View Full Version : Pocket Knives the next targer of the Obama administration...
http://www.kniferights.org/U%20S%20Customs%20Proposed%20Ruling%20-%20Assisted%20Opening%20Knives.pdf
The link is a proposed ruling from US Customs which would affect any American who carries a pocket knife on a regular basis. I carry a knife almost wherever I go and study a blade-impacted martial art, so this would affect me a great deal.
Those of you who have not already joined Knife Rights, I would strongly encourage you to do so along with the Tenth Amendment Center, NRA, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
The introduction to what I wrote covers assisted opening blades but there is language later which addresses any knife which could be opened with one hand. So your spyderco or other blades that have an opening hole or stud would be affected as well. In addition, depending on how the ruling is interpreted, any blade which has the potential to be opened with one hand, even those which are not designed for it could be included.
The_War_Wagon
05-31-09, 17:21
They can pry my pocketknife, Whittlin' Chip, and Eagle medal, from my cold dead hands... :mad:
SeriousStudent
05-31-09, 18:26
OMG, what is next?
Banning pointed sticks and harsh language?
Look to the UK for our proposed future... not pretty.
Maybe one day Barry The Kenyan will finally piss off enough folks and they'll wake up, send him and his ilk packing. They can start with the midterms and send him a clear message with a huge number of RATs in Congress getting their walking papers, then Barry The Kenyan becoming a one termer, destine to the history books...
:mad:
If they don't then screw'em they deserve exactly what they get, socialism here we come!
Gutshot John
05-31-09, 19:03
The link is a proposed ruling from US Customs which would affect any American who carries a pocket knife on a regular basis.
I think you should re-read or at least clarify what sections you are talking about because the proposed change in revoking the letters does not refer to "any American" who carries a blade.
According to my reading, the revocation of the letters in question refer only to importation/commercial distribution of knives across international borders meaning manufacturers/distributors.
If you travel overseas this MIGHT affect you when you return, but otherwise is irrelevant for day-to-day use of a knife.
I read it too. This affects the commercial importation of automatic knives. The particular section of Customs law involved, 19 C.F.R. section 12.95(a), was written in 1971. If you have a problem with it, blame Nixon; not Obama.
Jiminy cricket guys, Obama does not give damn about your pocket knives. He is not micro-managing US Customs/ATF at that level of decison making. The guy has plenty of problems as it is without messing around making bureaucratic policy adjustments. Yeah, he has made some mistakes but I can't pin this one on him.
I think you should re-read or at least clarify what sections you are talking about because the proposed change in revoking the letters does not refer to "any American" who carries a blade.
According to my reading, the revocation of the letters in question refer only to importation/commercial distribution of knives across international borders meaning manufacturers/distributors.
If you travel overseas this MIGHT affect you when you return, but otherwise is irrelevant for day-to-day use of a knife.
Customs' interpretation of the "Federal Switchblade Act" as originally written forms the basis for national, state and even local law and was often cited during the formation and re-visitation of those laws. In addition, the same act and Customs' interpretation has been used as precedent in many judicial rulings in regard to the interpretation of those national, state, and local laws. If you think it cannot be used to change how things are run here at home, I think you are in for a surprise in the not so distant future.
Brings to mind a case in Virginia many years ago where a guy was locked up for possession of a 'switchblade' when what he had (in the back of his car no less, not even on his person) was a Buck 110 with a backspring which had become loose with age and use. They twisted the definition of the law to apply to his knife.
This recent move is an end around that is designed to go unnoticed by the public at large, just like the CIFTA treaty that is currently being discussed about gun registration. It can affect you, and it certainly would if enacted.
Gutshot John
05-31-09, 20:40
Customs' interpretation of the "Federal Switchblade Act" forms the basis for national, state and even local law and is often cited during the formation and re-visitation of those laws.
Nope. Familiarize yourself with federal regulation vs. federal law.
Oh boy...now we are going into knives...
I will say that after seeing the aberration that has become England and having Obama elected president nothing will surprise me 10 years from now. Or even one year I suppose.
Nope. Familiarize yourself with federal regulation vs. federal law.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. You are certainly free to hold your own opinion.
However, I am going to go with the lawyers who study this for Knife Rights, and the two J.D.'s I work with who I played golf with today.
In addition, I think you should take a look at the history following the enactment of the Swithblade Act. Within a few years, most states had used the law banning importation to usher in a ban of such knives in their states. The law also banned interstate commerce relating to such knives which effectively killed the last few companies who made them in the United States. Below is an excerpt from "The History of the Federal Switchblade Act"...
AUGUST 12, 1958, a date that has faded into obscurity, the
Congress of the United States enacted Public Law 85-623, an
"act to prohibit the introduction, or manufacture for
introduction, into interstate commerce of switchblade knives,
and for other purposes," and sent it on to President
Eisenhower for his signature. Under this act, "The term
'switchblade knife' meant any knife having a blade which
opens automatically --
(1) by hand pressure applied to a button or other device in
the handle of the knife, or
(2) by operation of inertia, gravity, or both."
The maximum penalty for each violation of this law was a
$2,000 fine and five years in jail.
It is not within the constitutional authority of the United
States to ban manufacture or possession of a class of item,
although the individual states have almost unlimited
authority to do so. What the federal government may do,
according to Article I, Section VIII, Clause 3 of the
Constitution, is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
Using the authority of this "Interstate Commerce" clause,
Congress did the very next thing to banning switchblade
knives.
In 1958 only two American companies still made
switchblades: Imperial and Colonial. Both were then in
Providence, Rhode Island, and so telling them that they could
not make switchblades for sale in interstate commerce was
effectively the same as telling them not to make switchblades
at all.
Up until 1954, Schrade-Walden in upstate New York had been
the leading manufacturer of switchblades. That year the state
of New York had banned their manufacture and sale, so
Imperial, the parent company of Schrade-Walden, had taken
over the firm's switchblade production.
The George Schrade Knife Co. of Connecticut had also been a
major domestic supplier of switchblades. This firm was sold
to Boker of New Jersey in 1956 (George Schrade had died in
1940). However both New Jersey and Connecticut banned
switchblades shortly after New York had done so, and thus
only the two Providence firms were still in the switchblade
business in 1958.
THE DEBATES
The debate in Congress over the bills to ban switchblades
from interstate congress (in 1958 there were four versions in
the House and one in the Senate) had the surreal quality
inevitable when immoral men put on a public show of enforcing
morality. As in the present debate over "assault" rifles,
Congressmen, media tycoons, and big-city police chiefs
indulged in hysterical fits of fabricated sensationalism.
Faced with this onslaught in 1958, most reasonable men kept
silent and went along, out of fear of being labeled "pro-
criminal." Even the National Rifle Association knuckled
under, then still believing in the power of appeasement.
To its credit, the Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA)
spoke out against the proposed ban, recognizing it both as
unreasonable in itself, and as setting a dangerous precedent
for additional bans. IWLA Conservation Director J. W. Penfold
wrote, "Many of our State divisions and local chapters have
firmly resisted State or municipal legislation which would
restrict ownership and use of sporting arms in efforts to
control the ownership of weapons by thugs. Generally I
believe our membership does not believe that such legislation
would achieve its objective but would hinder and thwart the
law-abiding citizens in his use of arms for sporting
purposes..."
Not surprisingly, supporters of the ban later quoted a few
lines of Penfold's letter out of context, in order to convey
the false impression that the IWLA supported the ban.
New York State Senator Frank J. Pino of Brooklyn had a glib
rebuttal for the sportsman angle. He testified, "Actually,
these knives are, I would say inherently dangerous, they have
only one purpose. They are just deadly. They are lethal
weapons, and they are suited for crime, that is all they are
suited for. So that the sportsmen really have nothing
substantial to complain about. But they do complain. It is an
emotional thing with them, somehow.
"I know we have had their complaints, too, in connection
with a bill which I have had in the legislature to limit the
sale of ammunition in the city of New York...
"This is a problem that we have in all of the big cities.
And it is a question of weighing the conveniences of a group
against the welfare and the health and the lives of many,
many people. That is all it is."
No, Senator Pino, it is a question of rights versus
tyranny. Your arguments are the same ones used to justify
concentration camps. They "inconvenience" a group, to promote
the "welfare" of the tyrannical majority.
WORDS OF WISDOM
The only prominent public agencies with the courage to
oppose the anti-switchblade measure were the two that would
be charged with enforcing it: the Department of Justice and
the Department of Commerce. They argued that the measure
would be both costly to the government and burdensome to law-
abiding citizens, yet it would accomplish no useful purpose.
Moreover, it would extend the powers of the federal
government into areas that had hitherto been the exclusive
domain of the states. They were joined in their opposition by
the Bureau of the Budget.
Deputy Attorney General William P. Rogers wrote, "The
Department of Justice is unable to recommend enactment of
this legislation.
"The committee may wish to consider whether the problem to
which this legislation is addressed is one properly within
the police powers of the various States. As you know, Federal
law now prohibits the interstate transportation of certain
inherently dangerous articles such as dynamite and
nitroglycerin on carriers also transporting passengers. The
instant measures would extend the doctrine upon which such
prohibitions are based by prohibiting the transportation of a
single item which is not inherently dangerous but requires
the introduction of a wrongful human element to make it so.
"Switchblade knives in the hands of criminals are, of
course, potentially dangerous weapons. However, since they
serve useful and even essential purposes in the hands of
persons such as sportsmen, shipping clerks, and others
engaged in lawful pursuits, the committee may deem it
preferable that they be regulated at the State rather than
the Federal level."
Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks wrote, "The general
intent of these legislative proposals appears to be to
improve crime prevention by control of the use of the
switchblade knife as a weapon of assault. This approach gives
rise to certain objections. One is that, at best, it is an
indirect approach which addresses itself to only one of many
implements useable by an assailant. This casts doubt upon the
resulting effectiveness in the reduction of crime in relation
to its enforcement problems...
"While this proposed legislation recognizes that there are
legitimate uses that have need for switchblade knives, the
exemptions would appear to assume that the most significant
of these uses lie in Government activities. To us, this
ignores the needs of those who derive and augment their
livelihood from the 'outdoor' pursuits of hunting, fishing,
trapping, and of the country's sportsmen, and many others. In
our opinion there are sufficient of these that their needs
must be considered."
The Department of Defense, by contrast, pusillanimously
endorsed the ban, but only on condition that it be declared
exempt itself. It was, as were all other local, state, and
federal government agencies.
THE CRUSADERS
Oddly, most of the backers of the anti-switchblade bills
agreed with Secretary Weeks that prohibiting switchblades
would accomplish little in the way of curtailing crime. They
readily admitted that their measure was largely symbolic.
Being politicians, however, they knew that empty but highly
visible symbolic acts garner far more votes than low-profile
but effective reforms. They also knew that it was politically
safer to criminalize the actions of a couple of small
manufacturers, rather than to punish the juvenile delinquency
of the children of some of their constituents.
The most persistent advocate of a switchblade ban was
Representative James J. Delaney of New York City, author of
the first federal anti-switchblade bill back in 1954. That
first effort never made it out of committee.
In his testimony before the House commerce committee on
April 17, 1958, Delaney stated, "Every day our newspapers
report numerous muggings and attacks, most of them involving
knives. Can we sit by complacently and ignore the bloodshed
in our streets? Doing away with switchblades will not be a
cure-all for the crime wave sweeping the Nation, but it will
remove one of the favorite weapons of our juvenile and
criminal element.
"... it was not until about 1949 or 1950 that these things
came into common usage. In the gathering of juvenile gangs
and clans, nearly every one of them has a switchblade. It is
a ritual with some of them to carry switchblades. It is not
only the boys, but I was surprised to find that a great
number of the girls carry them also."
Congressman Delaney's mind was made up, so it probably
would have been pointless to confuse him with the facts.
Switchblades came into common use in the United States, not
around 1950 as he stated, but around 1850. After the turn of
the century, thanks to the inventive genius of George Schrade
(and the "protection" of the Tariff Acts of 1891 and 1897),
American made switchblades of all sizes became popular and
commonplace.
Another backer of the ban had an even more creative view of
history than Delaney. U.S. Senator Frederick G. Payne of
Maine asked a witness, "Isn't it true that that type of
knife, switchblade knife, in its several different forms, was
developed, actually, abroad, and was developed by the so-
called scum, if you want to call it, or the group who are
always involved in crime?" The witness, New York State
Justice John E. Cone, co-founder of the Committee to Ban
Teen-Age Weapons, enthusiastically agreed.
The most outspoken proponent of a ban chose a sexual
metaphor to express his anxieties. Representative Sidney R.
Yates of Illinois testified, "Vicious fantasies of
omnipotence, idolatry... barbaric and sadistic atrocities,
and monstrous violations of accepted values spring from the
cult of the weapon and the switchblade knife is included in
this.
"Minus switchblade knives and the distorted feeling of
power they beget -- power that is swaggering, reckless, and
itching to express itself in violence -- our delinquent
adolescents would be shorn of one of their most potent means
of incitement to crime."
WHICH KIND OF REPUBLIC?
So how could the United States of America, the land of the
free and the home of the brave, have sunk so low as to submit
to these demagogues, to feel obligated to "save" its citizens
from an everyday item sold here regularly for the past
hundred years, and in common use for the past fifty? The
answer can be found in the most basic philosophical
underpinnings of our country.
From its establishment in 1789, the American republic
itself, as well as its promises of Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness, have meant different things to
different of its citizens. The most important of these
differences can be traced to two fundamentally different and
largely irreconcilable philosophical outlooks.
Two centuries ago, these differences were widely recognized
and understood, because they very nearly prevented the
Constitutional Convention from reaching any conclusion at
all. Today the differences are just as deep, and just as
pervasive, but most of us tend to see them only in regard to
specific contemporary issues, rather than as more general
matters of philosophy. The conflicts over such divisive
issues as abortion, gun control, drug prohibition,
affirmative action, environmental protection, and industrial
policy can never be settled by reasoned debate, because the
adherents to each side of these issues do not share a common
philosophy. Instead the resolution of these issues will be
dictated, unsatisfactorily to all, by the naked exercise of
political power: the tyranny of popular or Congressional
majorities inflamed by media hysteria, or the arbitrary
absolutism of the courts.
The two irreconcilable views of the nature of our republic
that underlie these issues today have been a part of the
republic since the beginning. A clear exposition of these two
views is set forth by University of Alabama professor Forrest
McDonald in his 1985 book, Novus Ordo Seclorum, The
Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. On pages 70-74 he
explains the differences between what he calls puritanical
republicanism, on the one hand, and agrarian republicanism,
on the other. First, however, he elucidates their common
ground.
He says that in a true republic, a system of "rule by the
public," the vital principle is public virtue (from virtus,
manly strength). In Professor McDonald's words, public virtue
"entailed firmness, courage, endurance, industry, frugal
living, strength, and above all, unremitting devotion to the
weal of the public's corporate self, the community of
virtuous men. It was at once individualistic and communal:
individualistic in that no member of the public could be
dependent upon any other and still be reckoned a member of
the public; communal in that every man gave himself totally
to the good of the public as a whole. If public virtue
declined, the republic declined, and if it declined too far,
the republic died.
"Philosophical historians had worked out a regular life
cycle, or more properly death cycle, of republics. Manhood
gave way to effeminacy, republican liberty to licentiousness.
Licentiousness, in turn, degenerated into anarchy, and
anarchy inevitably led to tyranny." Thus far did the two
republican philosophies agree.
"What distinguished puritanical republicanism from the
agrarian variety was that the former sought a moral solution
to the problem of the mortality of republics (make better
people), whereas the latter believed in a socioeconomic-
political solution (make better arrangements).
"Almost nothing was outside the purview of puritanical
republican government, for every matter that might in any way
contribute to strengthening or weakening the virtue of the
public was a thing of concern to the public -- a res publica
-- and it was subject to regulation by the public. [Puritan]
Republican liberty was totalitarian: one was free to to do
that, and only that, which was in the interest of the public,
the liberty of the individual being subsumed in the freedom
or independence of his political community."
This totalitarian view of a fragile and tottering republic,
one that would be undermined by the slightest private
indiscretion, one that could only be preserved by an
aggressive policing of every individual's private morality in
every minute particular, predominated in Puritan New England,
especially Massachusetts. It also found favor in the areas of
the South, especially parts of Virginia, where the
evangelical Great Awakening took hold. Most southerners,
however, adhered to the agrarian view of republicanism.
In the agrarian view, again quoting McDonald, "Virtue meant
manliness, and manliness meant independence... the
necessary independence could be had only if a man owned
enough land, unencumbered by debts or other obligations, to
provide himself and his family with all their material needs;
and this independence... was in the last analysis measured
by his ability to bear arms and use them in his own
quarrels... In sum, ownership of the land begat independence,
independence begat virtue, and virtue begat republican
liberty... In the southern scheme of things, private virtue,
in the rigorous sense in which it was defined by the Yankees,
was unnecessary to the maintenance of republican liberty. The
arch agrarian John Taylor of Caroline [1753-1824] put it
succinctly: 'The more a nation depends for its liberty on the
qualities of individuals, the less likely it is to retain it.
