Update- Carrying of knives

  • Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.

Tengu

Full Member
Jan 10, 2006
12,780
1,517
51
Wiltshire
The shouldnt be allowed to buy one if they havent the paperwork...

...Airsoft guns and real guns are two different things, dont they understand that?
 

Sainty

Nomad
Jan 19, 2009
388
1
St Austell
I've been reading this with interest and trying to work out the best way to respond without adding fuel to an already blazing fire.

The problem with offences like this is that it is necessary to prove "intent" for certain implements to become weapons of offence. Having said that, there are weapons that are prescribed as offensive weapons under statute but that is not what we are discussing here.

So, the police will often issue a warning rather than prosecute an offence which is notoriously difficult to prove, i.e. did the person intend to use the implement to commit a crime? Note here, carrying any implement for the purpose of self defence by definition would make it a weapon of offence, defined as "...any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use."

As far as I can ascertain, the only thing that has changed, since the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, is that the CPS/Home Office has issued guidelines to police forces that they will prosecute anyone that is charged with carrying a weapon of offence and leave it for the court to decide whether or not an offence has been committed. Note, it would still be for the Crown to prove that you intended to use such an implement for the purpose stated above.

The problem here is that, unless the government passes new legislation, that would prohibit the carrying of any implement that could legitimately be carried at present, the law as it stands cannot achieve the goal of ensuring that no one takes a bladed implement into a 'public place'. As has been stated by previous posters, it is impossible for tradesmen to carry out their work without using implements that could be classed as weapons of offence; after all, as soon as the chippy 'thinks to himself' that the chisel in his pocket would be a good thing to defend himself with if someone 'has a go' at him, then that chisel becomes a weapon of offence and he has committed an offence of carrying it.

In summary, I don't see how this or any government can realistically legislate on this matter so they must use the existing law to it's fullest extent and any guidelines that have been issued would be to reassure the police forces that they will not be wasting their time in preparing cases that will not go to court.

I think that all makes sense, well it does to me anyway.

Martin
 
....I can assure you without fear of rebuke that , you cant see how these measures have not worked as they have not been in force long enough for anyone to form an evidence based opinion.....

10 years since handguns were banned - long enough to form an opinion?
Sure - it could be argued that it could not have been forseen at teh time that the ban would not work - provided you ignore a multitude of lessons from history.

Ban's do 2 things.
1. Ensure it is only criminals that have the banned item.
2. Create a lucritive black market for the banned item.

Prohibition anyone?
 

Draven

Native
Jul 8, 2006
1,530
6
34
Scotland
10 years since handguns were banned - long enough to form an opinion?
Sure - it could be argued that it could not have been forseen at teh time that the ban would not work - provided you ignore a multitude of lessons from history.

Ban's do 2 things.
1. Ensure it is only criminals that have the banned item.
2. Create a lucritive black market for the banned item.

Prohibition anyone?

Indeed. I was just reading a bit on Thomas Jefferson, and stumbled upon this. In his commonplace book, he quoted Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, in saying:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man
 
Barney - see Wanderingblade's response (#105) for my reply to the "not long enough" comment.
As for Nostradamus... granted we can't know for sure what is going to happen, but consider this.

Handguns were outlawed to prevent the circulation and prevent them being used in violent crime.
They are now (if you believe those who've said as much in this thread, and you've not disputed what they've said so I assume you do) more widespread in the criminal world than before and being used FAR more in violent crime.

So on the available evidence would you say that the handgun ban has been:
1> A complete success in reducing violent crime with handguns.
2> A marginal success in reducing violent crime with handguns.
3> Completely neutral having had no positive or negative impact on violent crime with handguns.
4> A marginal failure in that we have seen an increase in viloent crime with handguns but one not influenced by the ban.
5> A complete failure in that we have seen an increase in violent crime with handguns brought about by the ban.

Now, 1 and 2 certainly aren't the case.
3 might have been the case, but given the increase in violent crime with handguns we must rule that out too.
That leaves us either with the ban having zero positive effect whatsoever, or actually making things worse.

After over a decade, how much longer do you need to watch violent crime with handguns increase steadily starting from a falling trend pre-ban before you agree that indeed the ban has been a failure.

Once you come to realise that the ban has had no positive impact on the reduction of violent crime with handguns, and served only to alienate, marginalise and in some cases criminalise completely non-violent citizens (including our olympic pistol shooters who have to leave the country to train) you'll see exactly why I, and others object not only to the utterly absurd handgun laws in this country but also to any suggestion that a licencing system or any further restriction on the ownership, use and carry of sharp tools.

