TN Bill to remove restrictions on knife possession and carry

[Guest DCritter]

Here you go guys.  Give the Sheriffs hell and help us pass this bill!

 

Our Tennessee Knife Rights bill escaped certain defeat in the House Ways and Means Committee after the sponsor agreed to delete the repeal of the switchblade ban and 4-inch limit. The Tennessee Sheriffs' Association irrationally and emotionally attacked the portion of the bill that overturned the ban on switchblades and blades over 4 inches long. The sponsors were offered a choice by the Committee, amend the bill or we will kill it. The sponsors chose to amend the bill and SAVE the critical Knife Law Preemption aspect of the bill repealing every local knife law in Tennessee and preventing new local knife laws from being passed.

It is just as frustrating for the sponsors as it is for us to see their bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly be amended in this respect by the Committee. However, they understand the big picture and the need to move the other important aspect of this bill, Knife Law Preemption. They are to be commended for their hard work and they are committed to coming back next year. We now know who the opposition is and we have an entire year to prepare for next year's effort.

If you are as frustrated and disappointed as we are in the sheriffs' opposition, then you should contact your local sheriff and let them know. Tennessee sheriffs are ELECTED officials and should hear from you. Find your sheriff at this link and call and email them to let them know your displeasure with their Tennessee Sheriffs' Association: http://www.tnsheriffs.com/Contact.htm

Please note that your local sheriff may not even know of the position the organization took on this commonsense bill and may not support the organization's position. So, let them know how you feel, but please be VERY RESPECTFUL and POLITE, and then ask them to inform the Sheriff's Association if they are not happy with the organization's action on this bill. If you cannot be respectful and polite, don't call or email as that will only hurt our cause.

Then you should email the Tennessee Sheriff's Association and, again, being VERY RESPECTFUL and POLITE, express your displeasure with their irrational lobbying against this commonsense bill:

Executive Director is Sheriff Terry Ashe (ret.): terryashe@tnsheriffs.com
President is Sheriff David Andrews: sheriffdkandrews@putnamco.org

However, now WE MUST turn our disappointment, and anger, into a determination to make sure the Preemption aspect of this bill passes the full House.

If you live, work or travel in Tennessee, it is critical that you contact your Representative and ask them to vote YES on HB0581

You can locate your representative here: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/legislators/

Whether writing or calling, simply ask them to vote in favor of HB0581. Keep it POLITE, short and to the point.

Thanks for your support!

[bronco302]

It would have been nice for this to have slid through on greased wheels, but killing the patch work ordnances across the state will be a huge step. Lets just stay on them.

 

 

Joe W.

[JohnC]

Wait. I'm confused. It didn't pass and now we just have an amendment with a portion that could pass?

I don't really understand all this as I'm not a lawyer nor a politician. or maybe it's just because it is 4am and I've had no sleep.   :surrender:

[Capbyrd]

I may be out of line here but this is something that has been on my mind all night.  

It sounds a lot like you are trying to get us to be happy about this "compromise."  For me, I'd rather see a politician stand up and fight for something, even if it kills it than to write off his own bill.  I also think its garbage that Rep. Dennis couldn't answer a question about his bill.  I know that Dennis wasn't the original author and that he was only brought on to take it through the House but he could have at least done the research.  Watch the Senate videos and see how well Bell represents the arguments and then watch Dennis in the House.  In comparison, I'm not even sure Dennis cares about this.  

[Guest confidence]

Is there anything in this bill about parks? Would cities be allowed to still ban knives in parks as they can with handguns?

[Capbyrd]

Is there anything in this bill about parks? Would cities be allowed to still ban knives in parks as they can with handguns?

 

 

As amended, this is the only remaining part of the bill.  

Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1314, is amended by adding the following new subsection:

(e) It is the intent of the general assembly that this part is preemptive with respect to the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of knives and no city, county, or metropolitan government shall occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of knives.

 

 

I don't think there are laws against knives in parks but I could be wrong.  And I don't know if the above wording would preempt local legislation or not. 

[Guest KiloFive]

Anything in the bill addressing the fact that every time you sit down at a restaurant, they hand you a knife over four inches?


God & Tribe

[Guest confidence]

Here is the letter I just wrote to the sheriff of my county. Feel free to adapt it and reuse it or write your own...