By expecting public good from private virtue, we expose
ourselves to public evils from private vices.'"
If Taylor were to return today, he would nod sagely at our
drug "crisis" and say, "end the prohibition and you will end
the crisis." The puritans among us (currently a majority,
especially in the mass media) would gasp with horror, and
predict the imminent demise of our republic.
McDonald continues, "Agrarian republicanism was therefore
essentially negative in the focus of its militance: it
demanded vigilance only in regard to certain kinds of men and
institutions which, as its adherents viewed history, had
proved inimical or fatal to liberty... standing armies,
priests, bishops, aristocrats, luxury, excises, speculators,
jobbers, paper shufflers, monopolists, bloodsuckers, and
monocrats..."
Agrarian republicans, in theory anyway, viewed their
republic as well-founded and durable. The puritan view of a
fragile and tottering republic baffled them. Private
morality, or a lack thereof, simply had no effect on an
agrarian republic's overall vitality. The only kind of
behavior that could endanger their republic was a calculated
self-serving attack on one of its fundamental institutions:
private property, equality before the law, free markets, the
right to keep and bear arms.
Puritan republicans, by contrast, view every sin, indeed
every temptation to sin, as dire threats to their republic.
Their response in every case is simple and direct. First ban
the sin. Then, just to be on the safe side, ban the
temptation, too.
This is not at all a left-versus-right issue. Militant
puritans dominate the extremes on both sides. Those on the
right who would ban abortion and those on the left who would
ban hand guns both aspire to a puritan police state that will
regulate the behavior of their neighbors and themselves --
although puritan leaders often exempt themselves from their
own rules.
An agrarian, by contrast, might say, "if you oppose
abortion, don't have one; if you oppose hand guns, don't own
one; if you oppose drugs, don't use them. He is willing to
live and let live, unless someone attacks him or his
republic.
PHILOSOPHY IN PRACTICE
In the 1950s, America's puritan republican zeal, ever
watchful for temptation and sin, turned its basilisk gaze on
to pocketknives. The 1950s, a time of happy nostalgia for
people too young to remember the decade, saw the almost
unchallenged dominance of the puritan outlook. That was a
time when the fortunes of the agrarian viewpoint had fallen
so low that hardly a single public figure North or South
dared to espouse it.
There is a fascinating double standard in puritanism, an
unwritten rule that the enforcers of private morality are
exempt from its strictures. This applies equally to private
life (such as J. Edgar Hoover's homosexuality or John F.
Kennedy's adultery) and to public pronouncements. Today the
proponents of "assault" rifle and hand gun bans simply make
up their statistics (see my letter citing examples in the
October 1989 American Rifleman, page 18), and their
predecessors did the same thing about switchblades in the
1950s.
As early as 1953, Representative Delaney "made a 1-man
review and addressed inquiries to the police heads of some 40
of our largest and medium-sized cities. The response
established beyond doubt that switchblades are commonly
involved in crimes in smaller cities, as well as in the
metropolitan areas."
In 1957 and 1958, similar "surveys" were undertaken by
Tennessee Senator Estes Kefauver for the Senate Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency.
These surveys asked police chiefs for hard data on
switchblades used in crimes, especially juvenile crimes.
Not quite half of the chiefs responded, furnishing the
coon-skin-capped crime buster overall crime statistics, total
juvenile arrest statistics, and enthusiastic letters of
support assuring the senator that switchblade knives were no
doubt involved in practically all of these tens of thousands
of incidents. Kefauver quoted excerpts from some of these
letters, happily oblivious to their irony.
San Francisco police chief Francis J. Ahern wrote "'... a
substantial amount of our juvenile crimes of violence involve
the use of this type of knife.' He further stated that since
the enactment of a local ordinance, the use of such knives in
crimes has diminished."
San Francisco sure was lucky to have such law-abiding
violent criminals.
Senator Kefauver may have had no sense of irony, but at
least he knew a little more knife history than his colleagues
on Capitol Hill. He remarked toward the close of his
statement, "Invented by George Schrade in 1898 [actually
1892], the pushbutton opening knife was a useful article
produced on a limited scale."
Half a page earlier in the same statement, Kefauver quoted
Boston police chief James F. Daley as having written, "...
these weapons are specifically designed as a vicious
insidious weapon of assault, and can be devoted to no
legitimate use in the everyday life of law-abiding citizens."
Having no sense of irony did not worry the crusading
senator, and neither did having no data. He stated, "The
following statistics give a general indication of the
increase in the use of weapons by juveniles. Although no
statistics are available as to the ratio of these switchblade
knives and stilettos to other weapons, it is believed to be
substantial:
"In New York City in 1956, there was an increase of 92.1
percent of those under 16 arrested for the possession of
dangerous weapons, one of the most common kind being the
switchblade knife; and also in New York 36.9 [percent] of the
felonious assaults, many involving use of switchblade knives,
were committed by those under 16. On the national level, 29.6
percent of the total arrested for carrying dangerous weapons
was attributable to young persons under the age of 18. A more
shocking and striking figure is that 43.2 percent of the
total robberies committed in the United States last year were
by persons under 21 years of age. A switchblade knife is very
often part of the perpetrator's equipment in a robbery."
If Senator Kefauver had lived longer (he died in 1963), he
might have become a writer for Saturday Night Live, or else a
co-author of the classic work, How to Lie with Statistics.
Only one police chief in the country had the professional
integrity and poor political judgement to compile actual
statistics on switchblades. This was W. E. Parker, the acting
chief of the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department. That
Lt. Col. Parker was a career policeman, rather than a
political appointee, probably accounted for his naive
indiscretion.
Parker reported that in the entire year 1956, a total of 15
switchblade knives were used in assaults and robberies in
Kansas City (just over one per month). An additional 80
switchblades were taken from suspects booked for
investigation of crimes (well under two per week).
"In addition," he wrote, "there were 10 to 12 cases in
which these knives were used by one juvenile to take money
from another [less than one per month], and during the same
period there were 6 cases of cuttings [one every two months]
as well as several cases where knives were thrown by one
juvenile at another." In a city of nearly half a million
population, these three dozen switchblade crimes,
misdemeanors, and incidents of horseplay in one year hardly
constituted a crime wave, let alone a crisis.
These lonely facts from Kansas City did not interest the
Congress. They found much more fascinating the lurid
sensationalist stories and editorials in Life magazine, the
Saturday Evening Post, many daily newspapers, and even on
radio and television "news."
These articles were timed to coincide with the
congressional switchblade hearings. They were calculated to
convince frightened credulous puritans in and out of congress
that the country was awash in blood from frenetic waves of
juvenile switchblade violence -- that the republic was
tottering. Congressman Yates said, "newspapers and magazines
are filled with descriptions of gang fights, holdups and
stabbings, committed by teenagers, and running through almost
all such stories is the switchblade knife. The gruesome
similarity in detail related by these stories is relieved
only by the horror that each one reflects individually... The
switchblade knife has become the symbol, as well as the
weapon, of the teen-age gang."
As news reporting this material was a travesty, even more
luridly overblown than firearms stories are today. As
propaganda, however, these articles passed the only important
test. They worked.
Gutshot John
05-31-09, 21:02
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. You are certainly free to hold your own opinion.
Not a matter of opinion. There is a difference between regulation and statute.
Federal Customs regulation only impacts what crosses the US Border not what you do in your daily life.
Not a matter of opinion. There is a difference between regulation and statute.
Federal Customs regulation only impacts what crosses the US Border not what you do in your daily life.
I understand complete that there is a difference between those things. However, to make the statement that regulating what crosses the border cannot affect your daily life is absolutely not true. The history of the switchblade act exists in direct opposition to your statement. In addition, a legal interpretation can indeed be cited by others during the formulation of policy, creation of laws, and interpretation of laws. Why do you think all those lawyers submit those friend of the court briefs and legal opinions?
Customs' agents of course are not going to come to your house to see if you have knives. However, their legal opinions when publicly rendered, can be used to alter policy and interpretation of laws. Especially when their legal opinions were used during the formation of those laws in the first place.
Gutshot John
05-31-09, 21:15
I understand complete that there is a difference between those things. However, to make the statement that regulating what crosses the border cannot affect your daily life is absolutely not true.
I'm sorry but that's incorrect. You're misinformed and the proposed rule change makes it clear.
This is PRECISELY the difference between regulation and statute.
The statute may be changed, or a court decision may nullify it, but that won't be done through a proposed change in regulation.