History has shown us time and again that such bans are either ineffective or damaging. There's no nostradamus prediction going on here... he looked at the past and said "it will happen again" (he worked on the "history repeats itself" principle) - I (and others) look at history and try to learn from its mistakes.
Albert Einstein said:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


As for the "people like you" comment - it was meant as a general collective term for people who argue that "if it saves just one life" when every shred of evidence we have from the whole of history is that banning any tool, object (or indeed weapon) to reduce crime fails to achieve it.
The only thing it achieves is, at best, the alienation, criminalisation and marginalisation of everyday citizens.
At worst it achieves the victimisation and sometimes even complete abuse and in worst case massacre of the same.


Those who refuse to learn from history and are intent to follow the same nonsensical and ineffective paths in the name of the utterly fictional "just one life saved" are, in my mind, almost as guilty as the person wielding the murder weapon, as it is exactly that approach which allows those predators who arm themselves in spite of laws and prey on the innocent unchecked.
If you learn from history and put it into practice, you make the predator's job more difficult and remove any possible accusation of complicity.

I'm going to stop here as this is a wide open door for stepping into the whole self defence argument, and that's a door I'm not about to walk through as too many people on this board finr the topic strangely uncomfortable.

Apologies for any offence I might have cause with the "people like you" comment, it was not intended.

I'm not always right, I don't have to be right, I just argue very hard when it's something I care about and have this habit of pouncing on things that sound sensible on the surface but are actually mistaken, misleading and in some cases, downright dangerous and ignorant of history.


Anyway - enough for tonight.




Draven - Thanks for the Jefferson quote. I actually need to get around to reading some of his work - from the scraps I've seen so far it strikes me that he was the kind of politician/leader we are in dire need of today.
 
D

Deleted dude 7861

Guest
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear........I feel like I'm back in playschool I'm sorry nanny I won't do anything unless you tell me it's ok to do so first :( How can anyone possibly call this a free country?? The only way to solve problems is by the root cause, knives aren't the problem and haven't been so for thousands of years. Knee-jerk law and media wars are ruining (have ruined) this country, it's about time it was run by grown-ups again......... :-\

I just ........I just.......... I haven't got any argument left really for all this......... but deep huge sighs of despair :(:(

I must go fill up my house of knives, lovely sharp knives mwaaaaahahahahaha leave me alone leave me to all my knives <cackle> I don't need the outside world anymore :rolleyes::rolleyes:

:sulkoff:
 
Mattk
We've not been a free country for donkeys years.
America nearly was, but they've fallen somewhat too.

Such a shame. If it wasn't for the shower that are in charge here and all the problems they cause (for example high crime is their fault for a host of reasons) this wouldn't be far from being the perfect place to live.

Well, I'm personally short of proper alpine mountains here, but I could live with that if things were more sensible.

Up the revolution! ;)
 

Chinkapin

Settler
Jan 5, 2009
746
1
83
Kansas USA
As someone who lives in another country, these knife laws seem really odious. It is absolutely none of my business, and I would be the first to admit to that. However, just based on what I have read here, they seem to cause great consternation with the public. They interfere with what was an absolute right of free men, that was observed for centuries, as far as I can tell. They are vague. (What is "offensive", and who said so?) The burden of proof is on the citizen and not on the state where it should be. I believe that this is a violation of a principle of English Common Law. But to me, as a detached observer, who has "no dog in this fight", the strangest thing of all is: that in the numerous threads that I have read on this web site about knife laws, not one single person suggested "throwing the rascals out." In other words, vote the people and there offensive laws out of office. Just my opinions and observations, which along with $4.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
 

widu13

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Feb 9, 2008
2,334
19
Ubique Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt
As someone who lives in another country, these knife laws seem really odious. It is absolutely none of my business, and I would be the first to admit to that. However, just based on what I have read here, they seem to cause great consternation with the public. They interfere with what was an absolute right of free men, that was observed for centuries, as far as I can tell. They are vague. (What is "offensive", and who said so?) The burden of proof is on the citizen and not on the state where it should be. I believe that this is a violation of a principle of English Common Law. But to me, as a detached observer, who has "no dog in this fight", the strangest thing of all is: that in the numerous threads that I have read on this web site about knife laws, not one single person suggested "throwing the rascals out." In other words, vote the people and there offensive laws out of office. Just my opinions and observations, which along with $4.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Because many people don't vote then whinge about it. I personally believe that whichever MAINSTREAM party gets in that they are all the smae but I attempt to vote wisely (never seem to be on the winning party though!). Those that I really believe will make a difference just don't get the votes as often they are too radical. I tend not to waste my vote by voting for a compromise.
 
It's useful to have someone who has good knowledge of these laws offering comment.
But here's the thing (and it's something you didn't really address in the above post) - in your experience, do you think the average bushcrafter, on public land, is likely to be charged for knife offences if apprehended by a police officer? Let's assume they are away from the public (but still on public land) - deep in the woods - with other camping/bushcrafting paraphernalia - that is, obviously out in the countryside needing the knife for a purpose, keep the item out of the way when not in use (e.g. back in the pack, though not necessarily at the bottom - after all, it may be needed again. But out of sight and put away nonetheless). That is, the item is obviously being used in context.
Do you think a charge would be brought in this scenario?
I, for one, would appreciate the comments of someone who 'knows'.
May sound a tad arrogant, but if you have no real knowledge or experience of the law relating to knives then could you please NOT respond to this post. Only those who know the law, or maybe a serving police officer etc, please respond. THat way it avoids ambiguity and we get feedback from those 'in the know'. If you do respond could you please qualify your qualifications for responding. I only say this to avoid the opinionated.


Having researched the law relating to knives extensively, I feel I can answer your question.
Firstly, there is no such thing as openly public land. Every square metre is owned by someone (Crown, Forestry Commission etc). Let's assume that you are on Dartmoor (owned privately and leased to the nation and run by the National Parks Authority). You would need authority (let's face it, that's not going to happen). Then you would need 'good reason'. Is spoon carving a good reason? I can't answer that! You as the potential defendent have to prove that you cannot do your carving anywhere else where the public aren't around. In my opinion, you would have to be reported in this instance. The police don't wonder around seemingly empty woodland looking for hermit-like spoon carvers. Would you be able to prove good reason - quite probably. It's like taking a knife to cut fishing line when you go fishing. A crook knife is a spoon carving tool. A legal knife (see posts above) for a public area is okay. Stick within those confines and you 'should' be okay.

There is a This List with regards to authority. A policeman should ask the following:

Has THIS person got permission
To use THIS article
For THIS use
On THIS land
By THIS land owner.

If “No” applies to any of the above an arrest will be imminent. You then have to prove good reason.

At the Wilderness Gathering we suggested that the Moots that a lot of people go to should collect some money to buy pockets of woodland. This would mean you have somewhere to go all over the country. My advice is - stay away from public land.

I hope this has helped. There are nuances in the law. What is 'good reason'? Are hobbies 'good reason'. I would suggest that now (Feb 09) they still are, but may not be for long is lots of bushcrafters are caught in public woods with knives that aren't.
 

widu13

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Feb 9, 2008
2,334
19
Ubique Quo Fas Et Gloria Ducunt
Having researched the law relating to knives extensively, I feel I can answer your question.
Firstly, there is no such thing as openly public land. Every square metre is owned by someone (Crown, Forestry Commission etc). Let's assume that you are on Dartmoor (owned privately and leased to the nation and run by the National Parks Authority). You would need authority (let's face it, that's not going to happen). Then you would need 'good reason'. Is spoon carving a good reason? I can't answer that! You as the potential defendent have to prove that you cannot do your carving anywhere else where the public aren't around. In my opinion, you would have to be reported in this instance. The police don't wonder around seemingly empty woodland looking for hermit-like spoon carvers. Would you be able to prove good reason - quite probably. It's like taking a knife to cut fishing line when you go fishing. A crook knife is a spoon carving tool. A legal knife (see posts above) for a public area is okay. Stick within those confines and you 'should' be okay.

There is a This List with regards to authority. A policeman should ask the following:

Has THIS person got permission
To use THIS article
For THIS use
On THIS land
By THIS land owner.

If “No” applies to any of the above an arrest will be imminent. You then have to prove good reason.

At the Wilderness Gathering we suggested that the Moots that a lot of people go to should collect some money to buy pockets of woodland. This would mean you have somewhere to go all over the country. My advice is - stay away from public land.

I hope this has helped. There are nuances in the law. What is 'good reason'? Are hobbies 'good reason'. I would suggest that now (Feb 09) they still are, but may not be for long is lots of bushcrafters are caught in public woods with knives that aren't.


You've gotten it wrapped around your head matey- a little too literal. You don't need to have "permission" to use sharps nor does being on privately owned land stop you from being in "public"

You have to have good reason or LAWFUL authority (not permission), such as the police having batons in the case of offensive weapons. Public place is anything to which the public have access whether or not on payment, and of course other places well established in case law.

It's a minefield (they're unlawful;) ). The over riding thing is good reason or lawful authority. Like it or not being civil to the copper will go a long way too, even if they're being a dick!
 