 

 

 

Dear Sheriff ______,

Thank you for everything you do to keep our county safe. I have been following knife bill HB0581 and wanted to contact you to voice my concerns. My name is ____ ______ and I reside at ___________________. I am __________ for a company in ___________.

As you may know, HB0581 is a bill to remove many of the limits on knives, including the 4" rule and also allows for the state to preempt all local knife laws. As I understand, the Tennessee Sheriffs' Association has hampered the success of this bill and the bill has now been amended so as to drop the removal of limits on knives but keep the preemption portion only.

Sheriff, I feel the same way about knife rights as I do about gun rights. I understand that we would all like to keep knives away from bad guys on the streets, but you and I both know that bad guys have never followed knife laws and never will. Instead, good guys who do strive to obey laws are being limited in what they can carry to defend themselves. I'll give you a very practical and real world example. I am a Handgun Carry Permit holder and I only carry where it is legal to do so with a mind to protect my family and myself. However, when I am in a local park in which the city has banned firearms, I need alternatives to defend myself because I do not carry there. One is pepper spray. Another could be a knife. However, a 4" knife is not going to be that effective of a deterrent or that practical at keeping an attacker at bay. If I was legally allowed to carry a longer knife, I believe that myself and my family would be safer.

Now the emotional response to this would be to say, "Oh no! We can't have people running around with knives everywhere in parks." But as I'm sure you know, criminals by definition disobey laws. So, like gun laws, they will violate them. This means that the law effectively only deters law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still carry a knife no matter what the law says.

I was disappointed to hear that Tennessee Sheriffs' Association has been against this. I don't know your position, but I'm hoping that by voicing my concerns I can increase awareness of their position and entreat you to actively oppose their initiatives. Please stand up for citizens' knife rights as you have for gun rights.

Another aspect of this is that the knife laws are extremely confusing in our state. Citizens can easily find themselves inadvertently in violation of the law. Just the other day, I was talking about this knife bill with the owner of a local gun shop which sells knives and he said that as far as he knew, there were no legal restrictions on knives at all in Tennessee! That's why I'm glad for the preemption portion of this bill. It's time that the rules were the same across the board. There's no reason why your average citizen should have a minefield of confusing laws to deal with when attempting to be in compliance. Please encourage the Tennessee Sheriffs' Association not to oppose HB0581 in its current state and please express displeasure to them in regards to the major weakening blows they've already dealt to this bill.

Thank you for your consideration and thank you to you and your officers for putting your lives on the line every day to protect the citizens of ______ County. We appreciate you.

 

__________

[bronco302]

As amended, this is the only remaining part of the bill.  

Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1314, is amended by adding the following new subsection:

(e) It is the intent of the general assembly that this part is preemptive with respect to the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of knives and no city, county, or metropolitan government shall occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of knives.

 

 

I don't think there are laws against knives in parks but I could be wrong.  And I don't know if the above wording would preempt local legislation or not. 

That is what the original was suppose to have done and they did not change the wording. Looks like the state is the only one who can play in this field. 

 

Joe W.

[hso]

The long and short of it is that we need to work on getting individual sheriffs to support the bill to their House Reps. even if it just has preemption left in place (at least we can get this important part through). We'll be FAR better off if a Reps. sheriff tells them they don't have a problem with it than just having their organization oppose it.  If you know your sheriff personally you should talk to them about contacting the House Representative and telling them that they support the state making the laws consistent across the entire state so that people that live in one town/county are legal in every town/county (Heck, I work in Oak Ridge and live in West Knox so I'm going back and forth all the time). 

 

This is now a district by district fight as well as what we hoped would just be a House rubber stamp to the Senate. 

Edited April 11, 2013 by hso

[shortround]

Very disappointing to see the sheriffs come out against this. They pretend that they are champions of liberty. Their Facebook page has a nice sounding blurb about how they support the 2nd amendment, but they are happy to trample on it in this instance. This is just more of the same 'restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens and pretend that it will reduce crime.' Virtually every home in the U.S. has a knife well over 4", you have to be a complete idiot to believe that a criminal intent on doing harm is going to be hindered in any way by this law.

[Guest gunlobbyist]

I may be out of line here but this is something that has been on my mind all night.  

It sounds a lot like you are trying to get us to be happy about this "compromise."  For me, I'd rather see a politician stand up and fight for something, even if it kills it than to write off his own bill.  I also think its garbage that Rep. Dennis couldn't answer a question about his bill.  I know that Dennis wasn't the original author and that he was only brought on to take it through the House but he could have at least done the research.  Watch the Senate videos and see how well Bell represents the arguments and then watch Dennis in the House.  In comparison, I'm not even sure Dennis cares about this.  

 

Hello All,

 

I am the lobbyist for Knife Rights. I have worked this bill in at least a dozen states. We have had great victories and terribly disappointing losses. But we have never had this much genuine interest in our knife legislation in any state, I mean there are some 12 or 13 pages of comments on this one board alone! I am very glad you guys are all so supportive and interested in this bill!!! Thank you!!

 

At the capitol it has been clear that there has been a ton of emails and phone calls coming in and that's because of folks like you!

 

I would like to defend Representative Dennis. Sen Bell was the primary sponsor and Rep Dennis generously agreed to carry the bill in the House. 

 

The compromise deal was agreed to WELL before the hearing actually took place. Sen Bell and I discussed it at length before deciding to move ahead with it. We had a clear choice before us, amend the bill or have it killed. We agonized over this, discussed and debated the cost/benefit and decided it was in the best interest of knife owners in TN to move ahead with the preemption part and clear the decks for a battle on the SWB/Blade length issue next year. Sen Bell and Rep Dennis then discussed it and and came to the same conclusion. 

 

It sucks when you have to do that to a bill you have worked on for MONTHS. Then as a sponsor to have to go before a committee that has no relevance to the substance of your bill and, has threatened to kill it, and forced you to amend it is very difficult. The Finance Committee had no business with this bill because it has no fiscal impact on the state. However at some point the House analysts said it had a net +$28,000 impact on TN because of less incarcerations. That was then amended to reflect "no fiscal impact" but alas it was too late...it was already assigned to the Finance Committee. That committee was already squishy on this bill, so when the Sheriff's Association started their full court press we were at a disadvantage. I had met with most of the members of the committee and knew it was going to be very close.  I had already left TN to be in TX to lobby when the Sheriff's Association descended on the capital which makes it tough to blunt them.

 

Now knowing all that, add to the mix that the agreement to amend the bill was made well before Rep Dennis testified and he may have been angry and upset over that. That may explain his performance in the committee which I haven't had a chance to review. CapByrd may be right that Rep Dennis was not at his best but when you know in your mind that your bill has been amended it is sometimes difficult to testify with gusto. I have been in that very position at times. 

 

Having said that when we come back next year we will only be dealing with the issue of SWB's and blade length so getting our sponsor in the House up to speed on technical details will be simple. 

 

Don't blame Representative Dennis for what happened. This is the fault of squishy Republicans on the Finance Committee and the irrational arguments of the Sheriff's Assoc. 

 

Please do what you can to contact your sheriff's and your Reps there is still a vote on the remaining section of the bill!! Oh, and get ready for next session!!!!

 

Contact the Sheriff's Association and tell them how you feel:

 

 

Executive Director is Sheriff Terry Ashe (ret.): terryashe@tnsheriffs.com
President is Sheriff David Andrews: sheriffdkandrews@putnamco.org

 

Todd Rathner

Knife Rights 

Director Of Legislative Affairs

www.kniferights.org

[Guest KiloFive]

What surprises me is that there is no approach allowing those with CCW to get exempt. That seems like a logical first step.

God & Tribe

[Guest gunlobbyist]

What surprises me is that there is no approach allowing those with CCW to get exempt. That seems like a logical first step.

God & Tribe

KiloFive,

 

We have talked about that in some places. We would much rather have all law abiding citizens be able to own the tools they want to. So we go for the whole enchilada. We choose not to set precedent for that in say TN because then when we go to say Kansas they say "well let's just limit it to what you did in TN" so that makes the national strategy harder.

 

TR

[Capbyrd]

KiloFive,

 

We have talked about that in some places. We would much rather have all law abiding citizens be able to own the tools they want to. So we go for the whole enchilada. We choose not to set precedent for that in say TN because then when we go to say Kansas they say "well let's just limit it to what you did in TN" so that makes the national strategy harder.

 

TR

 

 

I'm glad you see it that way.  I was going to respond very similarly to his post.  Its important that we DO NOT cave and accept half of what should be law.  If we do, there will never be a way to get the rest in the immediate future.  

 

 

 

 

As for the rest of your reply.  I rewatched it today and Rep. Dennis was obviously upset and likely because of the compromise.  But I have a few questions for you.  

 

 

 

1.  Did you anticipate that the TSA might be a hurdle to getting this passed? 
2.  If so, were you just trying to sneak this past them?  

Why didn't we approach the TSA and try to get their support for this before going to congress with it?    it seems like this part could have been handled better rather than being blindsided in two steps away from the governor's desk.  

[Guest confidence]

Here is my letter to Sheriffs Terry Ashe (ret.) and David Andrews at the Tennessee Sheriffs' Association and a response I just received from Terry:

 

 

 

 

Dear Sheriffs,

Thank you for everything you do to keep our state safe. I have been following knife bill HB0581 and wanted to contact you to voice my concerns. My name is _____ _______ and I reside at _____________. I am __________ for a company in _______, TN.

As you know, HB0581 is a bill to remove many of the limits on knives, including the 4" rule and also allows for the state to preempt all local knife laws. As I understand, the Tennessee Sheriffs' Association has opposed  this bill and the bill has now been amended so as to drop the removal of limits on knives but keep the preemption portion only.

Gentlemen, I feel the same way about knife rights as I do about gun rights. I understand that we would all like to keep knives away from bad guys on the streets, but you and I both know that bad guys have never followed knife laws and never will. Instead, good guys who do strive to obey laws are being limited in what they can carry to defend themselves. I'll give you a very practical and real world example. I am a Handgun Carry Permit holder and I only carry where it is legal to do so with a mind to protect my family and myself. However, when I am in a local park in which the city has banned firearms, I need alternatives to defend myself because I do not carry there. One is pepper spray. Another could be a knife. However, a 4" knife is not going to be that effective of a deterrent or that practical at keeping an attacker at bay. If I was legally allowed to carry a longer knife, I believe that myself and my family would be safer.

Now the emotional response to this would be to say, "Oh no! We can't have people running around with knives everywhere in parks." But as I'm sure you know, criminals by definition disobey laws. So, like gun laws, they will violate them. This means that the law effectively only deters law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still carry a knife no matter what the law says.

Another aspect of this is that the knife laws are extremely confusing in our state. Citizens can easily find themselves inadvertently in violation of the law. Just the other day, I was talking about this knife bill with the owner of a local gun shop which sells knives and he said that as far as he knew, there were no legal restrictions on knives at all in Tennessee! That's why I'm glad for the preemption portion of this bill. It's time that the rules were the same across the board. There's no reason why your average citizen should have a minefield of confusing laws to deal with when attempting to be in compliance.

I was disappointed to hear that Tennessee Sheriffs' Association has been against this bill. I feel that less knife restrictions on law abiding citizens will make us all safer. Police can not be everywhere all the time. And Handgun Carry Permit holders are restricted as to where they can carry. By allowing citizens their knife rights, the freedoms of law abiding citizens are protected. By limiting knife rights, the bad guys are not affected in any way and nothing positive is accomplished. Only the good guys will be disarmed.

 

Please do not oppose HB0581 in its current state and please understand that as a concerned citizen, I am displeased in regards to the major weakening blows already dealt to this bill by your organization.

Thank you for your consideration of this letter and thank you to you and your officers for putting your lives on the line every day to protect the citizens of our state. We appreciate your service and dedication.

_________

 

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Terry Ashe <terryashe@tnsheriffs.com>
Date: Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:54 AM
Subject: RE: Knife Bill - HB0581
To: ________________
Cc: Sheriff David Andrews <sheriffdkandrews@putnamco.org>


______ thank you for your response, just so you would know I helped to right the hand gun carry bill that you have in the 1990s, Tennessee Sheriffs support the 2 nd Amendment and everything that it stands for, we were the only law enforcement group that helped make the hand gun law a reality .You can check this out with Mr. John Harris Executive Director of the Tennessee Firearms Assoc. I hope you have a bless day……Thanks….Terry

[Guest gunlobbyist]

I'm glad you see it that way.  I was going to respond very similarly to his post.  Its important that we DO NOT cave and accept half of what should be law.  If we do, there will never be a way to get the rest in the immediate future.  

