July 1st law

[Guest confidence]

I haven't had time to get on TGO for a while and can't remember the details on the new knife law. I had all the fine print down earlier this year and now I can't remember.  :blush: Can y'all get me up to speed?

 

I remember that as of 2013 the state preempts and that as of July 2014 you can carry any length and any type (switchblade, etc.). But what about the finer points? Can property owners/local governments/local parks proactively prohibit with signage like they can guns? Can you carry like a full sword on your side if you were that hard core? (lol!) Where can I read a link that gives me more info? Anybody have the relevant TCA number(s)? Bet OS does :)

 

 

In this thread OS says that a convicted felon may carry any knife and that you still can't carry at a school but does that mean you can't even carry a small folder in your pocket in a school? Does this count for local parks being used by a school like firearms? How about local parks in general?

 

Speaking of parks, I'm assuming the new law applies fully to state parks but what about national parks?

 

I started to go back and sift through that huge thread on the new law but it's too long. Besides, many here could probably benefit if we recapped things, I'm hoping.

 

BTW, my post-July01 knife is a Bowie knife!  :usa:

 

 

 

 

 

[peejman]

Any knife, any time, anywhere that's not posted.  Katanas and Claymores included. 

[Oh Shoot]

I....Anybody have the relevant TCA number(s)? Bet OS does :)

 

Simply removes switchblade/knife references in three existing statutes but adding additional penalty for using switchblade in a crime.

 

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB1771.pdf

 

 

...that you still can't carry at a school but does that mean you can't even carry a small folder in your pocket in a school?

 

Read school weapons statute. The "like kind" wording makes any knife prohibited. Degree of enforcement? Varies, obviously.

 

Does this count for local parks being used by a school like firearms? How about local parks in general?

 

I imagine our illustrious AG would say it does. Anything's possible in a state with so many gray nuances within so many statutes of weapon law.

 

- OS

Edited July 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[bronco302]

Any knife, any time, anywhere that's not posted.  Katanas and Claymores included.

Where is there anything about postings for knives carring the weight of law? I would like to read it.

Joe W.

[Oh Shoot]

Where is there anything about postings for knives carring the weight of law? I would like to read it.

Joe W.

 

37-13-1359. It's all about "weapons".

 

You'd have to successfully argue that a knife isn't a weapon to beat the rap if posted per statute wording or with a knifebuster logo ("the international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle")

 

- OS

Edited July 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[monkeylizard]

Metro Nashville libraries have both gunbuster and knifebuster stickers. Both are small and on clear backgrounds making them hard to see when entering, but plain as day when existing and they're backlit by the sun.

[Guest confidence]

So my hope was that I could carry a fixed blade in places where I am currently prohibited from carrying a firearm. Not looking as hopeful for that as I thought. Looks like I am going to be spending some significant time reviewing the TCA in detail before I feel confident doing that. 

[Oh Shoot]

So my hope was that I could carry a fixed blade in places where I am currently prohibited from carrying a firearm. Not looking as hopeful for that as I thought. Looks like I am going to be spending some significant time reviewing the TCA in detail before I feel confident doing that. 

 

According to literal reading of the statute, if only a gun buster sign is displayed, knives are not banned.

 

As far as using conforming "weapons" verbiage, knives have also been banned all along, whether the poster meant to or not. That's assuming indeed all knives are legally seen as "weapons" (AFAIK there is no definition of "weapon" in TCA).

 

- OS

Edited July 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[bronco302]

According to literal reading of the statute, if only a gun buster sign is displayed, knives are not banned.
 
As far as using conforming "weapons" verbiage, knives have also been banned all along, whether the poster meant to or not. That's assuming indeed all knives are legally seen as "weapons" (AFAIK there is no definition of "weapon" in TCA).
 
