Supreme Judicial Court rules possessing a switchblade knife is no longer a crime under the 2nd Amendment

I think some lazy judge just wanted to get rid of the case and didn't think it through in context of 2a impact. Oh well [devil]
 
You would puke if I told you what I paid for some knives:)
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.
 
I guess I’m buying one now. My law abiding ass has avoided them like the plague.

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 :)
 
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 :)

I don't think OTFs are all that safe, or practical.
 
So 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?
 
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.

The decision itself is limited to folding pocketknives and switchblades. But it contains the following language: "Although swords and daggers were the most common bladed weapons, Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Americans also carried smaller knives with three to four inch blades that were used for self-defense, hunting, and trapping." So that at least hints that the laws against swords and daggers are in peril. But in the footnote, they cite historical decisions banning daggers, bowie knives, spears, and, yes, slungshots.

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.
 
So 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?
Write a PSA and send it to every pd to read at roll call
 
Raise your hand if you think the cash guzzling Bloomberg a** kissers on Beacon Hill are going to take this lying down. There will be a license to carry a knife, passed in the middle of the night, so now what cost you nothing to carry before, a knife and pepper spray will cost $100 punishable with 10 years in prison. They won't enforce the law because dingbat liberals are scared to death of mass incarceration of minorities who would turn on them in an election. It will framed as a constitutional crisis with deadly consequences for inaction. What did they base that decision on? By having a Netflix watch party for 'Rebel Without a Cause' and claiming that the James Dean movie represents the real world.
 
I've only skimmed the decision but they're pretty clear they're ONLY ruling on "switchblades". Unless you've read more than me, assume it doesn't apply to literally anything else. Not double edges knives, not stilletos, not nunchucks, not anything.

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.

This is well-taken, and it's why I think the significance of this on the actual stabby things in our pockets is limited. The real importance is that the SJC deigned to use historical analysis as a test, and hinted at the idea that some items are common-use (and, thus, protected) even if they're perceived as dangerous.

It's a baby step. But it's a step.
 
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...

'no officer that's a bottle opener'
 
At the very end of the opinion and order, I noticed that the SJC invoked severability and that this decision applies only to switchblades. All other instruments included under Section 10 are specifically excluded from the decision.

Which means more litigation.
 
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)...

I'm pretty sure that if what the law actually said had any weight you'd be right, in any practical sense it's clearly a typo where it should say "subsection", and the courts will apply it that way.

Otherwise, having an LTC would entitle you to have a machine gun or sawed off shotgun.
 
Back
Top Bottom