Simply put, the law must be changed.
jwinch,
Seriously I think you are crying wolf over nothing. As far as switchblades go to the best of my knowledge if you want to send one to another state all you have to do is use a common carrier (Fedex, UPS, DHL) and not USPS. Some states even allow the carry and use of them. If a state doesn't allow it, it's the states fault not the federal gov't.
jwinch,
Seriously I think you are crying wolf over nothing.
I respectfully disagree. But I hope you are correct.
You know, Im really getting tired of rights being infringed upon and idiots who suport them or go along w/ them :mad:
Gutshot John
06-01-09, 17:58
You know, Im really getting tired of rights being infringed upon and idiots who suport them or go along w/ them :mad:
Did you read the proposed rule change? If yes, what infringement are you talking about? Please point to a passage, page or other reference that talks about infringing personal rights? The regulation applies only to manufacturers/distributors of knives over INTERNATIONAL borders. At worst this only effects individuals who cross those borders but even that is questionable.
I'm getting really tired of people who don't know the difference between statute and regulation and spout off about the infringement of rights. Even still, these changes are PROPOSED. There is a comment period open to the general public and the corporations.
Once again, you have every right to carry whatever knife you want so long as it doesn't contradict your local laws. There is no infringement of individual rights, and no one is "supporting" them or "going along" with dick.
Did you read the proposed rule change? So what infringement are you talking about? Please point to a passage, page or other reference that talks about infringing personal rights?
The regulation applies only to manufacturers/distributors of knives and only relevant to INTERNATIONAL borders. At worst this only effects individuals who cross those borders.
I'm getting really tired of people who don't know the difference between statute and regulation and spout off about the infringement of rights. Even still, these changes are PROPOSED. There is a comment period open to the general public and the corporations.
Once again, you have every right to carry whatever knife you want so long as it doesn't contradict your local laws. There is no infringement of individual rights, and no one is "supporting" them or "going along" with dick.
Oh boy...
Anyway, I think some are confusing the specifics of the situation with the overall skepticism of our new government. We are seeing a left induced socialist slant, and that has been the downfall of England. England has banned many knives...
Still, no real knife issue exists here at this time.
Thank goodness.
rubberneck
06-01-09, 18:13
Jiminy cricket guys, Obama does not give damn about your pocket knives. He is not micro-managing US Customs/ATF at that level of decison making. The guy has plenty of problems as it is without messing around making bureaucratic policy adjustments. Yeah, he has made some mistakes but I can't pin this one on him.
You do realize that he appointed people who share his philosophy? Just because he didn't micro manage this personally doesn't mean that it isn't a direct reflection of his will. There is no doubt in my mind his staff has directed the various agencies to do everything within their power to restrict the number of "weapons" in circulation. What he can't get passed through Congress gets done through administrative law.
Gutshot John
06-01-09, 20:01
You do realize that he appointed people who share his philosophy? Just because he didn't micro manage this personally doesn't mean that it isn't a direct reflection of his will. There is no doubt in my mind his staff has directed the various agencies to do everything within their power to restrict the number of "weapons" in circulation. What he can't get passed through Congress gets done through administrative law.
Sigh. :rolleyes: Go back and re-read the content of the thread, the OP's claims are simply not borne out by the facts. Among other things there is a difference between what he might want to do and what he can do. Similarly there is a difference between professional civil servants and political appointees.
The proposed rule change has ZERO impact on domestic manufacture and distribution. It won't restrict the number of knives in the United States by even one.
Administrative law is different than regulation. "Law" being the operative term.
http://www.kniferights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=1
Could be true, could be hype. Read what the people who look at these laws on a daily basis think about the issue.
The real question is this, are you prepared to lose your rights over a lack of action because someone online doesn't think it will happen or if it does, that it will affect your lives?
I'm not...
U.S. Government Trying To Take Away Your Pocket Knives!
The U.S. Government is after your Pocket Knives! In a sneak attack, U.S. Customs has proposed revoking earlier rulings that assisted opening knives are not switchblades. The proposal would not only outlaw assisted opening knives, its overly broad new definition of a switchblade would also include all one-handed opening knives and most other pocket knives!
Knife Rights was formed three years ago because we knew it was only a matter of time before there would be a major attempt to take away our knives, as has occurred in England, Europe and elsewhere. Little did we guess that the first major battle at a national level wouldn't come head on, but with government bureaucrats trying to sneak it by everyone, avoiding a more conventional legislative battle, which they know they'd likely lose.
Knife Rights is geared up to help win this fight, but we cannot do it without your help, your emails, your letters. The fight can only be won if we raise enough hell that they are convinced they will not get away with this. YOU are the most effective arrow in our quiver, the most powerful cartridge in our gun.
Click below for more on this knife grab and to find out how you can help.
Knife Rights was formed three years ago because we knew it was only a matter of time before there would be a major attempt to take away our knives, as has occurred in England, Europe and elsewhere. Up until now, the battles have been fought at state and local legislative levels, such as the recent scare in Hawaii.
It has been a battle of a million little cuts for the most part, with occasionaly court and legislative fights thrown in. Little did we guess that the first major battle at a national level wouldn't come head on, but with government bureaucrats trying to sneak it by everyone, avoiding a more conventional legislative battle, which they know they'd likely lose.
U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) just a bit over two weeks ago on May 21st proposed revoking earlier rulings that assisted opening knives are not switchblades. The proposed new rule would not only outlaw assisted opening knives, its new broad definition of a switchblade would also include one-handed opening knives and could be easily interpreted to cover most other pocket knives, even simple old-fashioned slip-joints. At this point, one-hand opening and assisted opening knives are 80% of U.S. knife sales (per AKTI industry sources). For most knife companies, they represent all or the majority of their product lines. These are the knives Americans take with them to work and to play everyday.
Note, please, that CBP's interpretation of the Federal Switchblade Act forms the basis for national, state and even local law and judicial rulings in many cases. This ruling by CBP is NOT limited to just imports. This WILL affect virtually everyone who carries a pocket knife, no matter the type!
CBP came up with this absurd proposal and then tried slipping it into their regular notices, apparently hoping nobody would become aware of until too late. They provided for only the minimum 30-day comment period, and there's no email comments allowed. Obviously, they'd just as soon not hear from us. We're intending to disappoint them in that.
CBP's proposal which would have effects far beyond that suggested in the title of the proposal, "Proposed Revocation Of Ruling Letters And Revocation Of Treatment Relating To The Admissibilty [sic] Of Certain Knives With Spring-Assisted Opening Mechanisms," which would be bad enough even if it only did that. However, this proposal would make it illegal for the estimated 40 million law-abiding Americans who own and carry pocket knives to do so. It would also cost this country dearly in destroyed businesses, lost jobs and ruined families. Thousands of jobs and billions of dollars would be lost. CBP clearly appears to not have considered the consequences of this unnecessary, inappropriate and even illegitimate action. Since CBP is not required to consider the effects of their actions, only Congress or the courts can rein them in. If left to the courts, the industry and our rights will be devastated and America will lose much, regardless of who wins the legal fight.
The definition of what is a switchblade has been clear and settled for the most part since the Federal Switchblade Act was passed in 1958 and has been reaffirmed by many years of legal decisions. The Act is very clear that a switchblade must have an activating button on the handle. Without a button, it is not a switchblade and this has been upheld by numerous cases on many levels over the years. CBP's convoluted reasoning in their proposal to reach back beyond the law and to expand their regulatory purview by rationalizing "intent"as justification for this new interpretation is a stretch, at best, and illegitimate at worst. It simply doesn't meet the common sense test.
CBP's reaching beyond the clear language of the Act in making this proposal is particularly questionable and irreconcilable because it flies in the face of virtually unanimous recent state court rulings (including several cases in California, Texas, Illinois and Michigan) where the issue of assisted-opening knives has already been decided in favor of the existing clear interpretation, that they are not a switchblade. They cherry-picked a few bizarre and untypical rulings from New York state from some years ago to provide support for their proposal, ignoring the many more recent rulings.
For CBP to ignore this overwhelming existing body of law is inexcusably arrogant and borders on a reckless abuse of their power. For them to suddenly do an about face is akin to moving the goalposts after starting the game, and then completely changing the rules of the game besides, making every play ever devised illegal.
Beyond that, their significantly expanded interpretation of gravity and inertia knives, also included in the Act, would clearly make one-hand opening pocket knives illegal and according to industry sources, 80% of pocket knives sold today are one-hand or assisted openers. Beyond even that clearly excessively broad seizure of authority, we know from past unfortunate experience in many cases over the years that this sort of misinterpretation leads to potential abuse by law enforcement where even the most simple and innocuous Boy Scout folding pocket knife can be opened one-handed by use of dangerous and unsafe tricks, so that these too would be covered under this expanded federal definition. This ruling would therefore make almost all pocket knives subject to being considered switchblades.
The impact of this CBP ruling would go far beyond just imported knives because this "agency determination" will be used by domestic courts and law enforcement to determine what is a "switchblade" under both federal and state laws. Many states do not themselves define switchblades and simply rely on the federal definition and interpretation, which is only found in rulings by CBP. Since interstate commerce in switchblades is prohibited, except under very limited conditions, simply driving across a state line with a pocket knife in their possession would make someone a federal felon.
Knifemaking in the U.S. has enjoyed a renaissance in the past decade or two as the genius and innovation of American knifemakers, designers and manufacturers has created a booming and vital American industry with thousands of exciting new knife designs that improve the function, utility and safety of the lowly pocket knife, one of man's oldest and most useful tools. Millions of Americans have responded to this innovation, creating a vibrant industry. For the most part these are family owned businesses that are American success stories, the core of America's economic strength. This proposal by CBP would destroy all that for no good reason. They don't need a bailout; they just need to be left alone to prosper.
The knife industry tells us they employ nearly 24,000 Americans and have a nearly 6 billion dollar annual impact on our nation's economy. If this proposed ruling is allowed to stand, thousands of jobs will be lost at the direct cost of billions of dollars. That doesn't even begin to cover the enormous cost to the country of those that would become unemployed, the ruined businesses, foreclosed homes, years of litigation by both industry against CBP and who knows how many criminal trials and appeals as law-abiding Americans fight this abusive attempt to take away their knives, as well as many other devastating unforeseen effects of this ill-considered proposal. Thousands of American citizens' lives would be ruined. Millions of Americans would be impacted. The cost would be tragically huge, more so because it is neither necessary, nor desired by the vast majority of Americans.
We are in for the fight of our lives to save our Pocket Knives and our essential Knife Rights. We can only win if you do your part. You have to write NOW!
Our first step is to convince CBP that we deserve more time to respond. Knife Rights has sent a letter to CBP requesting an extension to the ridiculously short 30-day comment period.
We now need your help to make an impression on CBP. They figured that they could slip this by everyone with little notice. We need to let CBP know that they are not going to get away with it; that we noticed and we are not happy and that we will not stand by while they take away our pocket knives.
We need you to write CBP NOW!
Click here for a Model Letter you can send to CBP.
However, the reality is that CBP isn't required to listen to our demands, but they do have to answer to Congress. After you send a letter to CBP, giving them notice they are not going to sneak this by us, the next step is to inundate Congress with emails and letters.
If you want to be free to carry your pocket knives in the future, you need to write your Senators and Representative TODAY!
Click here for a Model Letter you can send to Members of Congress.
We have also prepared a Communicating with Congress page that includes tips to maximize the effect of your letters. This page was developed after consultation with experts who understand exactly how to get your message across to Members of Congress. We have also included easy links to find your Representatives, if you don't know who they are or the best way to reach them. How much of an impact your communication has can be significantly impacted by how and what you write. Our aim is to help maximize your impact so your Members of Congress actually listen and do something. PLEASE, take a few minutes to review our Communicating with Congress page BEFORE you act.
Help us stop this ill-conceived effort by CBP before it puts thousands of more Americans out of work and destroys one of America's oldest industries, causing great harm to our nation and many American families. Help us stop these faceless, heartless bureaucrats from destroying our essential American freedoms. This nation has many more important issues that need our attention and energy in this time of crisis.
NOW IS THE TIME WE MUST DO BATTLE! WE HAVE NO TIME TO WASTE.
GET ON YOUR COMPUTERS AN SEND THOSE EMAILS and LETTERS.
Knife Rights cannot do it without your help. Knife Rights is only as powerful as the forces we can bring to bear. You are the only truly effective weapon we have. Policitcans only listen to voters. NOW IS YOUR TIME TO ACT!
WRITE Customs NOW!
WRITE your Members of Congress NOW!
Join Knife Rights and help support the fight to keep your Knife Rights!
My inbox today...
U.S. Customs Wants To Ban Your Pocket Knife
Dear JEREMY,
Benchmade Knife Company, in support with The American Knife and Tool Institute (AKTI) opposes U.S. Customs' attempt to classify assisted-opening knives and all one-hand-opening knives as switchblades.
U.S. Customs proposes to bypass Congress and expand the switchblade definition to include all knives that open with one hand. These include multi-tools, traditional pocket knives, one-hand openers, and assisted-openers.
More than 35 million law-abiding Americans now own one-hand-opening knives in one of the above four categories.
The majority of Americans who carry and use one-hand-openers every day need them for their jobs. They use them to save lives as well as for scores of recreational activities.
If U.S. Customs succeeds, it could lead to effectively banning all folding knives from interstate commerce.
We're asking you to register your opposition to the U.S. Customs' plan (19 CFR Part 177) to re-classify assisted openers and all folding knives.
Please address your comments to arrive at Customs by June 21, 2009.
19 CFR Part 177
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings
Attention: Intellectual Property and Restricted Merchandise Branch
Mint Annex, 799 Ninth St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20229
Please also express your concerns to your state Senators and representatives.
kaiservontexas
06-12-09, 01:26
Looks like I will have to join a knife rights group . . . I had no idea these things existed. I noticed it on youtube today and was like wtf?
Gutshot John
06-12-09, 10:11
Looks like I will have to join a knife rights group . . . I had no idea these things existed. I noticed it on youtube today and was like wtf?
Did you read the whole thread?
U.S. Customs deals with INTER-state trade NOT INTRA-state trade, more significantly it has ZERO impact on local legislation which governs what knives are legal or not to carry.
A wannabe NRA trying to drum up donations by stretching the truth to alarmist proportions.
Save your money for something more worthwhile.
I see nothing wrong with staying on top of this issue.Whether this specific "threat" is real or not...i dont doubt there's some out there who would go after certain types of knives for political gain.
Gutshot John
06-12-09, 13:49
I see nothing wrong with staying on top of this issue.Whether this specific "threat" is real or not...i dont doubt there's some out there who would go after certain types of knives for political gain.
I also don't doubt that there are those that would use an unfounded fear to separate you from your hard earned money.
Monitor the issue by all means, but spend your membership dollars on the NRA, GOA or somesuch.
I also don't doubt that there are those that would use an unfounded fear to separate you from your hard earned money.
Monitor the issue by all means, but spend your membership dollars on the NRA, GOA or somesuch.
Does the reference in post 24 about this possibly leading a ban on interstate commerce have any validity, in your opinion?
Gutshot John
06-12-09, 13:59
Does the reference in post 24 about this possibly leading a ban on interstate commerce have any validity, in your opinion?
None without legislation. It can't be done through regulation.
None without legislation. It can't be done through regulation.
Then the last question would be can it be used as an effective stepping-stone to future and more wide sweeping restrictions?
Gutshot John
06-12-09, 14:22
Then the last question would be can it be used as an effective stepping-stone to future and more wide sweeping restrictions?
No, regulation does not override existing or future law. Future legislation MIGHT adopt the same language in the future, but it's not a stepping stone. Future legislation MIGHT use far more stringent language even without the regulatory change.
Regulation broadly (and somewhat simplistically) speaking is about businesses rather than individuals.
This ONLY applies to businesses that are importing knives into the US from overseas. This doesn't impact US companies engaging in interstate trade. CRKT can ship knives to dealers in the US all it wants. The local law restricts what is legal to keep in your pocket.
The Federal law against switchblades is a law, not a regulation.
A wannabe NRA trying to drum up donations by stretching the truth to alarmist proportions.
That is completely false. If you don't know anything about a group of people or the topic at hand, perhaps you should just refrain from posting.
For the record, I have been a member of Knife Rights for over two years and this time is the first time they have sounded any sort of alarm. NRA sounds the alarm on a consistent basis and sends out notices frequently on various laws or rulings regarding the interpretation of those laws. Furthermore, Knife Rights does not solicit donations or participate in member drives to even remotely the same extent as orgs., such as NRA, do. I have never once been asked to donate extra money by Knife Rights or been requested to recruit new members for them, while I get regular requests from NRA and other groups that I belong to. Bottom line? They are not looking for excuses to sound the alarm as a way of soliciting money.
I have not been asked to send any additional money since this whole things started. All members were asked to do is to wait, that was it. Why were we asked to wait? It was so that the legal team hired by the organization had time to review the proposed changes and see how they might affect our personal rights. At such time, we would be asked to write the US Customs as well as our congressional representation in the House and Senate. I am of the opinion that they have handled this situation very professionally by not acting until their own legal opinions had been rendered. At this time, their internal legal opinions have come back in such a way that they feel that the potential for threatening our rights is there and members have been encouraged to write US Customs as well as members of Congress.