Simon

Nomad
Jul 22, 2004
360
0
59
Addington, Surrey
You have to have good reason or LAWFUL authority (not permission), such as the police having batons in the case of offensive weapons.!

What LAWFUL authority do the police have? ;)

The over riding thing is good reason or lawful authority.

Define Good Reason and Lawful Authority. What does it mean? Where does it come from? who has the power to give it? Or say that it exists?

:Thinkingo
 

harryhaller

Settler
Dec 3, 2008
530
0
Bruxelles, Belgium
I don't consider my pockets or rucksack a "public place".

The law treats citizens as people with criminal intent.

The thing more outrageous than this law, is the way the public allows itself to be punished for crimes done by others, by having its freedom taken away.

Rights have to be fought for and defended - that is something we have never done in the UK. Shame on us.

I live abroad, not far away, and everytime I return to the UK. I'm angry about by these laws and the fear in the public which allows politicians to get away with this stuff.

So, I live on the other side of the channel where I am more free. Sad ain't it?
 

nickg

Settler
May 4, 2005
890
5
69
Chatham
For me the part that bites is the fact that we now are no longer protected by the fundament of British justice that I am innocent of a crime unless proven guilty. I am now guilty of having an 'offensive weapon' simply because i have a particular 'tool' about my person regardless of any demonstration on my part of intent to employ that 'tool' in any manner that could be construed as 'offensive'.
'If we can save one life'?
OK so we ban knives 'in case' someone is attacked. Do we then ban the recreational use of cars (is it one person per hour killed or seroiusly injured by cars in Birtain?) just in case someone feels like driving into a bus queue? Do we make it illegal to carry inflammable liquids in a can 'in case' somebody feels like committing arson, where does it stop?, I have a penis - am i now to be castrated 'in case' I decide to rape someone??

Im no legal expert but I understand that there has always been a principle that a crime has to have been evidenced to have been committed before someone may be required to defend themselves in law. This is now gone. Now it is simply enough that an authority may claim that someone has the potential to commit a crime for them to be called to account for it.
Its all wrong - I should be answerable for the crimes that I have committed - not the ones that i might commit (it is not a crime to have a knife yet)

Widu13 you are dead right Sapper.
 

Melonfish

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Jan 8, 2009
2,460
1
Warrington, UK
I don't consider my pockets or rucksack a "public place".

The law treats citizens as people with criminal intent.

The thing more outrageous than this law, is the way the public allows itself to be punished for crimes done by others, by having its freedom taken away.

Rights have to be fought for and defended - that is something we have never done in the UK. Shame on us.

I live abroad, not far away, and everytime I return to the UK. I'm angry about by these laws and the fear in the public which allows politicians to get away with this stuff.

So, I live on the other side of the channel where I am more free. Sad ain't it?


stiff upper lip is now wobbly bottom lip and rights? well lets face it we have none like you say the average citizen is deemed criminal purely by being somewhere nowdays and all in the name of protecting the whole?
where's the common sense gone? where's the traditions gone? all wiped out by the PC bubble wrap brigade and their namby pamby scare mongering zealots.
will i vote next election? honestly i don't see a point no matter which gov't party is in they harm us further anyway. if i could somehow get the message out so that simply no one voted at the next general that would be the ultimate protest, proof we've really lost faith in the parties.

5 year plan is already in, we're off to another country at the end of 5 and although i'll be very very sad to go i know its the only way i can live with myself (if that is after 5 years its legal for me to leave)
pete
 

harryhaller

Settler
Dec 3, 2008
530
0
Bruxelles, Belgium
You are spot on, nickg. Anything can be used as a weapon.

It's like the difference between a tarp and a tent. A tent is something specifically designed and made as a shelter while a tarp - or tarpaulin - is a piece of textile that can be used in a variety of ways as a fly sheet, ground sheet, windbreak, sleeping bag shell etc.

One of the rules of martial arts is that anything can be used as a weapon, starting with the body, the hands, fingers, feet etc. and on to things like bottles, pencils etc.

It is the intent that counts - guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Yet the irony is that someone who has committed a violent crime only get their "privileges" revoked temporarily, while 60 million citizens who have not committed any violent crime get their "privileges" revoked permanently.

I use the word "privilege" to underline that as UK citizens we have no "rights", just revokable privileges - unlike others we have no constitution defining our rights.
 

BorderReiver

Full Member
Mar 31, 2004
2,693
16
Norfolk U.K.
Just to cheer us up even more; it is now illegal to TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF A POLICEMAN.

Dame Stella Rimington is right on the button.

Proud to be british? :dunno: :sadwavey:
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE