really seems to me that the police enforcement of their law is unrecognisable from the letter of the law. Is there no mechanisms in place to ensure that police action is in accordance, at least generally, with the letter of the law?
> 
> Or what am I missing, everything said here by experts seems to not be that the letter of the law says.



My law? The court is who decides if my actions are in accordance with the law. This is very basic- everyone here even with the little disagreement about certain things agrees.

Youre the only guy in the room who thinks he's right......how often does it work out when one guy disgrees with everyone that they are actually correct?





			
				wisnoskij said:
			
		

> @George Wallace:
> For me this has mostly turned into an interesting academic discussion.
> Which is not to say that there is not a utilitarian reason.
> 
> ...



Hardly interesting or academic. In person you'd have me half convinced you need to go to the hospital and talk to a doctor.


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Jan 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> Oh man. You are commiting an offence under 88 of the Criminal Code unless you can prove that the sword youre carrying in public was a reasonable choice to defend yourself, with just enough force to stop the threat, and the threat you believed against you was also reasonable.



Thanks for the response.
But you have to agree that all of that is unwritten? Right? The law does not say that, it allows a judge more then enough room to say that fits within the lose confines of that law.

Quoting:
88. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for* a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.*

I assume enough precedent exists that carrying a weapon for self defence to be considered "dangerous to the public peace". But no where is that written is absolute unchallengeable terms.

But interesting you did not even say that all self defensive weapons were not allowed to be carried, that is what I/others have been told many times (I has seen theads that stated in absolute terms that even non-lethal but painful self-defensive weapons are not even allowed to be carried). You are saying that if the self defensive weapon is reasonable then it is perfectly legal, which is very different.

What is reasonable seems hard to judge, it is obvious that a sword seems unreasonable to carry around, but if you actually fear for your life everything becomes reasonable to use. So how are you even supposed to judge what is reasonable precaution for the unreasonable situation of your life being in danger (mostly rhetorical)? I am going to guess that anything that is obviously made for the the purpose or killing/hurting others (in self-defence or otherwise) is considered unreasonable at this time.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jan 2013)

Dude keep your knife at home.


----------



## Container (10 Jan 2013)

wisnoskij said:
			
		

> Thanks for the response.
> But you have to agree that all of that is unwritten? Right? The law does not say that, it allows a judge more then enough room to say that fits within the lose confines of that law.
> 
> Quoting:
> ...



I agree to no such thing. The rules are outlined in the Criminal Code in the Annotation sections and by case law- made by judges and lawyers. Not police officers. The online reading you are looking at does not contain these sections. Because they are thousands and thousands of pages.

There are weapons like key chain batons and ninja stars that are specifically prohibited. There are others that are not. However- it is generally held that it is unreasonable for the everyday person to think their lives have a reasonable credible threat against them. It is not a blanket "self defense" against everyone real or imagined. Furthermore- there are requirements that you are adequately trained. 

The test of reasonable is very easy. If I swapped you out for someone else. Just an everyday person- given the same information would they act in the same manner as you or believe your actions are justified?

It does not matter what YOU believe is real when it comes to carrying weapons. Society must agree. And society, right or wrong, says you call the police and stay home. Not ride the bus with a Masamune strapped to yourself.


----------



## ArmyGuy99 (10 Jan 2013)

:goodpost:

The Peace Officers in our Country, who enforce the laws, do have the ability to use their head.

I'm from Northern Ontario, it is not uncommon in the rural areas to see people in Canadian Tire with Medium Pocket Knives or Fixed Blades (Not so much anymore) on their belts.  That's because they just came from the farm where these are TOOLS used everyday.  The OPP (usually) know this and do nothing.

Walk into Walmart in Barrie, Toronto, Vancouver etc.. and I guarantee a different response from the local constabulary, regardless of the size.

Unless you have a legitimate LEGAL reason that YOU can explain to the nice Police Man/Woman why you have a knife in your pocket, leave it at home.  Cause at best they'll just seize it.  At worst you'll get a possession dangerous charge or worse.

Ok I'm done  :deadhorse:


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Jan 2013)

"If I swapped you out for someone else. Just an everyday person- given the same information would they act in the same manner as you or believe your actions are justified?"

How does that have any basis in law? Doesn't this entire idea go agaisnt the principal of innocent untill proven guilty? People are not allowed to be unique or act differently, without ant proof that this difference endangers anyone?

Would a jodge not have to prove that some specific unique individual carrying a weapon in public is "dangerous to the public peace".
How can a judge even go by statistics, or oppinion. Everyone acts differently, and I cannot see how you can charge someone with a crime because, for example, they are not trained professionals. Since there is no way to prove that you would not act like a trained professional.

Statistics and common sence might say that an average citizen is more likely to hurt himself and other innocents if he lugs around a sammeri sword everywhere, but unless you prove *I will* I do not see how that does not go agasint the very basis of our laws.


----------



## Container (10 Jan 2013)

okay so Im sorry- you arent making sense anymore. I m not trying to be rude but you arent articulating yourself at all.

The answer to this gibberish is yes.

The court decides what is adequate training. They can also determine who is an expert and who is not- even though they arent experts themselves. This is the power we have given the courts. 

The test for reasonableness is not up for discussion it is used in almost every court case- given the circumstance was the action reasonable?

Here is the definition:

"A standard for what is fair and appropriate under usual and ordinary circumstances; that which is according to reason; the way a rational and just person would have acted."

Not just how you acted or felt. But how a rational person- or some other ordinary person with the same information in the same situation.

Allow me to answer this for you:

"Since there is no way to prove that you would not act like a trained professional."

Yes I can. I teach use of force. I teach police officers, park wardens, correctional officers arrest and control. I, on a routine basis, see thousands of responses to various situations by a variety of experience levels. I can, without a doubt, tell you that you would not react as a trained professional would. If it was just a matter of showing up and reacting however the mood strikes- no one would need to be trained.

We train because alot of use of force and controlling people, as well as repelling assault, is counter intuitive. Thousands and thousands of repetitions are required to perform these actions. Now add adrenaline. And fear. You will not stumble fuck your way into looking like you knew what you were doing. Even trained people cant manage to react like a trained professional alot of the time. Thats why we have sections making thm liable for exceeding whats reasonable.

You are not prohibited from "arming" yourself for self defence. You are prohibited from concealing the weapon. You are prohibited from arming yourself with a weapon you do not have sufficient training to use, or a weapon specifically prohibited (which is alot of them), provided you have a reasonable concern that you are going to be attacked- and ALSO- that you are competent and that the weapon is appropriate to repell the type of reasonably apprehended attack you are anticipating.

Full stop. Thats it.


----------



## wisnoskij (10 Jan 2013)

OK, I understand.
Thanks for the clarifications.


----------