- OS

While I wouldn't argue the point on the courthouse steps, and I know schools are still excluded the word knife has been removed from 39-17-1307 but firearms, and clubs are still described. Of course we need a permit to carry these. The word knife has also been removed from 39-17-1302. A definition of what a knife is still exists in 39-17-1301, but if you can't be charged with carrying a weapon while just carrying a knife is it any more a weapon then a pencil. Of course if you attack someone ether becomes a weapon, but assault is a criminal offense. Just thinking out loud.As you have said so many gray areas. They could so easily write it black and white.

Joe W

[Oh Shoot]

While I wouldn't argue the point on the courthouse steps, and I know schools are still excluded the word knife has been removed from 39-17-1307 but firearms, and clubs are still described. Of course we need a permit to carry these. The word knife has also been removed from 39-17-1302. A definition of what a knife is still exists in 39-17-1301, but if you can't be charged with carrying a weapon while just carrying a knife is it any more a weapon then a pencil. Of course if you attack someone ether becomes a weapon, but assault is a criminal offense. Just thinking out loud.As you have said so many gray areas. They could so easily write it black and white.

Joe W

 

You can argue either side of that.

 

Only switchblade knives and blades over 4 inches were violations. Would one assume that only prohibited knives are weapons? If so, why legislate a sign that allows only barring already prohibited weapons? Of course, a rebuttal to that is that contrary to what some think, 1359 is a separate charge even for someone carrying a firearm illegally, so in that sense it is barring an already prohibited behavior.

 

But if 1359 were only about firearms, why didn't it simply use the word "firearms" exclusively? Why does the "buster" clause mention "the item within the circle"?

 

Fortunately, since the statue is so rarely enforced, it's largely irrelevant in esse. Obvious practical advice is not to open carry a gun or a blade in a posted establishment, eh?

 

- OS

Edited July 17, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest confidence]

Obvious practical advice is not to open carry a gun or a blade in a posted establishment, eh?

 

- OS

 

:cry:

[Oh Shoot]

:cry:

 

Well, again, that was only my opinion -- my opinion is also that a gunbuster sign alone does not ban knife carry under the provisions of the statute.

 

Be sure to print out and hand them my opinion if they confront you. ;)

 

- OS

[Clod Stomper]

Well, again, that was only my opinion -- my opinion is also that a gunbuster sign alone does not ban knife carry under the provisions of the statute.

 

Be sure to print out and hand them my opinion if they confront you. ;)

 

- OS

 

Well, I respect your opinion over most law enforcement officials or judges since you seem to be able to understand what the law actually says.  And you don't try to add  to or ignore what is written into the law.  Unlike even some Supreme Court "justices", who base their legal opinion on their emotional or ideological biases or laws of other countries.

 

It is unfortunate that you would not be the one arresting or prosecuting or convicting...

[Oh Shoot]

Well, I respect your opinion over most law enforcement officials or judges since you seem to be able to understand what the law actually says.  And you don't try to add  to or ignore what is written into the law.  Unlike even some Supreme Court "justices", who base their legal opinion on their emotional or ideological biases or laws of other countries.

 

It is unfortunate that you would not be the one arresting or prosecuting or convicting...

 

You make me blush. ;)  Perhaps my least popular opinion is that one could still be convicted under 39-17-1359 even if a written posting is not compliant to the statutory provisions, as long as the message is clear.

 

- OS

[Clod Stomper]

Well, nobody is right all the time. :)

Actually, it may well be the case that one could be prosecuted with a non-compliant posting. BUT that illustrates my point. I don't care what the intent of the law is. I care what it actually says. If a sign doesn't say what the law says it should, then it may as well not exist, legally speaking.

But a cop or prosecutor may not look at it the same way.

[monkeylizard]

Or a judge or jury.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, nobody is right all the time. :)

Actually, it may well be the case that one could be prosecuted with a non-compliant posting. BUT that illustrates my point. I don't care what the intent of the law is. I care what it actually says. If a sign doesn't say what the law says it should, then it may as well not exist, legally speaking.

But a cop or prosecutor may not look at it the same way.

 

Then you should agree with me. The law does not say that a non-compliant posting exonerates you from arrest/conviction. Perhaps that was the intent, but it doesn't say that.

 

Contrast with the federal statute regarding carry in buildings which does say that.

 

- OS

[Clod Stomper]

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you.  I do believe that it's possible that one may (hypothetically, at this point) be prosecuted for carrying past a non-compliant sign.  I just don't think that it would be right.  Put another way, either the incorrectly posted entity or the handgun carrier who ignores it is out of compliance.  How can both be?

 

It's just my innate belief that the law should be construed to protect citizens rather than be left "open" enough to prosecute someone who is engaging in an activity that is harmless - if it were to tickle their fancy at the moment.  I think that if there is ANY question as the the legality of a citizen, then the benefit of the doubt should go to him/her.  If it turns out to be a widespread issue (which it doesn't seem to be at the moment) then lawmakers should take it up and spell it out one way or the other.  

 

So I guess it comes down to what is, versus what should be, which, of course, is a futile exercise.

 

In short, I agree with you, but I think the concept is messed up.

 

I'm all out of big words today.  I think I pulled a brainmuscle.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Clod Stomper

[Guest confidence]

After thinking over this a little more...The thing is that it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the verbiage (instead a prohibiting logo) actually prohibits carrying a knife. Knives are not listed anywhere in the code as prohibited weapons, so therefore they don't count as a weapon. Yes, I agree that the wording is messed up and that it could be misinterpreted by a court as a weapon but that defies everything in the code. For instance, I like to carry a Smith and Wesson tactical pen. Tactical pens are not mentioned in the code. Could the prohibiting verbiage be interpreted by a court to outlaw tactical pens? Yes, lots of weird rulings have been made that are contrary to the law. But the law does not proactively and clearly prohibit a tactical pen in black and white.

 

So, I shall open carry a knife into a park and let you know how it goes! Yes, I know you will chide me for being a test case but you need people like me to test this stuff for ya, right? I'll do the dirty work! ;)

Edited July 19, 2014 by confidence

[peejman]

So, I shall open carry a knife into a park and let you know how it goes! Yes, I know you will chide me for being a test case but you need people like me to test this stuff for ya, right? I'll do the dirty work! ;)

No, we really don't. If it doesn't go well, we all end up paying the price.

[R_Bert]

So in celebration of the new July 1 law, I decided to run over and express my joy in the form of presenting a new knife for careful inspection by the officer :cop: .  %%%%!  That car hood is hard and the cuffs are tight! :stare:

[Guest confidence]

No, we really don't. If it doesn't go well, we all end up paying the price.

 

Oh boy, one of those. Afraid to exercise any rights in case we all lose them all. Well, I just left a notable banned municipal park where I open carried a rather large blade. I had 3 positive interactions. Was gonna give you a photo but oh well.

Edited July 19, 2014 by confidence

[tnhawk]

So in celebration of the new July 1 law, I decided to run over and express my joy in the form of presenting a new knife for careful inspection by the officer :cop: .  %%%%!  That car hood is hard and the cuffs are tight! :stare:

it's a tough job but someboy's got to do it!

[Guest confidence]

By the way, how often does LexisNexis update the TCA? It has not yet been updated to match SB 1771.

[Guest confidence]

According to literal reading of the statute, if only a gun buster sign is displayed, knives are not banned.

 

As far as using conforming "weapons" verbiage, knives have also been banned all along, whether the poster meant to or not. That's assuming indeed all knives are legally seen as "weapons" (AFAIK there is no definition of "weapon" in TCA).

 

- OS

 

OS,

 

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree as 39-17-1311 specifically defers to 39-17-1302 for the definition of a weapon. Of course, not every statute references that so it may not apply to all of them. But it for sure applies to parks as that is one of the main purposes of 1311. Therefore, since knives have been removed from 1302 it's lawful to carry them in a banned city park. Read below...

 

 

39-17-1311.  Carrying weapons on public parks, playgrounds, civic centers and other public recreational buildings and grounds. 

  (a) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any weapon prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a), not used solely for instructional, display or sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes.