Tweet
I didn't read all 63 pages, but looking through some of the relevant parts, it looks like the story might be a little alarmist, but there is some truth to it as well. The problem is, if course, that the government is trying to ban certain types of weapons that it associates with certain socioeconomic classes, or that some people find scary, just like "saturday night specials" or "assault weapons". The difference is that they are forcing a functional definition (as if there really was one) that includes not only switchblades, but butterfly knives and any other type of knife that has become demonized in the media.
In trying to make this definition fit assisted opening knives, they have pushed the limits of reason. This is the basic definition as written in the law:
So, what they've basically done to make this work is that they, through a total BS legal precedent, have argued that they may read the emphasized "or" as "and". Then they argue that the fact that thumb studs are not on the handle is irrelevant, because the intent of the law is to ban "instant open" knives, and moving the "device" to the blade is irrelevant. So, what they now claim is that with the "and" in there, the combination of manual manipulation of the blade that then allows inertia to take over and complete the opening of the blade makes it a switchblade.
The problem is inertia isn't spring action, it's flicking the knife open (hence the ban on "flick knives" and butterfly knives). So, by their definition, any folding knife that can be flicked open after partially opening the blade manually (at least those that can be partially opened with one hand) is a switchblade. That, of course, would include a lot of simple pocket knives that don't even have assisted opening. They also claim that any knife that can be easily modified to open this way through modification with common tools (by loosening any friction or other retention mechanisms) would also qualify.
So it's the same kind of BS we see with gun laws. Oh, and they're not changing the law, they're changing their interpretation and application of the law. The problem, according to the notice, is that many state and local governments simply use the CBP definition of "switchblade" rather than writing their own, and so these knives could potentially be banned anywhere where actual switchblades are illegal.
In trying to make this definition fit assisted opening knives, they have pushed the limits of reason. This is the basic definition as written in the law:
or any knife with a blade which opens automatically by operation of inertia, gravity, or both; [emphasis added]
The problem is inertia isn't spring action, it's flicking the knife open (hence the ban on "flick knives" and butterfly knives). So, by their definition, any folding knife that can be flicked open after partially opening the blade manually (at least those that can be partially opened with one hand) is a switchblade. That, of course, would include a lot of simple pocket knives that don't even have assisted opening. They also claim that any knife that can be easily modified to open this way through modification with common tools (by loosening any friction or other retention mechanisms) would also qualify.
So it's the same kind of BS we see with gun laws. Oh, and they're not changing the law, they're changing their interpretation and application of the law. The problem, according to the notice, is that many state and local governments simply use the CBP definition of "switchblade" rather than writing their own, and so these knives could potentially be banned anywhere where actual switchblades are illegal.
Comment