Reasons for carrying a knife (in the UK).......

[Draven]

hmm...
I think this is my first post in this thread... if not, just give me a jab
Anyhoo, here's my 2p worth...
Knive's ain't the problem - people are. If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll do it. A ban on knives won't make the slightest bit of difference. As was mentioned, a screwdriver can be used to kill someone. A bottle can be used to kill someone. A rock can be used to kill someone, a pillow can be used to kill someone! And for the record, as a seventeen year old, I have a much easier time buying screwdrivers, bottles and pillows than I do knives. I mean just last month I got ID'd by a guy I've known since I was six years old :bluThinki
I carry around a knife wherever I go - nowadays it's just a SAK knockoff (lost my last SAK and haven't gotten around to replacing it) but it used to be a lock knife daily, since I was aged about six years old (honestly!). I guess I started using knives when I was young because of where I lived - rural area, everyone had a knife. Several of my friends dads worked on the fishfarms, we all went fishing and camping, so we all carried knives. I continued to carry a knife when we moved to rough towns - got in fights, got beaten up, but I never drew a knife, whether to scare someone away or to defend myself. Certainly never to attack. Though I did have one or two drawn on me, but I was lucky enough that the guys that held them either didn't have the stomach or didn't have the stupidity to do me any damage.

Maybe I'm just lucky that I had a father that taught me proper knife usage, and that I learned to see at as a tool long before I even considered its use as a weapon. And I do think that's a big part of it. When people teach that knives are tools rather than weapons, others will start to see them that way. People obviously see screwdrivers as tools, people see beer bottles as containers. If someone asked you to rattle off weapons, a screwdriver would be low on the list, a knife and a gun would probably be first and second.

My point is, people should see knives for what they are; insanely useful, but obviously dangerous if used incorrectly. Exactly the same goes for just about every other tool.

Ban knife sales for anyone under eighteen, by all means... ban fixed-blade knives in public places without reasonable excuse, that doesn't bother me either. But banning them altogether? Sheer nonsense, and a prime example of the government, once again, totally overstepping their mark.

And just a sidenote on the knife amnesty: If someone wants their knife for protection or to kill someone, they ain't gonna hand it in. They imply on the advertisements that by keeping a knife, you're destroying lives... Does that mean because I own, and use responsibly, numerous knives, I'm going to kill someone? Pfft! Sorry, stuff like that just annoys me.

 

[snag68]

....for a superb thread, containing some excellent pieces of advice and information.

Because of my job and the hobbies I do, I get asked this sort of question all the time. Invariably you get the 'what if?' questions after every answer you give.

The reason for my post is the congratulate Martyn on his answers - probably the best and most 'easy to understand' explanations of knife carry laws and the way they are interpreted by the police.

Martyn if you don't mind I'll direct people to this thread when I'm asked similar questions on other forums I frequent.

Thanks again, Dazz

 

[crazydave]

if a copper stops you then you can ask to see in his pockets as you will probably find a gerber or leatherman in there - what does he need that for? cutting seatbelts on crashed cars - good thats whats mines for as well - amazing coincidence

anyone remember the fuss on numchaku - more people die from claw hammers and carving knives than hunting or combat knives.

its like gun crime - they took all the guns away and gun crime went up - make it illegal then it becomes a fashion accessory

I think the american right to bear arms has its uses sometimes.

 

[Draven]

its like gun crime - they took all the guns away and gun crime went up - make it illegal then it becomes a fashion accessory

I concur... at least when things like guns & knives are legal to buy, the gov can regulate them to an extent. When they're illegal, the people who sell them make double or more money, only "bad" people will get a hold of them and there's no control whatsoever...

 

[Martyn]

Martyn if you don't mind I'll direct people to this thread when I'm asked similar questions on other forums I frequent.

Thanks again, Dazz

Well thank you.

By all means direct people here, or ...if it's purely a knife law related question, then all that has been said here, is repeated in greater depth on the law forums at britishblades.

http://www.britishblades.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=39

 

[Martyn]

if a copper stops you then you can ask to see in his pockets as you will probably find a gerber or leatherman in there - what does he need that for? cutting seatbelts on crashed cars - good thats whats mines for as well - amazing coincidence

That's a good point. Police officers are bound by the same laws as the rest of us.