Also for the record, I am not in any sort of leadership or sponsership role for the organization. I am a normal member who paid a fee to join just like all the other members. I participate in Filipino martial arts where blade skills are an important part of what we do. As such, the ability carry a pocket blade with me is very important, in the same way as the ability to CCW is important to most on this forum.
You can chose to believe that this is a serious situation or not, it is certainly your choice. However, I would note that other organizations are taking it seriously as well. The Chair of Knife Rights will be speaking on several talk radio programs today including NRANews.com. There are also archived videos of Doug Ritter on NRA.com which can be viewed as desired. The second amendment of the constitution is not specific to guns. Knives are just as important to some and just as hated by others. More people involved in trying to protect all of our rights can only be a good thing in my view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bGvbjEzQ6g&feature=related
Spokesperson for the American Knife and Tool Institute discussing this situation...
Gutshot John
06-12-09, 14:55
That is completely false. If you don't know anything about a group of people or the topic at hand, perhaps you should just refrain from posting.
And you'd be wrong.
It's actually called grassroots and I used to do it for a living. I worked in Government Relations for 5 years working for non-profits/advocacy groups that would use pending legislation/regulation to get support from their membership, usually corporations who wish to improve "public/popular" support for their cause. Money talks...
I know what regulation can and can't do and what they're suggesting is recklessly ill-informed. This attempt is among the more cynical I've run across in its willingness to exploit fear of Obama. If you're worried about your right to CCW, NRA, GOA or other will also benefit you on knives.
Once again, (LOOK AT THE ADDRESS...Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings regulation and legislation are different. This has ZERO impact on what you carry in your pocket, that is governed by legislation. At worst, this only impacts those knife makers (mostly foreign) that import knives into the US.
By all means, issue comments if you'd like, but this won't benefit you directly though knife makers can more easily ship their manufacturing facilities overseas.
Knife Rights Retains Nappen Law Firm
With the denial of an extension, our primary attention now shifts to submitting comments on the proposal by the deadline. Towards that end, Knife Rights has retained the law firm of E.F. Nappen Attorney at Law, PC. Evan and his associates specialize in gun and knife criminal cases. Evan is a leading authority on the Federal Switchblade Act and has authored numerous articles on the subject.
SAF and CCRKBA Joins with Knife Rights
The Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have joined with Knife Rights to help fight this unwarranted knife grab by Customs. They are supporting us with Email Alerts to their membership and additional resources. SAF founder, Alan Gottlieb, noted, "we stand with Knife Rights in their support of Americans' right to own and carry the knives of their choice."
And, just a reminder, the Second Amendment doesn't say "Firearms," it says "Arms." Clearly the founding fathers expected that knives would be included.
NRA Joins the Fight
We have also been working with the National Rifle Association in recent days and they have officially taken this issue up and you should soon be seeing evidence of their involvement if you are an NRA member. NRA recognizes that this ruling will not only affect virtually every NRA member, but that the precedent it would set would not be good for supporters of the Second Amendment.
Apparently, the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA feel that this is a legitimate issue as well.
Gutshot John
06-12-09, 16:54
Apparently, the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA feel that this is a legitimate issue as well.
Of course, they don't want to pass up a good fundraising chance. It wouldn't be the first time.
Moreover it proves my point that you're better off spending the money on your NRA membership as it covers all ground between "arms" and "firearms".
That said, it still doesn't matter...no matter what either says... US Customs regulations can't be used to determine what you can carry legally in your home state.
I know you don't want to believe it, I know you're so emotionally invested that you're not going to listen to me no matter what I say, but ultimately you're being manipulated.
I'm sure you all mean "assault knives" right? Next it'll be assault baseball bats and assault boots and assault "insert item you can kill someone with". The idea I think is that it's not so much I'm going to worry about not being able to carry my knife, but rather why the hell is my governent overstepping their bounds by even thinking of this. Do I think this'll go anywhere? Not really, but it just enforces the fact the governent is getting more fearless in their socialist efforts.
tate.
I know you don't want to believe it, I know you're so emotionally invested that you're not going to listen to me no matter what I say, but ultimately you're being manipulated.
Are you some sort of expert on how import regulations can or cannot affect interstate commerce? If so, please tell me so I can lend proper weight to your words. Otherwise why would I or anyone else choose to believe you over persons who are experts in the legalities and histories in this area?
I am an academic and researcher by trade who studies the human body. So, I try to keep an open mind on things which I do not have expertise, and even more so on the things of which I do. As such however, I require evidence when being asked to alter my opinion on something. If you have some, please share it.
Knife rights and others have already made statements on how in the past customs regs have been used to alter interstate commerce as well as being cited by lawmakers when attempting to regulate something. It is not that hard to imagine the following scenario: "these things are so dangerous that US Customs has banned their import, yet we allow them on the streets where our kids play?". In addition, Hawaii recently defeated an attempt to ban all locking pocket knives in their state legislature. These things are happening and sticking our heads in the sand is not going to make them go away.
I have submitted a request to Doug Ritter who is the chair of kniferights to get a legal brief released to the membership so that we might better understand the details surrounding this situation. With any luck, that will be forthcoming.
Again, if you have evidence on the fallacy of kniferights' position on this topic, and/or are a recognized expert in this arena, I encourage you to present your data/credentials. At such time, I will be happy to judge the strength of your argument in its proper light. If however, neither of those things are true, please do not be offended if I judge your comments in that light as well.
I sincerely welcome any evidence you may have. In addition, with your permission, I will be delighted to post that on other forums such as ones where many KR members hang out in order to provide a balanced perspective. I would also hope that it would stimulate commentary by the leadership as some of them hang out there as well.
Below is the e-mail I sent to the Doug Ritter, the chair of kniferights.org...
Mr. Ritter,
There is a great deal of discussion right now as to the relevance of this change in policy by US Customs and whether or not it would actually do the things that are being suggested by Knife Rights as well as AKTI. I am assuming that these possibilities have been vetted through a legal team in the employ of Knife Rights, AKTI, or both.
Is that a fair statement?
If so, a legal brief that addresses these concerns would be a valuable tool for those of us trying to discuss this situation with friends, colleagues, and others. Is there a way that a statement, backed up by case law and precedent can be made available to the membership so that we can assist in formulating a grass roots response to this and future threats? The current statements that are out by the org. as well as the youtube statements by AKTI are long on alarm and very short on documentation.
It would be a great help to our cause, to have this type of information made available in a statement from the orgs.’ legal counsel.
Thanks,
Jason
And, see Mr. Ritter's response.
Jason,
Thanks for your interest. When the comments are filed, a lot of these legal issues and ramifications will be laid out in detail. More to the point, once those comments are filed, our and the other legal tems will have time to breath. Right now, every minute is being spent to assemble the case for the comments. With no relief on the comment period, they are all burning the midnight oil to assemble the best case we can before end of next week.
They will forcus on the narrow legal issues, of course. The larger potential harm is another issue altogether. Those are the concerns that really have us up in arms. And, yes, those possibilities have been validated by those with a lot more experience in the law and in dealings with Customs than we have. They understand how the law and rulings can and have been be used, and abused, and the significant liklihood, if not certainty, that CBP will do so.
My job, as it were, is to inform and fire up the public so they write a letter to CBP so that it is on the record opposing this action. Those comments in opposition will stand us in good stead in the next round of action, both in the courts and Congress.
Having said that, I can assure you that none of us sees any advantage to stretching the truth on this. We value our credibility. We may be passionate when we write and talk on the subject, but the reality is that the potential ramifications are huge. The cascading effects of this seemingly simple ruling are potentially massive. Otherwise, nobody would care, nobody would be investing the significant sums of money and time that this is costing. I'd sure rather be doing almost anyting, including the work that pays our bills, than to be doing this right now. <~>
We have gone from zero to Warp Speed in a matter of a few days. We'll get to your desired briefs eventually, but they are not the priority at this moment in time. Thanks for your understanding.
Regards,
jwinch,
Take it FWIW. U.S customs regulations apply only in so much as what can or cannot be imported to the United States. It has NOTHING to do with laws in your state. All you need to do is use your Google-Fu and research the difference. For example- in Washington state there is no state law as to what type of knife you can or can't carry. The limitations are actually set by the various counties. At least that is how it was when I lived there.
Are you some sort of expert on how import regulations can or cannot affect interstate commerce? If so, please tell me so I can lend proper weight to your words. Otherwise why would I or anyone else choose to believe you over persons who are experts in the legalities and histories in this area?
