If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
$300 for a knife is budget, wait till you see the $1k+ OTF’s. Some ridiculous ones are $3k+.BTW, I am floored by how much quality knives cost nowadays. 2-300 bucks a knife is budget handgun territory.
I’ve bought some nice knives 10+ years ago, paid what I considered good money then. It just seems to me that the knife/gun price ratio has gone way up in the last ten years. I wouldn’t pay the kind of money for same/similar knives today.You would puke if I told you what I paid for some knives![]()
I guess I’m buying one now. My law abiding ass has avoided them like the plague.
$300 for a knife is budget, wait till you see the $1k+ OTF’s. Some ridiculous ones are $3k+.
They have only ever been illegal to carry, never illegal to own in MA.
They are nothing but fidget toys to me, even if I could legally carry one I wouldn't, just don't trust an auto in my pocket ..Besides, I can deploy a flipper just as fast as an OTF![]()
Maybe thats the intention. State needs money.The comments on that article in the daily worker are pretty crazy. All request some form of licensure or curbs on the carrying of knives. Otherwise they believe there will be more stabbings.
Titanium and carbon fiber with superconductor inserts!You can get a really good knife right around $300. Spending a lot more than that gets you into Gucci territory IMO. You're paying for fancy features, materials, and brand name.
Seems like this would also cover double edge...
so we can finally carry swords again? is "the police" aware of this yet?![]()
I’m gonna start carrying my push knife.
Write a PSA and send it to every pd to read at roll callSo how does this actually work...judge says ok and one of us will need to get arrested or have one confiscated to have the ruling be more widespread? How is everyone actually supposed to find out about new laws/ rulings unless they are chasing this stuff down?
What would you recommend? My Benchmade OTF misfires about 10% of the time.You can get a really good knife right around $300. Spending a lot more than that gets you into Gucci territory IMO. You're paying for fancy features, materials, and brand name.
My Microtech ultratech works every timeWhat would you recommend? My Benchmade OTF misfires about 10% of the time.
What would you recommend? My Benchmade OTF misfires about 10% of the time.
You live too close to Canton to safely sue the policeCan I sue if arrested, you know that old saying...
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse..."
Can it apply to cops/departments not knowing the law? (I know, wishful thinking)
$300 for a knife is budget, wait till you see the $1k+ OTF’s. Some ridiculous ones are $3k+.
Even better, it looks like it applies to everything under chapter 269, section 10 BSeems like this would also cover double edge...
As such, § 10 (b) is invalidated only with respectto the prohibitions regarding switchblade knives.
When combined with previous lower court rulings, it gets really weird. At least one court ruled that only a folding knife counted as a dirk, but any weapon designed primarily for stabbing was a dagger.
So while it's wonderful to see the SJC taking Bruen seriously, it's going to take more cases or legislative action to figure out the legality of carrying a sword or larger knife.
I used the Wave as designed on my Delica.
But whether the Wave was faster than using a different kind of lock doesn't mean anything when it comes to legal or illegal. The question is simply whether it has "a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position". A Delica Wave does have such a device. A button lock or Axis lock does not. The law doesn't say "knives which can be deployed faster than X" are illegal.
Now whether your typical Officer Barney Fife would recognize what the Wave hook does and try to jam someone up on it is a different question as well...
What I find interesting about Chapter 269 SECTION 10 is the following language (bolding is mine)
"No person having in effect a license to carry firearms for any purpose, issued under section one hundred and thirty-one or section one hundred and thirty-one F of chapter one hundred and forty shall be deemed to be in violation of this section."
So anyone with a LTC is exempt from this entire section. In practice they seem to have tried to limit this to (a) where this verbage exists. But SECTION means this entire section, not just subsection (a). Two paragraphs later it says
"The provisions of this subsection shall not affect the licensing requirements of section one hundred and twenty-nine C of chapter one hundred and forty which require every person not otherwise duly licensed or exempted to have been issued a firearms identification card in order to possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun in his residence or place of business."
This clearly only impacts subsection (a).
Really curious how this happens that they try and limit the LTC exemption to just (a)...