However, it's worth considering that the people you need to convince are the CPS and magistrates. At the end of the day, it doesnt really matter what you think, it matters what they think.

Does a police officer think he will be able to convince the CPS/magistrates that him carrying a leatherman for RTA extractions is a good reason? If he does, then he will probably crack on. But he is taking the same chances you would be. He might think his job and resulting frequent exposure to such situations as RTA's, is justification enough. He would have to convince the CPS of that.

Do you think the CPS/magistrates would believe you for using the same reason? If so, then crack on too. But like the police officer, you also have to convince the CPS that your regular exposure to such situations as RTA's and emergencies counts as good justification. If you are a paramedic for example, or a doctor, nurse, firefighter, St john, RNLI, mountain rescue worket etc, or anyone with a compelling professional obligation to assist, then I would think that reason would hold water well. If not, then I would consider it an excuse. But I'm not a JP, so what I think doesnt matter.

It's up to you to decide what you think is a good reason for carry and up to the magistrates to decide if they agree with you. If they think you are having a giraffe, they loose nothing, but you loose 2 years. On the other hand, if you can convince them that your regular expose to RTA's justifies the carry, there should be no issues.

What is a good reason for one man, is not an excuse for another. A good reason gets you sent on your way, an excuse gets you locked up.

 

[chewie]

if a copper stops you then you can ask to see in his pockets as you will probably find a gerber or leatherman in there - what does he need that for? cutting seatbelts on crashed cars - good thats whats mines for as well - amazing coincidence

anyone remember the fuss on numchaku - more people die from claw hammers and carving knives than hunting or combat knives.

its like gun crime - they took all the guns away and gun crime went up - make it illegal then it becomes a fashion accessory

I think the american right to bear arms has its uses sometimes.

Not sure I'd recommend this approach.

Yes, probably 50% of uniformed coppers of my acquaintance carry a multi-tool, some of which lock, some of which don't. This goes up to near 100% for traffic officers and search teams. If asked, they would say that it is for use at work [s139(5a) CJA88].... the uniform being corroborative, and the unending list of uses [seat belts, ligatures, fixing door frames after the big key, running repairs, cutting plasticuffs, vehicle exams, dismantling stuff for searching voids etc.] being a little more than those on offer to anyone trying the 'you've got one, so I can too' approach. Try that with an extendible baton.... or an MP5....

Also, there is a bit about 'lawful authority' you have forgotten. Police officers have lawful authority to possess all sorts of stuff in the execution of their duty. Knives, guns, drugs, neutron bombs, anything really. You wouldn't expect them to nick a villain for possessing something illegal, then hand themselves in to the custody sergeant for having it in their possession subsequently, would you?

Your reasonable excuse has got to be for your circumstances at the time. 'Just in case I need it' does not hack it under normal circumstances - get a Juice model if that is the best you can do, it's s139-legal.

That being said, unless you are a complete tool [pun intended], doing something or going somewhere you shouldn't, multitools tend to attract a good deal of discretion - you just cannot guarantee it.

 

[sharp88]

Wallpaper knives and stanley knives seem to be the most popular criminal weapons nowadays, nevermind a fallkniven F1.

 

[cgait]

To be honest if I am carrying a knife it is for the sole purpose of bushcraft......if I am carrying a knife otherwise then i have no reason.......what you must remember is that a knife is a tool and at the end of the day you wouldn't carry a power drill down the street in your back pocket so why do you carry a knife if your not going to use it for a specific use................sorry if this offends anyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong please .

Craig

 

[pierre girard]

Hmm, I realy don't want to start anything, but this whole tread is realy interesting. Here is my stance. Someone used gun to kill inocent people, Ok goverment will ban the guns to protect general population. Some idiot switches to knigfe, in his wrongdoing, and goverment will ban knives looking tactical, or anything beside kitchen, and small pencil sharpening knife. Whats next.. Scredrivers suddenly becae incrisingly popular, and in order to win next election, politicians will make agenda on banning srewdrivers, and amazingly happy genaral population will vote for them again..

