Talk:Knife legislation

message: Somehow I consider the following unlikely:
"With the exception of Japanese Katana, any other swords are regarded as offensive weapons. However, if they have artistic value, possession is legal as long as the sword is registered."
So Japanese katana, artistic value or not, are not regarded as offensive weapons, and any civilian may carry them in public without a police officer bothering them? Was the Meiji-era Haitō edict ever officially overturned, then? And why don't I see modern-day swordsmen parading around the streets of Tokyo on a daily basis? 82.111.241.126 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Legal" and "police officers won't bother you" are two very, very different things, especially in countries like Japan.  Elmo iscariot (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: To try to be slightly more helpful, there are two reasons that "not an offensive weapon" makes more sense than it might seem.  First, "offensive weapon" is often a legal term covering specific kinds of weapons.  So a country can, for example, call handguns and switchblades "offensive weapons" which are illegal to own, while making other weapons (like katanas or, say, double barreled shotguns) less restricted.  This wouldn't necessarily mean you can carry a katana or shotgun down the street.  Second, again, there are many things that aren't illegal but that you won't see people doing on a daily basis.  In my home state of New Jersey in the US, for example, the concealed carry of handguns is effectively banned for at present, but it's perfectly legal for me to walk down the street with a rifle slung over my shoulder.  Still, I've never in my life seen anybody carrying a rifle in public here.  If anybody tried, I guarantee he'd be tackled by police and dragged through as much traumatic legal procedure as they could possibly justify.  Many legal activities simply aren't done due to public disapproval or to extrajudicial pressure from the justice system.  Elmo iscariot (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan: Katana are not offensive weapons?

message: Should:
<<As the only higher court in England and Wales is the [[House of Lords]>>
now read:
<<As the only higher court in England and Wales WAS the [[House of Lords]>>  ?
Wikdane (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK court of final appeal changes 

message: Can someone put this stuff in here? They have references, too.
http://edcforums.com/showthread.php/62117-Knife-laws-throughout-Europe?s=4ccdbca44a96a901da713c591b24d874  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.128.139 (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  some more details 

message: Referring to the final sentence:
"Swiss Army Knives with locking blades are illegal to carry in the UK and the crown prosecution service have attempted to prosecute policemen, hikers and picnickers who possess such weapons" [15][16]
I can find nothing in either reference to support this statement (i.e. that locking 'Swiss Army' knives are illegal in the UK). The statement also appears to contradict earlier wording that states that lockable blades expelled by springs, gravity assistance or 'centrifugal' force (Swiss Army knives do not operate in these ways) are illegal .  Clarification would be appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.210.170 (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: sevral sites link to this page to refer to the legality of carrying swords in public but this page isnt too specific n them, its mostly about switch blades and such. are there even any specific laws about swords? 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  swords 

message: There is a section of this article titled England and Wales but there is no mention of the law in Scotland. Is there a distinction between the law in England and Wales and the law in Scotland or should this section be called the United Kingdom?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossamauk (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  England and Wales 

message: Nothing actually defines a knife, after some searching, I found this useful document
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-462/page-3.html#h-4
part 4 defines melee weapons. 142.163.152.226 (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Weapon Laws

message: Regarding this line:
:Swiss Army Knives with locking blades are illegal to carry 'without good reason' in the UK and the crown prosecution service have attempted to prosecute policemen, hikers and picnickers who possess such items without a specific and immediate reason.[10][11]
It is true that SAKs with locking blades are illegal to carry 'without good reason' in public places in the UK (CJA S139). However, it is likely that hikers and picnickers will in many cases have "good reason" and the two citations are extremely flawed examples.
The first citation refers to a case in which the subject actually had a Buck Whittaker lock knife (not an SAK) and the police had received a report that he had threatened someone with it.
The second citation refers to a case in which the subject had a non-locking SAK in his hand luggage. It does not refer to locking SAKs as per the first line, and the issue here is carrying the knife through airport security, not a general carrying-in-public issue.
Recommend we delete from "and the crown..." unless someone objects... 86.181.225.117 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're forgetting the case of Nicholas Samengo-Turner, which is also referenced. In 2004 Samengo-Turner was in his car when he was stopped at one of London's infamous mass warrantless search checkpoints (the so-called "security zone" authorisation) and was arrested for possessing a small Swiss Army multi-tool with two short locking blades (2 15/16 inch/7.47 cm and 2 5/8 inch/6.68 cm) in the locked boot of his car.  While eventually cleared, the arrest and over-reaction by police authorities and the crown prosecutor cost Samengo-Turner a huge business deal and thousands of pounds in court costs.  The multi-tool knife was seized and destroyed.Baton Charge Racing Boss ClearedDellant (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