I am an academic and researcher by trade who studies the human body. So, I try to keep an open mind on things which I do not have expertise, and even more so on the things of which I do. As such however, I require evidence when being asked to alter my opinion on something. If you have some, please share it.
Knife rights and others have already made statements on how in the past customs regs have been used to alter interstate commerce as well as being cited by lawmakers when attempting to regulate something. It is not that hard to imagine the following scenario: "these things are so dangerous that US Customs has banned their import, yet we allow them on the streets where our kids play?". In addition, Hawaii recently defeated an attempt to ban all locking pocket knives in their state legislature. These things are happening and sticking our heads in the sand is not going to make them go away.
I have submitted a request to Doug Ritter who is the chair of kniferights to get a legal brief released to the membership so that we might better understand the details surrounding this situation. With any luck, that will be forthcoming.
Again, if you have evidence on the fallacy of kniferights' position on this topic, and/or are a recognized expert in this arena, I encourage you to present your data/credentials. At such time, I will be happy to judge the strength of your argument in its proper light. If however, neither of those things are true, please do not be offended if I judge your comments in that light as well.
I sincerely welcome any evidence you may have. In addition, with your permission, I will be delighted to post that on other forums such as ones where many KR members hang out in order to provide a balanced perspective. I would also hope that it would stimulate commentary by the leadership as some of them hang out there as well.
jwinch,
Take it FWIW. U.S customs regulations apply only in so much as what can or cannot be imported to the United States. It has NOTHING to do with laws in your state. All you need to do is use your Google-Fu and research the difference. For example- in Washington state there is no state law as to what type of knife you can or can't carry. The limitations are actually set by the various counties. At least that is how it was when I lived there.
Fair point. However, I would point out that just because things are not used or interpreted a certain way in some places, does not mean that they cannot be in others.
One only has to look at firearms laws to see that regulations and law can be interpreted differently in different locales.
Gutshot John
06-12-09, 18:53
Fair point. However, I would point out that just because things are not used or interpreted a certain way in some places, does not mean that they cannot be in others.
I'm sorry but you're not paying attention. That's EXACTLY what it means. Once again...there is a difference between REGULATION and LEGISLATION. Learn it, love it.
One only has to look at firearms laws to see that regulations and law can be interpreted differently in different locales.
Once again NO. You're making my head spin, have you even bothered to read what has been written or bothered to understand it? You need to learn the difference between law/legislation and regulation. You also need to learn about "Supremacy".
Local governments do NOT have the power to interpret Federal Regulation (or Legislation) differently than does the Federal Government.
Only the Federal government can interpret/enforce Federal regulation.
Honestly you don't know what you're talking about and are making no effort to educate yourself.
Gutshot John
06-12-09, 18:55
Are you some sort of expert on how import regulations can or cannot affect interstate commerce? If so, please tell me so I can lend proper weight to your words. Otherwise why would I or anyone else choose to believe you over persons who are experts in the legalities and histories in this area?
I am an academic and researcher by trade who studies the human body. So, I try to keep an open mind on things which I do not have expertise, and even more so on the things of which I do. As such however, I require evidence when being asked to alter my opinion on something. If you have some, please share it.
Knife rights and others have already made statements on how in the past customs regs have been used to alter interstate commerce as well as being cited by lawmakers when attempting to regulate something. It is not that hard to imagine the following scenario: "these things are so dangerous that US Customs has banned their import, yet we allow them on the streets where our kids play?". In addition, Hawaii recently defeated an attempt to ban all locking pocket knives in their state legislature. These things are happening and sticking our heads in the sand is not going to make them go away.
I have submitted a request to Doug Ritter who is the chair of kniferights to get a legal brief released to the membership so that we might better understand the details surrounding this situation. With any luck, that will be forthcoming.
Again, if you have evidence on the fallacy of kniferights' position on this topic, and/or are a recognized expert in this arena, I encourage you to present your data/credentials. At such time, I will be happy to judge the strength of your argument in its proper light. If however, neither of those things are true, please do not be offended if I judge your comments in that light as well.
I sincerely welcome any evidence you may have. In addition, with your permission, I will be delighted to post that on other forums such as ones where many KR members hang out in order to provide a balanced perspective. I would also hope that it would stimulate commentary by the leadership as some of them hang out there as well.
Again you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Yes I worked for years on import regulations.
As for evidence...you can start with learning the difference between REGULATION and LEGISLATION. It's common-freakin knowledge and I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
One more thing, I'm not making the controversial statement that requires proof. YOU ARE, as such the burden of proof is on you. So by all means show me evidence that this regulation will restrict your local laws.
Mr. Ritter is talking out of his ass and more importantly has a motive to spin it his way.
kaiservontexas
06-13-09, 01:12
Did you read the whole thread?
Save your money for something more worthwhile.
See my signature tagline . .
Knife laws have always been a joke. I've carried various switchblades since I was 11 years old. I've gotten a few "confiscated" but never any charges. Try that with a gun.
jwinch2,
From the first time that I heard about this I had my suspicions. In my opinion it had to do with knife makers not being able to sell certain imported knives in the U.S because importation would not be allowed. I believe that is still case. Here is what I received earlier today from the NRA alerts. Please read the bold part in italics.
Now I have been a member of the NRA off/on for many years. If they truly thought that this legislation would prohibit the every day Joe from having or carrying a knife then I am fairly certain they would have said so and they would have been much more vocal about it.
Just so you know I have been carrying knives on a daily basis for 22 years. I have several auto openers and probably close to $4000.00 in knives so I have a stake in this too. I also don't agree with the rule change either. But I don't believe that this is in any way an attempt to disarm people.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has issued a proposed rule change that directly targets the importation of "assisted opening" folding knives. (Read the proposed rule here.) The proposed regulations would designate all these knives as "switchblades" (despite the fact they do not fall under the federal definition of "switchblades"), and would make them illegal for import into the United States.
The proposed rule could affect all knives that can be opened with one hand, because it also includes changes in the interpretation of "gravity and inertia" opening knives in a way that could outlaw all knives that can be opened with a single hand. This means the new regulation could ban the importation of most of the pocketknives that are now in popular use.
For the lawyers out there. I was re-reading the Federal Switchblade Act and if I understood it correctly possession of a "switchblade" knife is unlawful unless;
1. You are a member of the Armed Forces.
2. You are a one-armed man. Blade must be 3" or less.
3. any common carrier or contract carrier, with respect to any switchblade knife shipped, transported, or delivered for shipment in interstate commerce in the ordinary course of business; (whatever this means?)
So the question is what if a switchblade knife is legal under the state laws or local ordinances where a person resides?
OldNavyGuy
06-13-09, 09:03
for those of you who "FEEEEL" (for the conservative minded, THINK or BELIEVE) this is NOT a problem, please keep in mind that when the whiners/liarberals said, "we just want you to stop smoking on airplanes", look here what has evolved from those days, "Tobacco-Regulation Bill Clears US House, Soon To Be Law"
linky: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/11/AR2009061100323.html
Gutshot John
06-13-09, 09:58
for those of you who "FEEEEL" (for the conservative minded, THINK or BELIEVE) this is NOT a problem, please keep in mind that when the whiners/liarberals said, "we just want you to stop smoking on airplanes", look here what has evolved from those days, "Tobacco-Regulation Bill Clears US House, Soon To Be Law"
linky: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/11/AR2009061100323.html
Thank you for proving my point. There is a difference between REGULATION and LEGISLATION/LAW/STATUTE. The article is referring to LEGISLATION that allows the FDA to regulate cigarettes...the FDA DID NOT have that power before. Congress has to legislate that authority. There is currently NO authority for Customs to regulate interstate trade and the proposed rule changes have ZERO impact on the individual.
For the Customs regulation to impact interstate (rather than international) trade, Congress would have to pass a LAW to give it that authority even still it would NOT govern what you carry in your pocket.
REGULATION doesn't impact what is legal for a person to carry in their pocket.
LEGISLATION does. This is not a FEELING, it is a hard-cold fact that you either reject or deny.
By all means, comment if you'd like, but if you've got spare money lying around to give to organizations that protect one's RKBA give it to those that CAN actually do it. That the NRA even issued a statement about knives means that they're afraid it's taking money away from their lobbying in a hard economy and want to reassure those that are knife and gun owners. The knife guys are exploiting fear of Obama's eventual anti-gun efforts for their own ends. Pick your battles and fight the issue strategically not tactically.
kaiservontexas
06-13-09, 12:24
Reminds me of all the stupid import rules concerning firearms. I doubt anybody here defends those regulations. It is the same type of attack an end run around everything to keep it out of your hands.
