NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
Gear & Equipment => Knives and cutting tools => Topic started by: wcr on May 07, 2016, 02:07:49 PM
-
If you still have your copy of today's May 7, 2016 Omaha World Herald. There is an interesting article on knife size and the NE Supreme court - bottom page 1 and continued on page 2. Check it out. Summary from the Supreme Court size matters in determining if a knife is a deadly weapon. It also said "whether you had criminal intent matters little." How many of you guys go fishing with a fillet knife in the tackle box with a blade over 3.5 inches. What if granny goes to the local cooking store and buys a knife for those Omaha Steaks for next weeks cookout and gets pulled over for a bad break light on the way home. She now has a concealed deadly weapon in the bag on the front seat next to her. Poor granny missed the picnic she's in the big house.
-
Just read the article and it seems that the Supreme Court is telling the Unicameral to go back and review the law as it needs to re-address the length AND intent not just length without saying it outright.
-
Just read the article and it seems that the Supreme Court is telling the Unicameral to go back and review the law as it needs to re-address the length AND intent not just length without saying it outright.
Do you have a source for this?
-
Do you have a source for this?
If a Supreme Court is unanimous on anything that pretty much means we need to change the law rather than challenging it in court and hoping they will interpret favorably.
-
If a Supreme Court is unanimous on anything that pretty much means we need to change the law rather than challenging it in court and hoping they will interpret favorably.
I understand the principle...I was asking if he had a source for stating the Supreme Court has in fact told the unicameral to revisit the law. I ask this because I read the courts response and summary and didn't get the feeling at all that they felt the law should be revisited.
-
I understand the principle...I was asking if he had a source for stating the Supreme Court has in fact told the unicameral to revisit the law. I ask this because I read the courts response and summary and didn't get the feeling at all that they felt the law should be revisited.
First of all, no where in my statement did I say that the Supreme Court said that this needed to be revisited. I said it SEEMS like that, which indicates opinion, not fact. I am basing that on the end of the article which reads, and I quote:
In an opinion written by Judge John Wright, the court seemed to suggest that the Legislature should once again consider revisiting the language defining a knife as a dangerous weapon.
“We decline to comment on the rationale for the legislative amendment that defines all knives with blades longer than 3½ inches as a deadly weapon per se for purposes of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon,” Wright wrote for the court. “That is the province of the Legislature.”
That sure sounds like they would like the Legislature to revisit the law. By starting with "We decline to comment on the rationale..." and ending with “That is the province of the Legislature.” they come across as saying that they understand the intent of the law, but it is written differently than the intent and the Legislature should fix this, but without saying it.
Much like my wife saying, "It should would be nice if our lawn was cut and the trash was taken out by someone." or "Ya know, I have had this old diamond ring for a long time. What do you supposed new ones are like now?" Subtlety, it's as concept used on men for years.
-
I agree with Mali (and the article). The Court essentially said, the Legislature wrote the statute this way and the language of the statute is clear. If the Legislature did not intend for a knife with a blade over 3.5" to be a deadly weapon, regardless of the intent with which it is carried, then it needs to change the statute as that is not the duty of the Court.
-
The law does need to change. As it is, if the officer deems it that you have a knife concealed, and you are a CHP (aka NE CCW), they can revoke your carry credentials.
:(
-
The law does need to change. As it is, if the officer deems it that you have a knife concealed, and you are a CHP (aka NE CCW), they can revoke your carry credentials.
:(
Thats why the CHP needs to be changed to a CWP...
-
As soon as someone figures out how to get it passed Uncle Ernie (Senator Chambers)
Then it can happen
-
Thats why the CHP needs to be changed to a CWP...
True!
As soon as someone figures out how to get it passed Uncle Ernie (Senator Chambers)
Then it can happen
Well then .. let's work on that .. ;)
-
If some senator would propose a bill re-attempting LB289, modifying as needed to also clean up the patchwork quilt of laws we're stuck with now like this knife thing, I think my democrat senator in dist. 29 would support it.
The nanny state leftists are quick to use the term "common sense" but we need to turn the tables and commandeer that term back where it belongs. We have common sense on our side. All they have is shrill emotion. The hodge podge of laws we have now are not common sense and do not withstand objective scrutiny in terms of answering the question "Did that law actually do anything, or did it just create a criminal out of an innocent person, all so some liberals can feel warm and fuzzy?"
If my wife is currently a criminal when she's driving home from Williams Sonoma with some new Wüsthof kitchen cutlery, yeah I can use that talking point to garner support from my senator. Fixing that stupidity is truly "common sense".
-
tag
-
If you are discussing this with your state senator or whoever in politics you might
mention the state uses a 3.5 inch, but Hastings has an ordinance that says 3.0 inches.
So everyone who drives through Hastings is in violation of their city codee if they
have a knife over 3.0 inches. I guess they expect everyone carrying a pocket knife to
check the ordinances for every town in Nebraska they will drive through each time
they drive. We need one standard state wide that can not be superseded at a lower political
level. Then if you know the state law you are covered anywhere in the state.
Hastings City Code 21-101.
-
We need one standard state wide that can not be superseded at a lower political
level. Then if you know the state law you are covered anywhere in the state.
Surely that point would be a positive factor for most any NE State Senator: One Law, Entire State of Nebraska.
FWIW,
sfg