and that problem was that people were evading the metal knuckle prohibition by possessing what were in design quintessential metal knuckles but they were being manufactured out of a hard plastic composite and because they were made out of plastic they were not technically metal knuckles and were therefore legal to address this problem legislation was introduced to amend the unlawful weapons statute which prohibited metal knuckles to also prohibit nuckle weapons regardless of their  composition the legislative transcript from the floor debate makes clear that the intent of the amendment was only intended to address the problem of metal knuckles that were being manufactured out of a hard plastic composite hence the phrase regardless of their composition listed in that statute are all very specific weapons such as like a black jack a sling shot throwing star and the statute does not specifically prohibit trench knives it specifically for  knife and the fact that weber could simply that be the fact that it weapon merely has the capacity to be used as an illegal weapon does not necessarily make it any legal weapon because if that were the case countless perfectly innocent items could be arbitrarily legislator could have specifically chosen to criminalize trench ties but he did not do so and again the the weapons listed are very specific weapons and it simply does not include trench knives basis of the state's characterization in this respect was the two thousand and nine amendment which prohibited an awful weapons regardless of their composition the state are you despite of legislative transcripts clearly indicating otherwise that the amendment was intended to expand the wall and that the amendment was intended to prohibit anything that merely has the capacity to be used as a knuckle weapon it seems that the state misunderstood the meaning of the word composition and the amended language and seemed to think that it meant regardless of how designed weapon again if the legislature wanted to ban trench knives they could have done so but they did not include them in the lead in the i'm awful weapon statue there simply is no legal support for the state's contention that construed as a knuckle weapon because it has the capacity to be used as such i'm curious them in terms of your analysis if it is a matter of what the determining of the determination as wish and in determining the main purpose of the weapon they looked at the main injury that the weapon would likely inflict justice holder white already but that one to rest because the perps were coal clearly indicates that it could only be used as a knife  so that the the weapon cold outside them and working more is french knife at issue here so how who is to determine them under your analysis whether or weapons at issue and of course i you know i think the trial court could rightfully make that determination ok and just yet and i'm sorry to interrupt but just in that regard you say it's not the weapon can be that the weapon can be of evidence how are we to know you know what the primary function is of something i think to that in your honor i think a trial court that easily just look at a particular weapon and based on its good appearance determine  what it's likely main function would be what it's likely central injury would be and in this case again we have a nine and a half inch play which i again i do believe it would be quite impractical to actually use enough a weapon type fashion but more i think the main entry that would be afflicted by this weapon you know would you know be a nine inch stab wound or perhaps you know us you know slashing purses actually trying to punch somebody with it because  n if you were to use this as another weapon it seems actually that you might be exposing your own yourself you know to potential injury and we would really look at this particular weapon it's it seems to me that it's you know probably more of a collector's item than an actual you know dangerous weapon that people are out there hitting people with you know it it seems like this is just a collector's item and as many people do they like to collect you know i think a sinkhole these are very unusual weapons and again there are there are countless you know weapons or even just perfectly innocent items that they can be used to augment the impact of up on sure that could be used as other or in a similar way as other specifically prohibited weapons but the simple fact that over a weapon has the capacity to be used in that respect is not necessarily make it any legal weapon and to that in your honor mobile courts of the state actually seemingly every of the state that's examined the unlawful weapons statute seems to uniformly urge a narrow interpretation of what constitutes an illegal weapon and people versus state the first district court narrowly applied them off a weapon statu bludgeon and they actually specifically did so because of concerns that a broad reading would invite one to abuse in the seventh district again in coal nearly read the unlawful weapons statute specifically in part because of concerns that a broad reading would mean  object clue be classified as a set of metal knuckles based solely on the way the object is spread so it seems that this court should likewise nearly reveal an awful weapon statue and conclude that the weapon in question here is not a si buckles to briefly conclude my first argument that the trial court's reading of the unlawful weapon statute was a unconstitutionally overbroad and only through such an unconstitutional broad reading could mr vigors knife be considered an eagle not a weapon again the fact that it item has the capacity to be used as an illegal weapon does not make it an illegal weapon under the unlawful weapons statute which again lest very specific weapons again if that were the case countless items could be arbitrarily construed as the legal weapons if the court has no further questions regarding my first argument i would move on to my second thank you constitute bearable arms the court in the court then defined arms as anything that a man takes into his hands or use of the wrath to cast at strike another now this definition clearly