text: The entire section is duly referenced and accurately describes the state of the law and current law enforcement policies in the UK.  British knife laws are extensive and complex, and often place the burden on the accused to prove that he did not violate the law.  Furthermore, Parliament is not constrained by a Bill of Rights.  See the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 44, which allowed police to search citizens or foreigners without cause or even reasonable suspicion in areas designated by the government as security or crime enforcement zones.  This custom of constantly expanding the scale and scope of mass warrantless searches of the public recently brought a reproach from the European Court of Human Rights!  While Section 44 has been ruled illegal, the risk of arrest for technical knife violations (and seizures of knives on questionable grounds by HMS Customs) remains high.  If you can come up with referenced material that would provide additional insight, you are welcome to do so.  But please don't forget to substantiate your statements with valid secondary references and to sign your contributions, including the talk page.Dellant (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK on Swiss Army Knives 

message: The 1689 Bill of Rights was not made by Parliament and thus cannot be unmade by Parliament it is a Treaty between the people and The Crown this is the reason why the 1689 BOR is still published by Parliament/Government on their website as an act still in force and not repealed in any part.  	
Notice the highlighted pink text, click on the ? mark: 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction.  If this is not the LAW then what is lawful how can any person be sure of what is lawful? The members of Parliament rely on the BOR for protection from the law: 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldcomp/ldctso43.htm  Most experts on british Constitutional law say that the Crown,Government,Parliament and the Judiciary have conspired to unlawfuly disarm the law abiding British people, of course criminals do not obey the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.13.47 (talk) 19:02:17, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
*I agree with you.  But until you can come up with a dispositive court case duly referenced, this belongs on the talk page. And don't forget to sign your contributions. Dellant (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: The article talks about stringent regulations, but doesn't actually say what is permitted. OK, no swords, but what kinds of knife and where?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.24.16 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain

message: I think that Citation 72 is incorrect. It refers to United States Code, Title 15, Chapter 39, Sections 1241-1245 but I think it's actually supposed to be Chapter 29. Even though I looked at them both, I don't want to change it, just in case I'm crazy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.130.45 (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not crazy, you're correct.  , thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting a Reference? 

message: I've noticed that a lot of the commentary in the UK section seems to contain a lot of conclusions which are not warranted by the citations given. Surely this is WP:SYNTH?
I'm wondering whether the section might be best cut down to give just the basic facts of the law, and cut out the dubious commentary, which seems to be someone's opinion. The summary section could easily be dropped in my opinion. G-13114 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and synthesis in the UK section. 

message: "have broad discretion to authority to prohibit the carrying" - what is this supposed to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.161.48.249 (talk) 
:The statement in this section should probably read "... have broad discretion and authority to prohibit the carrying ..."; feel free to change it if you see fit.
:Please also, sign your additions to talk pages, and it would be helpful when asking questions about a specific statement in an article, if you'd link to the section. Thanks. fredgandt 00:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The "discretion to" word pair is removed. —ADavidB 13:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: I've just been trying to find references for the Italian section, and found nothing useful, except this at europa.eu which states that "The project is still at the development phase."
I continued on to the linked project and partly because it's written in Italian (a language I don't read) I found nothing relevent. I did find a "ROYAL DECREE" of "November 16, 1939" about the "Rules for the acceptance of flooring materials" though - so that's good -_-
This section needs to be evaluated by an expert in Italian law. My many and varied searches did turn up one article stating that "The Italian legal system is inordinately complicated and most lawyers (avvocato) and judges (giudici) are baffled by the conflicts between different laws, many dating back centuries, and EU directives serve to complicate matters further." fredgandt 04:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Carrying a knife in Italy is strictly forbidden" can't possibly be true. It's also contradicted later in the same paragraph: "unless a specific circumstance of need exists". I'm going to remove this section until we have a source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy 

message: Why is the Netherlands between France and Germany when the rest of the list is in alphabetical order?  Is there any reason for this or is it an error?  Coco Chen (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I found no valid reason and put the Netherlands section in its alphabetical position between Lithuania and Norway. —ADavidB 13:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong order 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Knife legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514111833/http://www.akti.org/news-updates/wsj.html to http://www.akti.org/news-updates/wsj.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello all, what does a phrase like "Bryan v. Mott, 62 Cr App R 71 (1976)" (see footnote #64 in the article) actually mean? I am assuming that it is a reference to a jurisprudence in the case of Bryan versus Mott in the Court of appeal in 1976, but could we have a more explicit reference and if possible a link to the source?(Bear with me, I am trying to translate this into French.) Thanks in advance for your help. Pensées de Pascal (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure notes! 

message: Can anyone here clarify the UK law on Kitchen knives?
If I purchase a knife from a shop and it is still in its packaging and I am stopped by the police on my way home, what is the likelihood of being arrested? Can I be sure that I will be treated as innocent until proven guilty in this situation?
If I am transporting a kitchen knife that I already own from one premises to another and the knife is inside a closable case or box with a latch so that it is not immediately ready to use, what is the likelihood of being arrested if I am stopped? Can I be sure that I will be treated as innocent until proven guilty in this situation?
What is the likelihood of being arrested if I use a kitchen knife to cut food at a picnic in a public park? Can I be sure that I will be treated as innocent until proven guilty in this situation?
In my view, I think that the law very much needs to be clarified in cases such as the above.95.172.233.137 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitchen Knives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Knife legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080613200414/http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5044-eng.html to http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5044-eng.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080613200414/http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5044-eng.html to http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5044-eng.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902063730/http://www.messerforum.net/initiative/pages/rechtslage-waffengesetz-und-messer.php to http://www.messerforum.net/initiative/pages/rechtslage-waffengesetz-und-messer.php
*Added  tag to https://knifeyellowpages.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111217034312/http://www.mir.es/seguridad-40/armas-y-explosivos-648/armas-prohibidas-676 to http://www.mir.es/seguridad-40/armas-y-explosivos-648/armas-prohibidas-676
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201090401/http://wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Possession_of_an_article_with_a_blade_or_point to http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Possession_of_an_article_with_a_blade_or_point
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829081415/http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/crime-justice-and-the-law/crime-prevention/knives-and-the-law.htm to http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/index/information-and-services/crime-justice-and-the-law/crime-prevention/knives-and-the-law.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928130241/http://www.arkansasheritage.com/discover/politics/oldstatehouse.aspx to http://www.arkansasheritage.com/discover/politics/oldstatehouse.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_070761
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710170131/http://edcforums.com/showthread.php/62117-Knife-laws-throughout-Europe?s=4ccdbca44a96a901da713c591b24d874 to http://edcforums.com/showthread.php/62117-Knife-laws-throughout-Europe?s=4ccdbca44a96a901da713c591b24d874
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Knife legislation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611030416/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/06/content_8116966.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/06/content_8116966.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402123630/http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/restriction-of-offensive-weapons-bill/HAN8897315 to http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/restriction-of-offensive-weapons-bill/HAN8897315
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008211214/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/10/nyc-gravity-knife-law-arrests.php?page=all to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/10/nyc-gravity-knife-law-arrests.php?page=all
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: May be out of date. I didn't check each link but the ones I saw at first glance seem to now link to the incorrect pages. Anyone else notice this?
+ Insert Pretty Signature Here + 17:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: Hey there, German passing through. The section on Germany is mostly bullshit. The sources given are correct, but either mistranslated or severely misinterpreted. I'm going to give a short summary, and leave correcting the article to somebody with better English.
"Knives classed as cutting and thrusting weapons are generally restricted to possession and use on private property, and may not be carried in public or at certain public events."
The restriction mentioned is in §42a (Called "restricted use knives" here), and is basically unenforceable. More on that below. Also, every "restricted use knife" is a "cutting and thrusting weapon" by definition - the definition for a weapon in Germany is either something intended to be used as a weapon, or something expressly mentioned in the weapons law. Carrying in public has no further restrictions in the weapons law. Carrying in gatherings does have restrictions in the "Versammlungsgesetz" (Law on gatherings), but those apply not to knives or weapons specifically like it's described here, but to anything that could be used as a weapon.
"All knives that are not illegal may be legally purchased, owned, and used by anyone on private property."
Wrong. Knives classed as  "weapons" may only be owned by people of at least 18 years of age. §2 Waffg.
"However, some knives are restricted from being carried in public, which is defined as exercising actual control of a restricted-class knife outside the home, business, or private property."
Again, wrong. They're restricted from carrying READY TO USE. The definition is in the VwVWaffg. "Actual control" is only relevant for ownership in the BGB, not for weapon laws.
"All folding knives that have a one-handed opening mechanism and can be locked with only one hand (whether automatic, assisted-opening, or manual in nature)"
Automatics are not considered "one-handed". It'd be the sensible assumption, but Anlage 2 Waffg expressly states that legal switchblades are not weapons and not subject to the weapons law. Official, non-binding sources regularly deny this thoug, and afaik there has not been a court case on it yet.
"The desire to defend oneself, or to use the knife as a tool without proof of necessity for its use is ordinarily not considered a legitimate purpose under the law."
That's outdated as of February 2021. With the revisions to §42.6, the "valid reason" was extended to include having any gun license, whether there's a concrete reason for carrying the knife or not.
Also, the law never required "proof of necessity" only a reason given. Should be obvious, since burden of proof is with the prosecution.
--2003:F6:FF09:5000:B16:6EFD:5B7F:21E (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  German knife laws 

message: Hi wikipedians,
I was reading through this article and noticed that on the section about knife laws in Bulgaria, it seems as though some Bulgarian just has written a massive paragraph in fairly-casual language with two (I think) sources where they appear to backtrack on themselves and correct what they have said without actually deleting the mistake. It reads like how a script of a conversation would look. Should probably be fixed, but I don't know enough on the topic to do so.  Meebus (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian knife laws