But whats next, after they are robbed of their screwdrivers, criminals found new means of molesting population. Belive it or not, a ceramic tile. Belive me, ceramic tile can be wery dangerous in hands of anybody, so lets forbid ceramic tiles.. They can be produced and used, but people puting them in houses will go through special checkups, and police will spend a lott of money organizing ceramic tiles transports..

Of course on one late friday, some drunk boys will start fight with gl;*** bear bbottles.. General population, do you know how bear bottle is dangerous. Or even better, any glass object. So lets change glass with safe PET bottles.. What aboput keys, they also can be dangerous.. Ouch a nasty ballpoint pen, lets alow general population just soft tip pens, or even better calc one..

And in a fight if you push someone, it can fall and hurt himself on sharp corner of the furniture.. Well, new elections are close, lets forbid all furniture with hard, sharp corners.. That way we will much safer lives. And of course, with just a little propaganda, we won a new elections.

So at the end, what will be result.. Anything hard removed, even coconuts forbiden, you know how dangerous man with a coconut can be.. Life is wery safe in padded rooms, and we are feed through IV, because anything else can be used by some maniac as a weapon..

Joke aside, I don't like where this world goes.. I am livinhg in a country where I saw a full range of goverment capatibilites in opressing general population, and camming down in anyone thinking oposite. Some of you know that I live in Serbia, a Serbia which did a therrible things to other, but which was represented only from one side. There were a lott of us completly against Milosevic, I was first time beaten by the police in 1990, in front of state TV, just because I protested against first signs of the war and lack of democracy.. And that terror continued for next 10 years, and lott of my friends finished dead, in therrible wars in which they were pushed against their will, just because we didn't had any mean to confront Milosevic..

But after Milosevic is gone, our weapons laws become much more restrictive, depriving normal people of any means of defending in some surcomstances.. Of course someone can say, Milosevic is gone, but who can guarantee that we wont elect some new Milosevic one day.. Or that something like that can't happen in France, or Gerany, or Uk.. Remember even Hitler came to power on elections..


Here is old German story, perfectly ilustrating what I am trying to say.. It is told by German democrat which survived Ausvic in WWII..


Everything I experienced in my life simply teached me that line should be drawn somewhere.. Or our children will realy live in padded rooms..

I hope that this isn't too political, but thats what I feel about that. If someone wants to discuss time under Miloosevic, I don't have to hide anything, and we can do that, but this is not a tread for that.. Could do that in apropriate forum..

Thans to all reading this.

Bogdan

Found this in Wikipedia. I find it odd that the US "right to bear arms" is derived from English Common Law:

"United States of America
The right to keep and bear arms did not originate fully-formed in the Bill of Rights in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment was the codification of the six centuries old responsibility to keep and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the Assize of Arms of 1181 which occurred during the reign of Henry II. Through being codified in the United States Constitution, the common law right was continued and guaranteed for the People, and statutory law enacted subsequently by Congress cannot extinguish the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution Provides for unenumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms and the right to have arms for defense.
Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated "... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment--the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions." [8]

Akhil Reed Amar similarly notes in the Yale Law Journal, April 1992, Page 1193, the basis of Common Law for the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution, "following John Randolph Tucker's famous oral argument in the 1887 Chicago anarchist case, Spies v. Illinois":

Though originally the first ten Amendments were adopted as limitations on Federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights -- common law rights -- of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as citizen of the United States...[9]

[edit]
An individual or collective right?
The right to bear arms in United States is best understood as a collective and/or an individual right. In Federalist paper 46, [10]James Madison, argued for the position that the common citizen should be armed to counter the potential threat of a Federal Army during the negotiations and drafting of the Bill of Rights. During the negotiations some expressed a great deal of concern that the new Federal military could become a serious threat to liberty in the future. [11] He also contrasts the United States with the governments of Europe by loathing the prohibition of keeping arms in those nations “… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison

Madison is often regarded as the father of the Bill of Rights, though the Bill of Rights was a compromise achieved through negotiations during the First Congress of the United States.