does not felony and thus as a person a violation of the phone and possession law but so this forwarded through the state that anything that merely has the capacity to beat any legal weapon is indeed an illegal weapon it would seemingly create a base a blanket prohibition on the possession of french knives by law abiding citizens social ruling would create misting and sort of countless innocent people such as military weapons collector have the capacity to be used as an awful weapon such an overly broad definition for contravene the protections of the second amendment the fact is mr vigors knife is first and foremost a knife and as a knife it is constitutionally protected again because the felon in possession law only prohibits fallon's from possessing nice if they do so with an unlawful intent to use it against another michiganders had the constitutional right to possess this knife and because he had that constitutional right below the weapon statute was unconstitutionally applied to him less this court has any questions regarding my second argument i would just at the purpose of the statute when trying to determine whether or not this is a metal like of art that he wants or i believe the position of the defendant is that if i use it for anything other than the purpose of a medal not go there for outside the prescriptions of the commonly used does that make that out of a metal knuckle so i think that's per pretty restrictive coal i think is trying to look at trying to define specifically what is a metal michael and actually have a picture of it and i think it was the webster staff the one that is cited here it was the webster's third new international dictionary that was cited by cole but i was looking at another on a bridge webster's that actually had a picture of it and i think that definition the last one what we have in this instance is a set of not all michael's or weapon if you will with a blade attached to it i think just as harris makes a very good point if you were to put a bomb over there or any other item which would give this a dual purpose that bring it outside descriptions of the sash or clearly i don't think that's the legislative intent it's probably not my place to suggest what the court might do if they wanted to allow such a weapon to exist but i think you want to look at what the so you know could there be a situation not that we're dealing with bad here because we don't have any such testimony but could there be a situation where someone comes and then explains that this is actually a feature of a knife as opposed to that being the second part of a dual purpose weapon that being not a whole weapon and a knife and in that situation it would be fact intensive as opposed to just in general prohibition against french knowledge i stated i think i'd say where the court's going my suggestion there would be not to concentrate on the purpose because i think that if you're going to open pandora's box with that type of analysis i would look more on what the intent was by the legislature and prohibiting metal or not cool weapons in the first place maybe it was because the weapon was inherently small could be hidden you didn't know you had it on your person it could do a great deal of damage and it had no value other than to inflict day you know and damage on your opponent without anybody knowing that you possess the thing so if it was such a weapon that could be defined we're not going to get into what the purpose of the weapon is it is not a weapon or it's not simply by the way it looks and i think that's what we probably need to do in this instance is well i understand what you're saying and i think there is room for that argument perhaps in the future but it would have to be i think under discussion of what was the intent behind the legislature in prohibiting this use or this particular weapon and how is that concern just like to address three points really first of all the legislative intent the purpose behind the unlawful weapon set you to quite clear is to prohibits very specific weapons to get the legislature could have included a catch all phrase as it actually did in the following subsection where it used the words or other dangerous not or that would be a catch all phrase that would include lots of different permutations of a particular weapon but here i created their own based on those definitions and said as a best sentimental knuckles as a weapon with one main purpose to increase the power and hence the impact of a punch and in fact is the one in a question here just does not legal basis for that conclusion conclusion and interestingly when i looked into the various examples of what constitutes a dangerous and unusual weapon i found that there was kind of a common thread between all of them  couple of examples where like a short barrel shotgun or a firearm with an obliterated serial number or even a pipe bomb and what all these weapons have in common and how they're distinguishable from mr griffiths knife is that all these weapons have no purpose unrelated to criminal activity there's no gentlemen purpose to have a pipe bomb or to you know have a firearm within a deliberate serial number and to your point justice harris this now if you're actually does have a purpose it has a practical purpose and in fact it was my my client's claim that it in fact does enhance the growth and that's actually hunting i think can be used whenever your you know cutting up animals so that your hand doesn't slip off with a particular weapon and in that respect the big question here again it's it's unlike the your typical dangerous and unusual weapons which again have no purpose seemingly no purpose that is unrelated to criminal and higher last century and so there are lots of soldiers on shore that possess these weapons or military weapons collectors that possess these weapons there are museum curators that display these weapons for historical purposes and if if we were to include or excuse me if this court were to include trench knives and the metal knuckle prohibition simply because they can conceivably be used in a similar manner again it would seemingly create meant this to mean it's all these perfectly innocent