 

 

 

 

As for the rest of your reply.  I rewatched it today and Rep. Dennis was obviously upset and likely because of the compromise.  But I have a few questions for you.  

 

 

 

1.  Did you anticipate that the TSA might be a hurdle to getting this passed? 
2.  If so, were you just trying to sneak this past them?  

Why didn't we approach the TSA and try to get their support for this before going to congress with it?    it seems like this part could have been handled better rather than being blindsided in two steps away from the governor's desk.  

They were not even a factor in the Senate, they never testified there, and so no we did not anticipate their objections, especially since they claim to be Pro 2A and didn't start complaining until House finance comm.

 

I can't talk a whole lot of strategy here. However, I don't meet with potential opposition until they poke their head up. Why? Because I don't want to alert them to the bill until I have to. In many states we have different opposition: the league of cities, the police chiefs, the sheriffs, the ladies aide society, etc, etc...so we wait to see who pops up then deal with it. If this bill had avoided finance committee I think we could have won in Judiciary etc....we had weak knees on that committee.

[shortround]

From: Terry Ashe <terryashe@tnsheriffs.com> -

"Tennessee Sheriffs support the 2 nd Amendment and everything that it stands for"

 

Well now, that's not really true, is it? 2A stands for more than just guns. I'm glad they chose to uphold their oaths in the 90's, I expect them to do the same now and in the future. I'm sorry, his response sounds to me like he is saying "Hey, remember that one time 20 years ago we didn't advocate for trampling your rights? That should give us a lifetime pass on fulfilling our obligations."

Edited April 11, 2013 by shortround

[Guest gunlobbyist]

If anyone got replies from the sheriff's PLEASE post them here! I need to see them!! If it's a form response please just post it once. I want to see samples. 

 

THANKS!

[Guest gunlobbyist]

Oh BTW knives are mentioned in both Heller and McDonald and are protected by the 2A.

[Guest confidence]

Well now, that's not really true, is it? 2A stands for more than just guns. I'm glad they chose to uphold their oaths in the 90's, I expect them to do the same now and in the future. I'm sorry, his response sounds to me like he is saying "Hey, remember that one time 20 years ago we didn't advocate for trampling your rights? That should give us a lifetime pass on fulfilling our obligations."

 

That was the same impression I got. :(

 

He seems to be saying, "Hey, I'm on your side." Yet, he doesn't address that fact that his opposition for this bill seems to show the opposite.

 

Do y'all think I should respond to his reply or just leave it be? Is it considered normal/acceptable protocol for me to respond?

[Guest gunlobbyist]

That was the same impression I got. :(

 

He seems to be saying, "Hey, I'm on your side." Yet, he doesn't address that fact that his opposition for this bill seems to show the opposite.

 

Do y'all think I should respond to his reply or just leave it be? Is it considered normal/acceptable protocol for me to respond?

YES, YES, YES RESPOND! Engage him! Please!

 

Tell him that the 2A talks about arms. That there is no distinction between what types of arms. Be polite but engage!! 

 

here is some reference material from Hller case:

 

 

KNIVES AS REFERENCED IN US V. HELLER

The Heller majority opinion specifically states on page 52:

In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used

by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were

one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94,

98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American

Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). (Emphasis added)

Kessler found that “…defendant's possession of a billy club in his home was protected by

right to bear arms provision of Oregon Constitution.” The full quote from Kessler as cited

in Heller reads as follows:

B. The meaning of the term "arms"

The term "arms" is also subject to several interpretations. In the

colonial and revolutionary war era, weapons used by militiamen and

weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.

A colonist usually had only one gun which was used for hunting,

protection, and militia duty, plus a hatchet, sword, and knife. G.

Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution, 6-15, 252-

254 (1973). When the revolutionary war began, the colonists came

equipped with their hunting muskets or rifles, hatchets, swords, and

knives. The colonists suffered a severe shortage of firearms in the

early years of the war, so many soldiers had to rely primarily on

swords, hatchets, knives, and pikes (long staffs with a spear head). W.

Moore, Weapons of the American Revolution, 8 (1967). (Emphasis

added)

Kessler was followed by the Oregon Supreme Court in another case, State v. Delgado,

298 Or. 395, which in relying upon Kessler found that, “defendant's constitutional right

to bear arms was violated by prohibition of mere possession and mere carrying of a

switch-blade knife.” (Emphasis added)

Here is what the Delgado court had to say:

The state argues that a switch-blade is not a weapon "commonly used

for personal defense," and is therefore not an "arm" within the

meaning of the Oregon Constitution. It insists that the switch-blade is

an offensive weapon used primarily by criminals. In support of this

argument we are referred to various authorities, especially the Federal

Anti Switchblade Act, 15 USC §§ 1241-44 (Supp IV, 1980), which is

aimed at prohibiting the introduction of switch-blade knives into

interstate commerce because they are "almost exclusively the weapon

of the thug and the delinquent." S. Rep. No. 1980, 85th Cong., 2d

Sess., reprinted in 1958 U.S. Code Cong & Ad News 3435, 3437.

We note, first, that that material offers no more than

impressionistic observations on the criminal use of switchblades. More

importantly, however, we are unpersuaded by this distinction which

the state urges of "offensive" and "defensive" weapons. All hand-held

weapons necessarily share both characteristics. A kitchen knife can as

easily be raised in attack as in defense. The spring mechanism does

not, instantly and irrevocably, convert the jackknife into an "offensive"

weapon.(fn4) Similarly, the clasp feature of the common jackknife

does not mean that it is incapable of aggressive and violent purposes.

It is not the design of the knife but the use to which it is put that

determines its "offensive" or "defensive" character.

There are statutes now on the books that concern the manner in

which weapons are carried, the intent with which they are carried, the

use to which they may not be put and the status of a person that results

in forbidding his possessing a weapon.

"This state has several such regulatory statutes, with which we are

not concerned in this case: ORS 166.220(1) prohibiting possession of a

dangerous weapon with intent to use such weapon unlawfully against

another; ORS 166.240, prohibiting carrying certain weapons concealed

about one's person; ORS 166.250, prohibiting carrying any firearm

concealed upon the person or within any vehicle without a license to

do so." (Footnote omitted.)

State v. Blocker, supra, 291 Or at 259-260, 630 P2d at 826. See, also,

ORS 166.270, which prohibits an exconvict from possessing a firearm

concealable on the person, which this court held not to offend Article

I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution in State v. Robinson, 217 Or.

612, 619, 343 P.2d 886 (1959).

The appropriate inquiry in the case at bar is whether a kind of

weapon, as modified by its modern design and function, is of the sort

commonly used by individuals for personal defense during either the

revolutionary and postrevolutionary era,(fn5) or in 1859 when

Oregon's constitution was adopted. In particular, it must be determined

whether the drafters would have intended the word "arms" to include

the switch-blade knife as a weapon commonly used by individuals for

self defense. To answer that question we must journey briefly into the

history of knives. We have resorted primarily to three books by H.

Peterson for that history: Arms and Armour in Colonial America,

1526-1783 (1956); American Knives (1958); Daggers and Fighting

Knives of the Western World (1968). What we have to say generally

in the next few paragraphs is drawn from those works.

The popularity of the fighting knife has had an uneven history,

even to today. During the Roman civilization and for several centuries

thereafter, for example, the knife was little appreciated as a tool of

combat, but during the Viking Period of the 9th and 10th centuries

large knives (scramasax), used for general purposes as well as for war,

were popular among the Northmen, Germans, Franks and Anglo-

Saxons. It was during the Middle Ages that the real flowering of the

fighting knife and dagger occurred. New shapes appeared and the

knife became part of the standard dress for all classes: from the knights

and their men-at-arms as an adjunct to the sword, to the laborer and

peasant for protection and convenience. During the 16th century the

dagger came to be used by the aristocracy, mainly in conjunction with

the sword, and was used primarily for combat; indeed, during the early

part of that century the technique of fighting with sword and dagger

developed, thus giving rise to the modern school of knife fighting.

Through the 16th and 17th centuries knives and daggers declined in

importance and were no longer an important part of the daily civilian

costume.

In early colonial America the sword and dagger were the most

commonly used edged weapons. During the American colonial era

every colonist had a knife. As long as a man was required to defend

his life, to obtain or produce his own food or to fashion articles from

raw materials, a knife was a constant necessity. Around 1650 one form

of dagger popular in the colonies was the "plug bayonet," so called

because it fit into the muzzle of a musket. It was used both as a dagger

or as a general utility knife. Other knives became popular during the

17th and 18th centuries. The American frontiersman used a large knife

to ward off danger from Indian attacks and to hunt and trap; along with

that he carried a smaller knife, the blade being three to four inches

long, in his rifle bag.

In the 19th century, daggers remained popular, but in the west the

renowned Bowie knife became the weapon favored by the lawless and

law-abiding alike. These were violent times, particularly from the

1820s through the Civil War, when a weapon might be needed at a

moment's notice. In response, "the well-equipped gentleman carried a

pistol in his pocket and a knife beneath his coattails."

Of the many varieties of knives, none has been a more constant or

enduring companion to man than the pocket knife. Specimens of

folding pocket knives have been discovered in Roman archeological

sites, indicating that such knives were popular at least from the first

century A.D. They have been manufactured for their utility as both

instruments of labor and combat. One of the most common of the

specific named knives is the jackknife, a word of uncertain origin,

which was a large single-bladed folding knife, ranging in size from

four to seven inches when closed. By the early 1700s, when the eastern

seaboard had become a highly settled area with large towns and cities

and relatively good roads, men normally carried a folding pocket

knife. Even when they joined the American army during the

revolution, the knife they carried was the jackknife, which was

mentioned frequently in colonial records. During the American

Revolution at least two states, New Hampshire and New York,

required their militiamen to carry a jackknife. Even during the mid-

18th century, some of these "jackknives" were rather more lethal than

their name suggests, measuring two feet long with the blade extended,

and designed solely for fighting. G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of

the American Revolution 247 (1973). Some others had blades over 16

inches long, extending well beyond the hilt even when folded, and

were designed to be used open or closed. "Gentlemen" and officers

during this same era often carried canes with slender daggers mounted

inside which could be drawn with a quick tug and were used for

personal defense. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American

Revolution, supra, at 239. In the early 19th century a special form of

dagger also developed, the pocket or folding dagger, with blades

ranging in size from four to sixteen inches; they were intended to be

carried in the pocket or in special sheathes.

It is clear, then, that knives have played an important role in

American life, both as tools and as weapons. The folding pocketknife,

in particular, since the early 18th century has been commonly carried

by men in America and used primarily for work, but also for fighting.

This brings us to the switch-blade knife. A switchblade is defined

as a "pocketknife having the blade springoperated so that pressure on a

release catch causes it to fly open." Webster's Third International

Dictionary 2314 (1971). If ORS 166.510(1) proscribed the possession

of mere pocketknives, there can be no question but that the statute

would be held to conflict directly with Article I, section 27. The only

difference is the presence of the spring-operated mechanism that opens

the knife. We are unconvinced by the state's argument that the switchblade

is so "substantially different from its historical antecedent" (the

jackknife) that it could not have been within the contemplation of the

constitutional drafters. They must have been aware that technological

changes were occurring in weaponry as in tools generally. The format

and efficiency of weaponry was proceeding apace. This was the period

of development of the Gatling gun, breach loading rifles, metallic

cartridges and repeating rifles. The addition of a spring to open the

blade of a jackknife is hardly a more astonishing innovation than those

just mentioned.

[Guest KiloFive]

Thank him for his past efforts and then ask if he will sign a declaration of support of the bill as it is presented next year.

God & Tribe

[Guest gunlobbyist]

I would also add that support of the 2A is a continuos effort. Supporting one bill at one time in history is not enough. There is no "knife problem" in TN and he cannot say there is one. They are either with us or against us. Ask him what was the logic for their position? Where is the evidence of a knife problem in TN. Get him talking and keep him talking. Tell him we will not quit on this effort and his organization should support us. They may actually be able to amend this bill on the floor if the TSA retracts their objections. But don't bet on it. 

 

I am genuinely encouraged by the people on this forum getting so engaged!!!!!

 

Get to your local sheriff also! 

[shortround]

If you need contact info:

 

http://www.tnsheriffs.com/PDF/Directory.pdf