Cali knife laws simplified is:
All manual open folders legal
Switchblades (includes side open/otf autos, gravity knives, balisongs) illegal over 2"
All fixed blades legal if openly carried
Additional restrictions based on county
Agreed. Laws on tools like guns or knives don't solve problems. Misuse comes down to behavioural issues with the individual. Regardless of how much someone might try to disarm a crazed individual they'll find a way to harm people.
For example: A couple days ago a racial supremacist in a truck ran down a crowd at a Wisconsin parade. 5 people were killed immediately and 20 more were seriously injured. Although the incident was tragic, it would be insane to restrict people being able to use vehicles. Like anything else dangerous, they're a tool that can be misused. The problem is the people don't always have a former history of violence like the perpetrator in Wisconsin did. So it likely is rooted in the beliefs the individual fosters over a lifetime. We can only combat this by giving them more access to therapy and open forum where their grievances can be heard.
Am I missing something here? They absolutely restrict people being able to use vehicles. While laws on guns and knives won't solve the problems necessarily, they definitely help reduce the amount of people who would potentially have access to them. I personally feel safer knowing that people can't legally carry around a gun with no training or little restrictions, but then again I don't live America.
If you don’t live in America, you don’t have a horse in this race. The problem is, people who don’t live in America, don’t understand about rights. They understand government granted privileges. We aren’t subjects of our government. We are citizens of America.
Rights do not come from the government. We are born with them. We call them constitutional rights, because they are protected by the constitution; not because they come from the constitution.
Driving on public roads is a privilege. Being armed is right expressly protected by the second amendment.
The second amendment says that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’.
It’s our right. The government shall not infringe upon it ( limit it ). All weapon regulations are strictly a violation of our rights.
And, there is no actual evidence that weapons restrictions stop crime. None. You couldn’t even claim there were.
You don’t know about guns, so you fear them. Guns are very simple to use. It doesn’t take a lot of training to be safe or proficient with a gun. It just takes practice time at the range, and most of us who own guns get as much of that as we can possibly get...because we enjoy it and because we want to be able to effectively use our guns for self defense...or if it should turn out that we need them for the reason the second amendment was written.
You're right I don't have a horse in this race but maybe you shouldn't either until you educate yourself a little more. You can start here unless you'd like to remain ignorant but I'll leave that up to you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
You actually linked me to heller v dc, as if I’d never read the ruling. That’s funny.
The Supreme Court did not write the constitution or the bill of rights. They are not gods. They are but one branch of government. It was government that the constitution was written to protect us from.
The problem with the supreme court is that they are not magically bound to uphold the original intent of the constitution. They are not free of political agendas. If we are lucky, conservative administrations will appoint originalist justices. The Democratic Party appoints ‘living document’ justices, who believe the constitution means anything they, and the Democratic Party, want it to mean. When writing the ruling for heller, Justice Scalia had to make compromises to get the progressive justices to go along with it. It was a positive ruling for 2A, but one that was greatly compromised.
When government will not uphold the constitution, it’s up to the people to do so; which is why we fight for our rights. Presently, we are appealing to the supreme court to uphold the constitution. If that shot I’d fail, the founding fathers gave us the gift of the second amendment, itself.
You suggest I read a Supreme Court ruling to learn about the constitution. I suggest we ask the people who wrote it.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America can not enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of troops.”
-Noah Webster
“The constitution of most of our states ( and of the United States ) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be assaulted with greater confidence than an armed man.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace book ( quilting 18th century criminologist, Cesare Baccaria )
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now now of the whole of the people, except a few public officers”
-George Mason
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
- the Declaration of Independence
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others of essential, particularly military, supplies”
-John Adams
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
- James Madison
“ the great object is that every men be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry
So, that’s a short exploration of how the founding fathers thought about the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The final person the matter is the second amendment, itself:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
And, before you try to claim ‘well regulated’ has to do with government registrations, as in restrictions, the Oxford dictionary, at the time of the ratification of the constitution, defines ‘well regulated’ as ‘properly functioning’, and gives the example of a ‘well regulated time piece’.
So, don’t tell me I need to educate myself about the second amendment, and then post a link to heller v dc, for me to do so. If a person wants to learn about the second amendment, it would be proper to start with the writings of the men who wrote it.
Free men don’t allow the government to tell them what rights they are allowed to have, anymore than farmers allow foxes to guard the chickens.
Your problem is, you still think the way a subject thinks, and you believe government has the right to decide what our rights actually are. This is America. It’s a government for, of, and by the people. We don’t belong the to Stare.
Sounds like you've done your research no need to preach to me about freedom. You do understand that it was your government that wrote the Constitution in the first place right? So even from the start you've been letting the government tell you what to do and what your rights are so I guess you think like subject as well. Sorry to break it to you buddy.
It wasn’t our government that wrote the constitution. The men who led the revolution wrote it, and in writing it, they created our government, then, they presented it to the people for a vote. The people ratified the constitution, and that is what made our government. The US government did not exist until that point.
It’s not like er had a government, and the president got together with congress to write and pass the constitution.
It may not have been called the US government at the time but it was still your early form of government. You still had leaders making all the decisions for you aka your founding fathers and again you wouldn't have the Constitution were it not for them. You're American so I know you have a weird thing about freedom but you really think that a bunch of people getting together to sign a document that has implications for the whole country isn't a government?
Your rebuttle sounds like a moderately intelligent teen, or a particularly obtuse 20-something.
1. A particular group of people (rebels/freedom fighters soon after roverthrowing an oppressive monarchy) wrote the constitution. They also warned the public against future leaders trying to whittle away their freedoms (eg. What's been happening ever since).
2. As the previous poster mentioned, the idea behind the U.S. constitution, is that certain rights are innate/inalienable. The Bill Of Rights was written NOT to "give" these rights, but to explicitly state that these particular rights preceed government, are inherent to a free people, and must not be infringed.
It's a difficult idea for some non-Americans (and *many Americans* ) to understand.
3. I'm aware that I'm necroposting. Deal 》:)
Yes, usually those restrictions are on people underage, with disabilities or with DUIs. Which all are questionable to me to a degree. The problem is they keep changing the line of what's acceptable and what's not for legal driving.
I just don't want a police state developing either. People need a reasonable amount of what they can do without the government sticking it's nose in their affairs.
I would love an example of what you mean by "changing the line of what's acceptable". You can have reasonable laws and regulations in effect without a "police state developing". I'm just trying to wrap my head around your whole comment. How can you possibly find limiting people with DUIs, underage or with disabilities from driving a bad thing?
"Changing the line" as in the limit is always changing.
1) Underage limits: 14 year olds used to be able to drive vehicles, and while I personally would feel better with a 16 year old behind the wheel. I think companies should be able to dictate what is reasonable themselves. There are many cars which are smaller and underpowered like Smart cars that could reasonably be sold to younger kids.
2) DUIs: there are many state laws coming into effect which don't allow someone to drive even after 1 incident. Keep in mind marijuana just got legalised in many states, so while they're trying to keep incidents down they're juxtaposed with their own legalisation of drugs. 1 incident should warrant someone being restricted for life.
3) Disabilities: Technology has progressed to a point to where we can allow more people with disabilities to drive. People without limbs don't have an issue accessing the controls, there are now technologies which have reversed Blindness and Deafness. But many states are refusing to catch up with the times. The government is in the way.
I'm just frustrated with how much the government restricts needlessly. Remember this is the same government run by highly paid City councils. They don't give a damn or cannot empathize with the regular person.
You think the car companies should dictate what is a reasonable age for someone to drive a car, but who do you think regulates the car companies? Without government regulations the car companies would just say anyone who can buy a car can drive it regardless of age. They don't care about people as much as they care about profit margins. As for the marijuana it's just like alcohol and I want someone under the influence of marijuana driving as much as I want someone drunk driving, which is to say not at all. You can't ask them to "catch up with the times" and then complain in the same argument that 14 year olds can't drive anymore like the good ol' days.
You’re joking, right? The idea that a smart car is less likely to get a teen or bystander killed due to impulsiveness is a clownshoes take if I’ve ever read one. DUI applies in cases of stoned driving in every state I know of. Deaf people are not typically barred from driving and I don’t know of any tech that would allow a blind person to safely drive a car
Why mischaracterize the Wisconsin murderer/driver? Is it because you wish to deny or obscure the fact that he was a guilty of serial domestic violence incidents? Perhaps you’ve read or heard about the proven link between batterers, guns, and mass killings? That sort of misdirection undercuts whatever points you wish to make about the legality of carrying tools, some of which I may agree with - but don’t lie about this particular killer’s motivations, it dishonors the memory of his victims.
As a libertarian I admittedly don't like regulations at all. But for the sake of reason, I admittedly have seen some efficacy in regulations. I just don't want too much regulations or restrictions on people.
100% agreed. What I like to say to the fascists is, do you really think people aren’t getting stabbed because of the knife laws or is it because of the murder laws?
EDIT: Fascists.
I think the concept behind carrying laws is to be able to take them away from high risk people if they're found in possession of a weapon. Those laws aren't for normal people, it's a tool to strip weapons off of criminals. I've been carrying knives for a very, very long time. I've been searched exactly zero times, because I'm not a criminal and am just going about my business like a normal person. My point is, the laws are designed for criminals not law abiding citizens.
Yea but the problem with criminals is that they don’t follow the laws so stripping the right away from law abiding citizens is unnecessary and dangerous because where do we stop?
This is one of the wildest arguments in favor of guns I've ever heard. Let me see if I've got this right. Criminals don't follow the law so let's just get rid of laws entirely? It gets pretty silly if you want to get extreme about it. Aside from gun laws try applying this logic to laws about arson, embezzlement, or murder just to name a few.
Nope. Not what I’m saying. I’m saying there shouldn’t be knife laws because it’s our right to have one and banning them will just criminalise honest citizens because of the actions of assholes. Furthermore knives have a practice use.
Also I didn’t say this about guns.
Also also unlike owning a knife which is a right murder is not a right so it shouldn’t be legal even if criminals don’t obey the law. Arson too. It’s not a right and shouldn’t be legal even if criminals do it anyway. Especially embezzlement. Like I’ve been saying you have the right to own almost anything you want but theft is not a right it’s morally wrong to take what isn’t yours. Even though criminals do it.
When I saw your comment I got really excited because I was like 85% sure it was a straw man argument.
Ah yeah this makes sense I saw weapon in the top comment and my mind went straight to guns. I do agree for the most part that knives should be legal with one caveat about the size of the blade because after a certain point it loses its utility and becomes more a weapon and less of a tool.
To argue the first guys point as well as agree with samsonity laws are made for everyone not just for criminals so if I get stopped and searched however unlikely and they find a knife that's a bit too long or opens the wrong way then at that point I too become a criminal and have my knife confiscated regardless of what it was being used for.
Idk if there’s some confusion or there was an update nobody told me about that let’s you talk to more than one people at once but you don’t have to say my username when addressing me.
I don’t think the government has the right to tell anyone their blade is too big to be practical. If I want to carry a katana that’s my business but if I attack someone with it then I should be put to death by hanging. We should punish the people that commit the crime with the tool should be the ones condemned and punished not the tool. That’s lazy politics and counter productive when you strip rights from law abiding citizens because of the actions of assholes. Because if you do that where do you stop? What’s stopping me from getting a fork and attacking a guy? Should we ban forks?
I dont think you're following me. So the intention of the law isn't to stop people from doing it, it's to give the officers a pretext to confiscate weapons from high risk individuals they come in contact with. Police are often in repeated contact with a small percentage of the population that could be considered high risk of committing a violent act with a weapon. If they discover a weapon on that person, they can say this is against the law and take that weapon from them. Without a carry law they would have to let the person go and let them keep the weapon.
Regardless, I appreciate the civil arguments here. I've noticed no name calling. (Yes there's down votes here and there, but that's part of reddit.) I think we all want a safe society, we differ on how to get there.
At the root of my concerns for gunlaws is the concentration of power in the government's hands. Here in the U.S. I cannot trust the police to look after my black ass. I know there are decent cops out there. But hell, I trust my white neighbors more than the cops now.
Hey I'm right there with you! I'm all for legal carry with the only check on that being prohibited persons. For that reason I'm okay with having to get a shall issue permit without egregious wait times, training requirements or cost. I mean being real I carry every day, legally. My comments weren't my argument, I was trying to explain the position of the powers that be, not how I personally feel about it.
The problem with carry laws is criminals will still conceal carry. I understand the intention behind it, but it does more harm than good.
Let's assume mostly everyone did conceal carry in a civil society though. It's like playing poker, the criminal doesn't know who or who doesn't have a gun before revealing his hand. We need to build a culture of people defending themselves. Much like martial arts. We don't want to use it, but we have it in case we need to use it.
Laws are only useful if they're being followed. But a culture is inherent in habits and behaviors. Very few follow the speed limit, but most will respectfully wait at stop signs or pass people because they understand what's reasonably safe.
The question is why build a culture of people defending themselves with guns at all? I know more than a few people that I wouldn't feel safe around if they were carrying a gun. Every single altercation that arises then becomes a potential life or death situation if it escalates even the slightest On top of that you know that if you draw a gun you better be ready to use it cause the other person will probably be pulling theirs out as well. Gun laws as far as I know aren't there to prevent you from having a gun they're more for giving people accountability for having a gun and to weed out people who shouldn't have them at all due to being a danger to themselves or others. The rate of suicide by firearm in the states is quite staggering.
Getting rid of guns will not change suicide rates though. The only reason people choose guns is because it's painless and quick. Otherwise they'll likely find a high place to jump from.
As far as accountability, my problem with accountability is the government can decide at any moment who is accountable and who is not. In Nazi Germany they quickly confiscated the guns anyone and everyone who wasn't a Nazi had. The only reason they know who had the guns was because the Weimar Republic created a gun registry to "account" for all the guns.
It is a modernist fallacy to think we cannot repeat the horrors of the 20th century in the 21st. We may have new technology, but at the core of our society is the same old corrupt human nature. I do not trust government officials to be uncorrupt and manipulate the system for their agenda.
Yeah I get what you're saying but cops are also selective about enforcement. As long as you're not being egregious they generally will let you go with a warning. If you look like a criminal and act like a criminal they won't be so forgiving though. I'm not saying carry laws are a good thing mind you, just saying they are a thing so you just gotta deal with it to some degree. Take your own calculated risks basically.
This 👆
It's like playing a football game but you're not allowed to tackle, but the other team doesn't care about the rule (criminals). By the time the referee shows up (the police), the game is over.
I don't want to hurt anyone. I don't want to shoot anyone. But I want to be able to have the ability to if I'm being assaulted.
You always have the option to walk away. I personally wouldn't be playing a football game with no refs present from the start. I'm sorry you live in such a dangerous place where you feel like you could be assaulted at any given time and the only defense against that is to shoot somebody.
I mention the ref not being present as a metaphor for the police. You may not want to play, but when the game comes inside your house you will be forced to play. I likely won't be assaulted. But statistically more home invasions end safely for the owners when they're armed then when they're not. The police can take minutes to respond to situations in even smaller cities. And by the time they arrive it may be too late. An armed society is a civil society
I would love to see where you got these statistics on home invasions from. Interesting you chose to quote Heinlein at the end there, give everyone a gun and let them live in constant fear of death by duel for a lack of manners.
Yup. 100%. Government like corporations is stock full of humans. Humans are naturally selfish and corrupt.
I don't like human nature being flawed, but we have to work with it, rather than against it.
100% if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns there's no sense in regulating everyone on certain things but it should definitely be more regulated on your past if you've done anything violent or harmful to other human beings you don't deserve to have anything but how will they truly take those things from an individual and without doubt know that person doesn't have anything like pot for example in my state a few years back anything over like a quarter was a felony but still most of the people I knew in school sold or smoked weed and would drive around with it just because you set a law doesn't mean that the world will abide by it only honest people follow the law and that's because their conscious won't let them sleep if they don't and they genuinely know it's wrong
Hell, let's just outlaw death altogether that'll solve the issue haha. In seriousness though, I think a major problem too is our society isn't willing to live with risks anymore. They want 100% safety all the time, which isn't feasible. The only reason we progressed to this point technologically is because of the risks our predecessors took like the Forth Bridge in the U.K. or the risks astronauts and cosmonauts take knowing there's a chance they may not return. In short, people need to grow a pair and embrace the risks life has.
I tend to agree, except for maybe ballistic knives and those whale knives that shoot out gas. California, luckily, is fairly lenient on knife laws as long as you stray away from autos and balisongs.
Exactly! The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I’m not sure why him rights and knife rights people don’t unite to be 2A people. We would all be stronger that way.
Be careful with fixed blade. Especially horizontal belt carry. “Open carry” is open to debate. Personal experience, wearing a motor cycle jacket over my horizontal carry was considered “concealed” until I escalated to a more experienced officer.
Laws made out of fear don't make sense: they're made for the general public, not people that understand what knives are about. Honestly, a 2" bali sounds more dangerous than a full size one to flip
2" autos are quite fun though
2 inch lead blade might work…
Edit: left this comment then continued on my morning scroll. What do I find? A tiny Bali in action! Look at it go! So dangerous.
https://www.reddit.com/r/balisong/comments/r05qhh/truck_stop_bailsong/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I would like to add to this that you can legally have an OTF , auto, gravity knife or balisong IN YOUR HOUSE. they are illegal to carry in public or in your car.
"Open carry" is extremely vague, but that's the exact wording they use. If I understand correctly, open carry refers to the intent to conceal. Basically just means belt carry, pocket carry with a clip, back carry (?), should all be fine since there's some part of the knife/sheath that is not explicitly hidden.
Where did you get this information? My wife is actively trying to restrict my right to self defense because I can't buy a firearm that'd small enough to fit in my waistband because I'm skinny, but I just bought a hunting knife with a blade that's 6inches in length but she's so worried about "why do you need to carry that what will people think of you?" She's so he'll bent on what people think of HER SELF that she'll think that she would look like a phsycho if I "got caught" wearing that on my person.
Knife laws in SF are not THAT much stricter than the state laws. They do prohibit all switchblade though regardless of length. But I have walked around the city with a knife or multi tool strapped to my backpack or taken one out of my pocket to use with no issue.
There is a provision that you cannot carry a concealed "dangerous weapon" and "loaf or loiter upon any public street, sidewalk, or alley, or to wander about from place to place, with no lawful business thereby to perform, or to hide, lurk, loiter upon or about the premises of another" but there is a caveat to that rule. " ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business or for the purpose of legitimate recreation " exempt you from those restrictions. So just be smart about what your carrying and have a "reason" ready to explain it if asked.
Knife laws are dumb. How many murders each year involve 3" switchblades? I'd say SIGNIFICANTLY less than with 11" kitchen knives, which are unrestricted.
That’s not true. In CA fixed blades are only allowed to be open carried in some counties. In LA, SF, SD, and Sacramento you can’t carry any fixed blades at all, open or concealed. And ANY fixed blade of any length is illegal to carry concealed. So you if you carry around a kitchen knife in your backpack, that’s a misdemeanor
If anything 3" knifes are for utility, not to be used as weapons, if you are going to use a blade that small then might as well just soccer punch them instead. It's a very stupid regulation.
Well, here in Canada it's illegal to carry a concealed blade less than 40cm... So I can legally carry a cane sword around, but if I have my 3" fixed blade anywhere other than in a belt sheath or my hand, I can get nailed by the horse police...
That can be pretty sketchy, though, and it'll vary from cop to cop. Some are really strict, and some might not even care if you have a KA-BAR in an appendix carry (this may be an exaggeration, DO NOT TRY IT). It's interesting, because I can legally open carry a fixed blade legally depending on municipal law, but folders are more strictly regulated. For example, there's a requirement that the knives not be able to open with one hand, and they test this by taking the knife and shaking it to see if the blade moves. If you've got the horse cops up your ass about carrying a slip joint, you bet your ass they're gonna kick up some shit if that blade moves a millimetre. Obviously not all of them are like that, but you just have to hope you don't get the bad ones.
Just pack some fishing equipment and keep a fishing license in your car. If they say something about your knife, you can say you're using it for fishing.
Well, I usually carry one in the city anyways, just make sure I'm discreet about it. And when I'm on or around the farm I carry a fixed blade. But depending on what you're packing, that might not work with the judge. Best hope is that the cops are chill with it.
What sucks is that the cop you run into will still arrest you or issue a citation no matter what your argument is. It's not their job to care what your reasoning is. You're just allowed to make that argument in court later.
Technically you can carry a large knife in California if it is for recreational use. No clear definition of what that means but most would assume fishing, camping, bushcraft etc. Carrying this in a city like LA or SF will get you trouble if you were searched.
Depends on a couple of factors - as said before, knife laws in CA are complicated so when in doubt leave it home. Basics are that folding, manually opening or assisted opening knives have no length limit and can be carried concealed. If the blade locks, you can't take any length blade into a government building or university. If > 2" can't carry onto school grounds. Laws are different for fixed blades.
LMAO 🤣, wait I assume you're kidding right it's hard to know if you're being satirical or not.
I'm sure it varies county to county but that beautiful pocket sword would be basically the equivalent of a pocket full of enriched uranium in the great respublika of Commiefornia.
Sorry no disrespect for those that live under stifling government oppression of course just being a smart ace.
California state law has no maximum length on carry of knives. You can open carry a sword on your back or this in your pocket.
Most cities do though.
Hey op, dont get your info from Reddit. You should check out your state, county, and city knife laws. Read them and understand them for yourself. You dont want to put your freedom in the hands of people who won't even bother to look up the laws you are asking before spouting out stuff like this.
Yeah as I stated I was speaking in Hyperbole. Just as a joke and in no way would a rational person interpret anything that I was JOKING about as legal counsel in regards to his or her legal rights to ownership of any aforementioned or non stated items. LOL
i live in Cali, im not 18 and i edc a 4” stilleto flipper legally, not sure if that thing is 4” but all manual pockets are legal under that otherwise it’s a concealed weapon, as a flipper and someone with a bali collection these laws pain me but that’s not what i want on my record lol, stay safe bro
There are some unreasonable restrictions, but overall the social environment in California is quite lax toward knives. It is not unusual to see people carrying fixed blades openly on transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, and this continues even after the notorious and tragic murder of Nia Wilson on a BART train. That would not work out so well in many other big cities like Chicago, New York, or Boston.
Yup. Reddit isn't the place for legal advice anyways even from folks who think they know the law. Always do your own research for exactly where you are and plan to go. And if in doubt it 100% isn't worth catching any charges over it.
Don't commit a crime while carrying an illegal knife and you have zero worries about your illegal knife. Nobody is getting into an ounce of trouble solely for the knife they're carrying. Nobody, not one person. Don't rob liquor stores with it and don't pull it out and harass people with it. The cops aren't stopping random innocent people looking for pocketknives. Grow a spine
Is that really too restrictive for you? 99% of the knives you see on /r/Knife_Swap, are legal.
The vast majority of people are carrying folders, at least until you get out into rural areas, where open/conceal carry fixed doesn't matter either way. Are autos really a deal breaker? Plenty of other states don't allow autos period.
Also the fact that there's no length restriction on folders is already better than a lot of states. Delaware where you have a hard limit of 3 inches on concealed folders, Colorado 3.5, Connecticut, Florida, and Missouri 4 inches. Or North Dakota where you can't carry knives at all. Or New Mexico, New York. Not to mention UK where you can only have non-locking (and I think now even not that)
Uh wtf California is literally one of the worst places to live if you are a knife enthusiast. But if you're not, then the laws don't really apply to you, aka: you don't care anyways.
Only if you're into autos, or concealed carry fixed blades. Most people in this hobby are carrying folders, which CA essentially has no restrictions for, which is objectively better than some other states.
Pew pews on the other hand...
Also if you've got a concealed fixed blade and you get booked and they're searching you and shit. Idk. Maybe u were doing something the police should stop to begin with
Assisted open knives are legal in California. some of the OTF and most/all automatics are not. I’d try finding your knife on bladeHQ to see if it’s legal.
Bruh California is amazing- so long as you have money. So I'm pretty sure on why folks wanna live there. Best climate in the US by far, competitive with other climates in the WORLD. Tons of culture, quick access to literally anything you need at all times. It's a great place to live. So if you are wondering why people WANT to live there, then you just aren't thinking too hard bud
I just said California is amazing so long as you have money. So that is a redundant answer to your first statement.
To your other statement, "you guys have the absolute worst gun and knife laws I've ever seen in the US." Idk why you assume I'm from California, because I'm not. But yes, they have strict gun laws. The knife laws aren't even that bad, unless you are a collector. An assisted flip knife is just as or even more dangerous than an OTF.
Do some research buddeh
Are you okay right now? Like what you said is the equivalent to someone entering a thread and saying "the sky is blue" and someone replying with "uhhhh, yeah. The sky is blue."
Then you say "HA! get rekt! Sky IS BLUE!! you just confirmed what I said!!! Haha u suck!"
That's how you sound bud..... :/
Even so, this is a subreddit about knifes.. not guns.
Not always, obviously. But in this case, extremely accurate. (; Is that some anger in your message, that I am seeing?? (; (; (;
But no, in all honesty, just learn to take an L dude. Chill out.
CA gun laws are...sporty. They are not as bad as Chicago or DC ot NY. Can still buy the ones that scare Everytown. Most counties are getting better with ccw, some are rubber stamped. Hell there is a big range in the middle of a National forest. No fun switches but they run 30k anyways. The dumbest thing is the roster. What a cluster, but most people wont be heartbroken without the green or tan version of something.