Granted American made knives are nicer then Chinese under license knives, but I happen to like my Eickhorn und Solingen blades; so, it would not be just cheap Chinese made knives impacted.
Gutshot John
06-13-09, 12:58
Reminds me of all the stupid import rules concerning firearms. I doubt anybody here defends those regulations. It is the same type of attack an end run around everything to keep it out of your hands.
This has been covered. It reminds me of why it is important for people to learn what the government can and cannot do, like the difference between regulation and legislation.
The Federal government has explicit Constitutional power to regulate importation of firearms or whatever else from international sources through Customs. Moreover this is NOT in infringement on YOUR right to carry. You have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms, NOT IMPORT and SELL.
If your state allows you to carry a firearm, Customs regulations on firearms tr has ZERO impact on that.
http://www.kniferights.org/KNIFE%20RIGHTS%20CBP%20COMMENTS.pdf
Form your own conclusions.
jwinch,
I read the link pretty thoroughly. I happen to agree with many of their arguments as well. However, no where did I see in this document that by banning importation of certain knives would it restrict what a person can carry. Did I miss something here?
http://www.kniferights.org/KNIFE%20RIGHTS%20CBP%20COMMENTS.pdf
Form your own conclusions.
jwinch,
I read the link pretty thoroughly. I happen to agree with many of their arguments as well. However, no where did I see in this document that by banning importation of certain knives would it restrict what a person can carry. Did I miss something here?
They addressed it, but you are correct in that it was not in great detail. Below is a series of correspondance between myself and the chair of Knife Rights. When I ask for evidence, I ask on both sides of the discussion.
Mr. Ritter,
There is a great deal of discussion right now as to the relevance of this change in policy by US Customs and whether or not it would actually do the things that are being suggested by Knife Rights as well as AKTI. I am assuming that these possibilities have been vetted through a legal team in the employ of Knife Rights, AKTI, or both.
Is that a fair statement?
If so, a legal brief that addresses these concerns would be a valuable tool for those of us trying to discuss this situation with friends, colleagues, and others. Is there a way that a statement, backed up by case law and precedent can be made available to the membership so that we can assist in formulating a grass roots response to this and future threats? The current statements that are out by the org. as well as the youtube statements by AKTI are long on alarm and very short on documentation.
It would be a great help to our cause, to have this type of information made available in a statement from the orgs.’ legal counsel.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason,
Thanks for your interest. When the comments are filed, a lot of these legal issues and ramifications will be laid out in detail. More to the point, once those comments are filed, our and the other legal tems will have time to breath. Right now, every minute is being spent to assemble the case for the comments. With no relief on the comment period, they are all burning the midnight oil to assemble the best case we can before end of next week.
They will forcus on the narrow legal issues, of course. The larger potential harm is another issue altogether. Those are the concerns that really have us up in arms. And, yes, those possibilities have been validated by those with a lot more experience in the law and in dealings with Customs than we have. They understand how the law and rulings can and have been be used, and abused, and the significant liklihood, if not certainty, that CBP will do so.
My job, as it were, is to inform and fire up the public so they write a letter to CBP so that it is on the record opposing this action. Those comments in opposition will stand us in good stead in the next round of action, both in the courts and Congress.
Having said that, I can assure you that none of us sees any advantage to stretching the truth on this. We value our credibility. We may be passionate when we write and talk on the subject, but the reality is that the potential ramifications are huge. The cascading effects of this seemingly simple ruling are potentially massive. Otherwise, nobody would care, nobody would be investing the significant sums of money and time that this is costing. I'd sure rather be doing almost anyting, including the work that pays our bills, than to be doing this right now. <~>
We have gone from zero to Warp Speed in a matter of a few days. We'll get to your desired briefs eventually, but they are not the priority at this moment in time. Thanks for your understanding.
Regards,
We'll have to see if it comes out or not.
Gutshot John
06-19-09, 09:23
They will forcus on the narrow legal issues, of course. The larger potential harm is another issue altogether. Those are the concerns that really have us up in arms. And, yes, those possibilities have been validated by those with a lot more experience in the law and in dealings with Customs than we have. They understand how the law and rulings can and have been be used, and abused, and the significant liklihood, if not certainty, that CBP will do so.
Once again, for the last time...CBP has ZERO say in what you carry in your pocket without a significant change in legislation.
I don't know which "experts" he's referring to, but they're flat wrong. That he declines to name them doesn't speak to their credibility.
The lawyer is speaking second hand and so he's not asserting that he knows. Moreover he's representing a client's interests...NOT YOURS. In fact he says quite plainly that his job is to "fire up the public" and that the "larger POTENTIAL (equivocation even there) harm is another issue altogether". In short he's agreeing with me even as he talks out of both sides of his mouth....just like a lawyer.
As for the brief itself, it's not a definitive legal document. It's presenting ONE side of the argument. Not exactly good for forming your own opinions as it's not even-handed.
This is how lawyers manipulate the process and you...learn the system of government you live in rather than relying on lawyers to tell you what is and what is not possible or even certain.
You're being manipulated...maybe you don't mind it, but you are.
For all of the "Buy American" sentiment on this board one would think that a change in Customs policy restricting the IMPORT of knives from a FOREIGN source that WOULD GENERATE American JOBS when those knives would have to MADE HERE instead would be looked on favorably.
Once again, for the last time...
Thank freakin' god... Somehow, I doubt we will all be that lucky.
Gutshot John
06-19-09, 12:42
Thank freakin' god... Somehow, I doubt we will all be that lucky.
Of course it would help if you stopped posting the same nonsense time and again.
It might also help if you would actually read what I wrote and made some effort to understand how your government works.
Here's an update, please forgive if someone else already posted (I didn't see it anywhere).
Friday, July 10, 2009
Late Thursday, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the Federal Switchblade Act as part of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The amendment, authored by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), changes the federal law under which one agency had tried to redefine many common knives as switchblades.
The measure would exempt assisted-opening knives that can only be opened with "exertion applied to the blade by hand, wrist or arm" from a federal law that criminalizes commerce in switchblades. Assisted opening knives are highly desired by hunters, anglers, farmers, ranchers, firefighters, law enforcement and emergency personnel and others who may need to open a knife with only one hand.
"The Senate sent a strong message and made clear that the 35 million Americans who own pocketknives are free to continue using them without the threat of federal agency intrusion," Sen. Cornyn said in a statement today. "While U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposed changing that, my colleagues joined in a unanimous, bipartisan effort to ensure assisted-opening pocketknives are protected by the law. What's more, the CBP reversal would have inflicted serious economic harm to sporting goods manufacturers and retailers."
In the same statement, Sen. Hatch said, "Without this amendment, there is a real danger that 80 percent of the pocketknives sold in the U.S. could be classified as illegal switchblades, which would hurt knife and tool manufacturers across the nation. The unintended consequences of the CBP's definition could be that state and federal criminal courts could construe Leatherman-type multi-tools equipped with one-hand opening features, as well as folding utility knives with studs on the blunt portions of the blade to assist with opening, to be illegal. That is absurd."
Thursday's Senate action puts us one step closer to passing this common-sense measure into law. The measure now heads to a House-Senate Conference Committee.
To view the amendment, please click here: http://www.KnifeRights.org/SAmdt%201447.pdf
thopkins22
07-15-09, 00:20
A day late and a dollar short, it doesn't seem that different to me than Sig(or Swiss Arms or whomever) not being able to import 550's into the US. Yes you can still own one, and yes you can still buy functionally identical rifles should they be made here.
Much ado about nothing? Mostly, but not a step in the right direction either.
ranger351w
09-07-09, 08:09
OMG, what is next?
Banning pointed sticks and harsh language?
Hate crime bill!! Call someone a derogatory name and see what happens.
Read the wonderful hate crime law.:eek:
If you want a vision of the future , imagine A boot stamping on a human face forever.
George Orwell
Ban:
1). Assault cars
2). Assault alcohol
3). Assault toothpicks ( hundreds choke on them annually!)
4). Assault mechanical pencil erasors
5). Assault baseball bats
6). Assault moutains ( people fall off moutains right? Those damn black moutains!)
7). Assault forks ( you could poke your eye out kid! )
8). Assault butter knives
9). Assault vidalia choppers!
10). Assault boots
11). Assault sneakers
12). Assault salt
13). Assault trans fat
14). Assault bookbags ( you back pack could caught on a vehicle and drag you to your death I tell you!)
15). Assault baby bottles
16). Assault carbon dioxide
17). Assault atvs
18). Assault side by sides
let's see how many assault weapons we can think of. I want to see a list. Be creative!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.