[edit]
A state or individual right?
“Individual rights” proponents maintain that: The “state’s rights” view of bearing arms only became known in the late 20th century motivated by a desire for stricter gun control laws. Also that, the right to bear arms is currently and has historically always been practiced as an individual right.

James Madison, a noted Federalist, makes clear his understanding that the power of bearing arms belongs to the people not the state: “… still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.” States are forbidden in the U.S. Constitution from keeping troops independent from the Federal government but must rely on citizen militias for their defense.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #29 [12], states the importance of citizens bearing arms. Much of the debate in Federalist Paper #29 centers around how much power the government should have in regulating the militias. The Federalists position concluded that the state governments should have access to select, well-trained, militias so that the need to keep a standing army would be diminished. Today, the National Guard often serves much of this function. Federalists argued that at the same time, the whole body of citizenry (the unorganized militia) would be bearing arms to offset the concerns that even the state militias could become a danger to liberty. Anti-Federalists believed otherwise.

Hamilton concludes that “This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

Ultimately, Federalists and Anti-Federalists negotiated their differences during the First Congress with the resulting compromise becoming the Bill of Rights."

 

[chewie]

Craig, I'm sure you won't offend anyone.

In essence, what you say is in actual fact what the spirit of the law is all about. You are not prohibited from carrying any knife, axe, parang etc. other than autos, balisongs and other 'designed' weapons - you just need to have a good reason for doing so. The lawmakers did recognise that a folding pocket knife with a blade shorter than 3" - the ubiquitous Swiss Army knife, or the more recent Leatherman - was useful on a daily basis and specifically permitted carrying such an item 'just in case' rather than requiring a specific reason. This was refined by caselaw to allow only non-locking blades.

What s139CJA88 means is that a villain found with a kitchen knife down his sock now has to explain it satisfactorily, whereas before s139 police had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had the kitchen knife with the intent of using it as a weapon - and unless threats were made, this intent was very difficult to prove. s139CJA88 is preventative legislation that should be of little concern to honest, decent folk, and certainly doesn't stop you carrying a compliant pocket knife if you wish.

 

[chewie]

Hi Pierre,

Over here, knives [with the exception of autos, balisongs etc] are regarded as tools, not as weapons, so the right to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to the possession of a knife.

The UK used to have the right to bear arms. We also used torture on a regular basis, had capital punishment, 'hanging, drawing and quartering', slavery, colonial conquest, transportation of felons, flogging, burning and drowning of witches, putting heads of executed felons on spikes, letting the bodies of executed highwaymen rot in iron cages at crossroads to discourage others, feudal society etc etc. We have taken many centuries to develop to where we are, and while I don't like all the developments, compared to most of the world we are not doing badly.

Our countries share many things in addition to language and common law - both are democracies, and in both cases firearms legislation represents the will of the majority [or should do.] Keeping and bearing arms are two different things - we have the right to keep firearms, subject to a police check to ensure that the applicant is free from criminal conviction and mental disorder, and that the firearms will be suitably secured. Unlike the US, we do not have the right to bear arms, but you must remember that even our police are unarmed. We are a crowded little country with a population density 10 times that of yours, no true wilderness, no bears, and very little gun crime in comparison to the US.

America decides her own rules, and if she feels that firearms legislation drafted in 1789, in the time of powder, ball and musket, is still relevant to modern automatic weapons and .5" sniper rifles, so be it. I am glad we don't.

 

[Toddy]

Chewie, that sums it up *so* well , and puts the issue in perspective.

Cheers,
Toddy

 

[Martyn]

Hi Pierre,

Over here, knives [with the exception of autos, balisongs etc] are regarded as tools, not as weapons, so the right to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to the possession of a knife.

