Martyn said:
Probably less than you might think.
1: Streamlight battonlight
You may get away with this by arguing that it's just a torch, but if the cop was switched on (pardon the pun) and knew that it is basically a kubaton with a bulb and batteries, you may get lifted for it being a prohibeted article under section 141 (f) of
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, which states...
...although a smart lawyer may argue that the absence of spikes means the batonlight is not a kubaton under the strict wording of the act.
A streamlight batonlight is not a
hollow kubotan, so it is not covered by the above legislation. If the officer recognises it for what it is however, a martial arts weapon [i.e. a kubotan] with a torch in the end - it falls straight in to s1 Prevention of Crimes Act 1953 as a 'made' offensive weapon. My experience of kubotans would suggest that they are so ineffective [unless the operator is so highly trained as to be a right handful with or without the little stick] that advice is the most likely result of finding one, unless the holder is a villain. However, as with all exercise of police discretion, you cannot rely on this as an outcome,
5 minutes on Google gives you all the evidence you need of what it is.
[1] [2] [3]
My suggestion would be stick to proper torches, and if you fear violence so much that you wish to take precautions against attack, join a martial arts club and learn something like aikido or jiu jitsu [Krav Maga has been recommended as a quick fix but I've not seen that one in action. I've seen jiu jitsu used when necessary and was hugely impressed.]
Martyn said:
2: Gerber Applegate/Fairbaine Covert locking folder.
It's not explicitly illegal to carry this, but you muct have a "good reason" to carry it, which probably precludes it's carry as a casual EDC.
Absolutely, and you should also consider the fact that most UK coppers will look at it and think 'nasty' - not what I'd choose to carry unless I had a very good, justifiable, proveable reason. It does not look very bushcrafty or gentlemanly, and would raise eyebrows anywhere - I would say it's a no-no for the city.
Martyn said:
You could be nicked for carrying an offensive weapon, for almost anything in your pocket ...but the cops would need to show that you had intent to use an item as a weapon.. The battonlight is a "designed for the job" weapon, which may be enough to establish intent, though it's uncertain ground. Some may argue that they were not aware of it's function as a weapon (it is a bit niche), and just thought it was a slimline torch. A good lawyer would probably run far with that.
Monadnock used to give Kubotan key-rings away to police officers at police shows [before most forces settled on ASP batons], so I am reliably informed that the majority of them know what a kubotan is. With a name like
BatonLite, I would not rely too much on lawyers.
Martyn said:
Other than that, I really cant see anything else illegal in your pockets. The 2 items I've mentioned aren't explicitly illegal, but would require some thought before carrying.
The Okapi
Locking folder would also require a reason, but at least it looks less tactical / combat / nick-me-please.
Martyn said:
It's not as draconian as the debates would lead you to believe. The problem is, that very few people have a genuinely good grasp of the law in this country, what it allows and what it doesnt. So there is a lot of misconception and passionate debate around points that are sometimes wide of the mark.
But the real problem, is while not all that many things are explicitly illegal, there are no explicit guarantees of legality either - it's this latter point which I've noticed always seems to be the major nub of irritation. People (understandably) want black and white guarantees of legality, which simply dont exist, because out laws are based around intent, context and circumstances. You can have two individuals with the same contents in their pockets and one would be legal, the other illegal, based on context alone. That makes understanding the law a helluva lot more complicated. Ironically, it also makes enforcing the law more complex too. Many of our laws allow the police officer to use their discretion. If they feel the context is uncertain, then they may arrest. This is what worries people. To be absolutely certain you wont ever be arrested, you would have to never carry any knife at all. Other than that, you are at the mercy of the discretion of a police officer. We all have bad hair days, including cops and while an arrest for a contextually legal/illegal item, might not get past the desk sergant, it would certainly spoil your day.
It's a good tool for the police, but it isnt so good for the public.
This is all correct, including the fact that not all police officers are perfect, but I would disagree that it is a bad tool for the public.
The simple fact is that a right given freely to all, is a right given freely to a violent child rapist with 18 previous convictions for stabbing people. Hyperbole, but you get the drift. Discretion is the tool given to police officers to moderate how the law is applied - courts have the options of conditional and absolute discharges for the same purpose. Without it, either the criminals get to carry a dagger without question and only get arrested if they use it, or there would be a blanket ban [I have carried a pocket knife since age 12 and am too old to get used to being without it.]
I'd look at it as the 'least worst option.'
