General Categories > Laws and Legislation

knife laws

(1/2) > >>

depserv:
It seems like I heard or read awhile back that the Nebraska Supreme Court decided that a knife doesn't have to be over 3 1/2" long to be classified as a weapon, even though that number is given in the written law.  Is this true or did I hear wrong? 

Dalamar:
Probably heard wrong, 3.5" is the magic number http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/nebraska-supreme-court-what-s-in-your-pocket-may-put/article_971d9981-9b9e-579f-a53b-8d3e532fa4ab.html

I don't think it's prohibited to open carry long knives and swords though, unless it's a local law.

But they would get you for having it in the car /facepalm.

Dan W:
Hastings has a 3 inch limit on the books

depserv:
By my reading of Nebraska edict size doesn't matter 

"28-1201 Terms, defined. For purposes of sections 28-1201 to 28-1212, unless the context otherwise requires:
(4) Knife shall mean any dagger, dirk, knife, or stiletto with a blade over three and one-half inches in length or any other dangerous instrument capable of inflicting cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds;"

This phrase: "any other dangerous instrument capable of inflicting cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds" covers a lot. Notice the 3 1/2" applies to the first clause but not the second, since that clause follow the word or.

If I was on the Court I would say that the second clause makes the magical 3 1/2" length meaningless.  I remember reading in books on forensics pathology about targets as deep as the descending aorta being cut with a 2" blade.  This is because a knife thrust is commonly also part of a punch, and tissue is compressed under it.  And realistically, how deep into the brain does a screwdriver blade have to penetrate to be lethal?

The point to this is that it really isn't the nature of an object that matters, it's how it's used.  If it is not used in the commission of a crime, citizens in America have a legal right to have it and carry it, even concealed (keep and bear in other words).  Especially if they have a concealed carry permit.  Whether it is used in the commission of a crime, or just being carried by a law-abiding citizen minding his own business, does it really matter if the blade is 3 1/2" instead of 3 7/16"?

I'm sorry to say it, but the Nebraska legislature is a bunch of clowns.

Atrus:
I'm not an attorney and this is pretty old, but . . .

STATE v. BOTTOLFSON, Decided: May 12, 2000
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ne-supreme-court/1071291.html

"The definition of knife found in § 28-1201(4) can be divided into two phrases. The first phrase is “any dagger, dirk, knife, or stiletto with a blade over three and one-half inches in length.” Penal statutes are given a sensible construction in the context of the object sought to be accomplished, the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied, and the purpose sought to be served. . . .  It is obvious that the Legislature, in enacting § 28-1201(4), did not intend that any knife be a “per se” deadly weapon under § 28-1205. We determine that the Legislature intended the words “with a blade over three and one-half inches” to apply to daggers, dirks, knives, and stilettos, such that any of these items having blades over 3 1/2 inches are “knives” under § 28-1201(4). We further determine that the Legislature, in enacting the first phrase of § 28-1201(4), designated certain items (daggers, dirks, knives, or stilettos with blades over 3 1/2 inches) as knives per se. In other words, the named items in the first phrase of § 28-1201(4) are automatically considered to be knives for purposes of § 28-1205(1), and the State does not have to prove that these items are dangerous instruments capable of inflicting cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds.

The second phrase of § 28-1201(4) contains the language “any other dangerous instrument capable of inflicting cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds.”  This phrase refers to instruments other than those specifically mentioned in the first phrase of the definition of knife. We determine that when a case involves an instrument not specifically named in § 28-1201(4), the Legislature intended that the State should bear the burden of proving that the instrument is a dangerous instrument capable of inflicting cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds, and thus is a “knife” for purposes of § 28-1205(1). In other words, the question of whether an instrument that is not specifically mentioned in the statute is a knife is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact.

We conclude that the knife in this case does not fall under the first phrase of the statutory definition of knife found in 28-1201 because it did not have a blade over 3 1/2 inches. Thus, it was not a knife per se under the definition. However, the knife in this case may fall under the second phrase of the statutory definition of knife, but this is up to the State to prove and the trier of fact to decide. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the use of a weapon to commit a felony charge against Bottolfson."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page