The UK used to have the right to bear arms. We also used torture on a regular basis, had capital punishment, 'hanging, drawing and quartering', slavery, colonial conquest, transportation of felons, flogging, burning and drowning of witches, putting heads of executed felons on spikes, letting the bodies of executed highwaymen rot in iron cages at crossroads to discourage others, feudal society etc etc. We have taken many centuries to develop to where we are, and while I don't like all the developments, compared to most of the world we are not doing badly.

Our countries share many things in addition to language and common law - both are democracies, and in both cases firearms legislation represents the will of the majority [or should do.] Keeping and bearing arms are two different things - we have the right to keep firearms, subject to a police check to ensure that the applicant is free from criminal conviction and mental disorder, and that the firearms will be suitably secured. Unlike the US, we do not have the right to bear arms, but you must remember that even our police are unarmed. We are a crowded little country with a population density 10 times that of yours, no true wilderness, no bears, and very little gun crime in comparison to the US.

America decides her own rules, and if she feels that firearms legislation drafted in 1789, in the time of powder, ball and musket, is still relevant to modern automatic weapons and .5" sniper rifles, so be it. I am glad we don't.

Very well said Chewie.

 

[sploing]

On the subject of police officers carrying leathermen and gerber rescue knives. |I personally carry a leatherman on duty because as mentioned I am frequently exposed to RTA's etc. I have been given a real rollocking for carrying it by one of my superiors whilst another one suggested i buy it. I have personally caught plenty of people carrying knives but given the area I work in (one of the scummier bits of manchester) have never shown any leniency, this is firstly because the people I usually end up searching are guilty of something before I find the knife and secondly because they always lie to me. My advice is to carry a reasonable knife if you HAVE to, if you are stopped and asked about it, be honest from the outset, tell whoever it is that you have the knife and give them your reasons. Leniency is oe of our greatest powers but I do have to admit that it is slowly being taken away by the courts. hope this helps

 

[bogflogger]

I am sorry Sploing, but under both PACE and the CJA 1988 S.139- 4-5 you CAN legitamately carry a non locking folding knife with a 3" (75mm) blade, irrespective of wether the area is "scummy" or not.

Please give the facts, rather than your interpretation of what the Law is.

 

[scanker]

Well if we're sticking to facts, that's 3" not 3 1/2".

I presumed Sploing was talking about locking knives as he gave the example of a leatherman, and then went on to talk about "reasonable".

I'm sure he'll clarify, but I also think if a suspect is guilty of something else, the knife might well then become classed as an offensive weapon, irrespective of length and locking ability.

Edit after finding a quote from Danzo on BB:

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 means that, although a sub 3" slipjoint is technically legal under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, you can be arrested and charged if the arresting officer believes you carried the knife as a weapon. This would then have to be decided in court.

 

[bogflogger]

I am sorry Scanker, the issue here is that someone who is claiming to be a Police Officer, is stating that you need to have a reason to carry a S.139 Legal knife, regardless of other circumstances.

This is incorrect, you do NOT have to justify carrying a S.139 Legal knife.

If you are searched or arrested for something else, then this is a different matter and a Police Officer can (quite rightly) arrest you for possession of an offensive weapon.

To claim that you have to have a reason to carry a S.139 Legal knife is misinfomation.

 

[scanker]

I agree.

But I don't think he claimed you need a reason to carry a S.139 legal knife. I've read and re-read his post. I personally think the advice of being honest and explaining your reasons is good advice.

From the items I've read in various places, it does appear that some coppers and plenty of security staff are unaware or unsure of the law in this area. If you're searched (which I admit I have never been) I think you're better being open, honest and pleasant, rather than stating "It's legal under S139 CJA. Why aren't you doing something useful like catching burglars?" and putting their back up.

Let's wait for Sploing to clarify his post, rather than debating our own interpretations further.

 

[Wayland]

A really nice welcome to a new member Bogflogger. :togo:

I think Sploing was offering his personal take on a hot topic. Given his position it is interesting to hear his view because as he is in my area it may well be someone like him that I eventually have to deal with.

{Sploing, if you are reading this I'm the Viking from post #15}

I do not see anywhere that he said he was talking about a sub 3" folder. I think perhaps an apology is in order.