Martyn said:
Chewie, on an aside, I've read most of the transcripts for the Harris ruling and more recently, Deegan v Regina. In the latter, the judge conceeded quite plainly that "Harris" was not in the "spirit" of section 139 (though he upheld the ruling). Section 139 was never written to outlaw locking knives at all. I think at the time of writing, the fact that a locking folder could be deemed a fixed blade for legal purposes by a judge at some later date, never even entered the minds of those who drafted the law. I think while the Harris ruling is here to stay, many people feel that our legal system is enforcing a misrepresentation of the spirit and intent of the original act - something which has been conceeded by the high court itself, but is now caught in a political loop. I know there are checks and balances, but I think people feel that "Harris" is an example of how the checks and balances failed.
When section 139 was compiled, the 3" rule was written in to protect people's ability to carry a folding knife "just because I feel like it". It made no attempt at distinguishing between locking and non locking (although lock knives were commonplace at the time). The Harris ruling is a corruption of this intent, that has passed into law and stands as a good example of how the system can fail the people. Yes, I know it's been tried at higher courts since, but judges rarely overule each other and when they do, it's usually in the face of political duress. There is no political duress to overturn Harris, so it probably wont ever get overturned. It's slipped in via the back door.
The Harris ruling means I cant carry a Leatherman Wave without explicitly having a good reason. Ironically, they are such usefull tools simply to have in your pocket, I think most reasonable people would consider this restriction a bit crazy. In fact I would go as far as to say, the Leatherman Wave is exactly the kind of tool that the 3" rule was written to protect.
Just food for thought.
Agreed. Haven't found any laws that say Judges must make sense, unfortunately.
I remember swapping to a non-locking swiss army knife when this came about. My leatherman charge stays at home unless I have good reason for it, and I usually use a Juice from day to day [the Pro / XE6 is a touch heavy, I quite like the CS4, but I digress...] I also remember Cops getting beaten up at Poll Tax Riots, even though the Police reviled Poll Tax because it cost each and every one of them thousands of pounds a year [part of the police pay package included an allowance for 'Rates' - in changing its name to Poll Tax the government also took away that element of police salary that covered rates, so in effect they paid twice], and the wholesale closure of police pistol shooting clubs post-Dunblane.
The police only enforce it, they don't write it, and sometimes these changes in law mean that they as individuals have to change what they do outside of work, just like everyone else does. After all, we all know that it is far easier to stab someone with a locking blade than with one that folds and might take the attacker's fingers off. The police are not the enemy, they are the public just like the rest of us, and although we may not always agree with an individual choice in exercising [or not] their discretion, we should also all remember that some people genuinely do not think carriage of any knife should be allowed.
Where the balance lies is a political question, and I'd stay with the discretion over a blanket ban any day.
Personally, I think the legislation is about right at the moment.
If there was to be a media-frenzy-generated governmental knee-jerk, I'd like to see a graduated ban on the possession of knives for persons who have been convicted of crimes, as there is with firearms. The more serious the crimes for which you have been convicted, the longer the ban. [Before the flame wars begin, we aren't talking about parking tickets and the like - we are talking about significant offences.]
If you get convicted for stabbing someone, you get banned for life from carrying a knife, on top of whatever other too-lenient sentence you might get.
This way, upstanding citizens are not affected - criminals lose the freedom to carry a knife, but they should not have broken the law previously. I do get a bit fed up with citizens being ever-more restricted in response to the actions of criminals - let's target the criminals specifically.
RGRBOX said:
By the way, what is the law concerning Pepper Spray in the UK?
CS/CN//OC sprays [and electric stun guns] are all prohibited weapons by virtue of s5 Firearms Act 1968 [item capable of discharging a noxious substance or other thing]. Possession is an indictable offence, you WILL get arrested if found in possession of it, no real chance of discretion here. Leave it at home, do not bring it to the UK.
jamesraykenney said:
The difference is that to be charged with 'assault with a deadly weapon' you actually have to commit an assault...
Indeed, but to charge for 'possessing an offensive weapon' for an improvised weapon you need to prove intent - so the culprit would either need to have used it, or threatened to use it, or have admitted intending to use it. I think we'd all agree that our two nations are poles apart on weapons legislation. The point I was trying to make is most jurisdictions legislate for the use of innocuous items as weapons - even the U.S.!
jamesraykenney said:
I would probably weigh 2 lbs. less If I had to strip down to make myself legal in Briton.
If I had that lot in my pockets, I think a pair of industrial braces would be on my every-day list [I believe they are called suspenders in the US - which are very different things here
], or the most likely thing to be arrested for is indecent exposure as gravity takes effect!!!