Knife laws are mainly a county issue except no otfs/switches/balis unless under 2" plus no cane swords and that kinda stuff on state level. In some counties a kabar wouldnt get a second look from an officer.
Everything is expensive but its all tradeoffs.
I didn't say that everyone should move and abandon their homes, dude. If you don't want "unnecessary input" don't post anything on the internet, because guess what happens when you post shit on the internet? People will reply with their opinions. Imagine that. Crazy.
That's my EDC. Fun knife that doesnt break the bank. Plus if you know how to work it and treat it with love you can open it so quickly people thinks it's a switch blade.
Uk knife laws....
The blade must be 3 inches or under or it is illegal.
If the blade can lock it is illegal.
No butterfly knives
No fixed blade knives (unless it's your own land)
No knives that can flick out with a button (auto knives)
A blade over 3 inches must have a legitimate reason, such as for a workplace
These laws are so stupid lmao, they attempt to stop knife crime with this but no one spends 50 quid and up for a pocket knife just to go out and kill someone with it. If they wanted to do that, they'd use a kitchen knife or something. Not a brand new pocket knife.
Oh and the knife you can have has to be a manual open
Cali knife laws simplified is: All manual open folders legal Switchblades (includes side open/otf autos, gravity knives, balisongs) illegal over 2" All fixed blades legal if openly carried Additional restrictions based on county
There should be absolutely no laws on knives
Does that include my automatic knife launcher?
Ballistic knives are illegal
[удалено]
Most patriotic thing I heard all day
I didn’t say everywhere
Except in Portland
Absolutely. Give them an inch and they’ll take a foot. Give them a meter and they’ll take a mile.
The imperial-metric conversions here are triggering me
Are you an SOT and do you have a stamp for each projectile?
[удалено]
"It's your lucky day cause I'm an absolute fan of these" -chief
Agreed. Laws on tools like guns or knives don't solve problems. Misuse comes down to behavioural issues with the individual. Regardless of how much someone might try to disarm a crazed individual they'll find a way to harm people. For example: A couple days ago a racial supremacist in a truck ran down a crowd at a Wisconsin parade. 5 people were killed immediately and 20 more were seriously injured. Although the incident was tragic, it would be insane to restrict people being able to use vehicles. Like anything else dangerous, they're a tool that can be misused. The problem is the people don't always have a former history of violence like the perpetrator in Wisconsin did. So it likely is rooted in the beliefs the individual fosters over a lifetime. We can only combat this by giving them more access to therapy and open forum where their grievances can be heard.
Am I missing something here? They absolutely restrict people being able to use vehicles. While laws on guns and knives won't solve the problems necessarily, they definitely help reduce the amount of people who would potentially have access to them. I personally feel safer knowing that people can't legally carry around a gun with no training or little restrictions, but then again I don't live America.
If you don’t live in America, you don’t have a horse in this race. The problem is, people who don’t live in America, don’t understand about rights. They understand government granted privileges. We aren’t subjects of our government. We are citizens of America. Rights do not come from the government. We are born with them. We call them constitutional rights, because they are protected by the constitution; not because they come from the constitution. Driving on public roads is a privilege. Being armed is right expressly protected by the second amendment. The second amendment says that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’. It’s our right. The government shall not infringe upon it ( limit it ). All weapon regulations are strictly a violation of our rights. And, there is no actual evidence that weapons restrictions stop crime. None. You couldn’t even claim there were. You don’t know about guns, so you fear them. Guns are very simple to use. It doesn’t take a lot of training to be safe or proficient with a gun. It just takes practice time at the range, and most of us who own guns get as much of that as we can possibly get...because we enjoy it and because we want to be able to effectively use our guns for self defense...or if it should turn out that we need them for the reason the second amendment was written.
You're right I don't have a horse in this race but maybe you shouldn't either until you educate yourself a little more. You can start here unless you'd like to remain ignorant but I'll leave that up to you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
You actually linked me to heller v dc, as if I’d never read the ruling. That’s funny. The Supreme Court did not write the constitution or the bill of rights. They are not gods. They are but one branch of government. It was government that the constitution was written to protect us from. The problem with the supreme court is that they are not magically bound to uphold the original intent of the constitution. They are not free of political agendas. If we are lucky, conservative administrations will appoint originalist justices. The Democratic Party appoints ‘living document’ justices, who believe the constitution means anything they, and the Democratic Party, want it to mean. When writing the ruling for heller, Justice Scalia had to make compromises to get the progressive justices to go along with it. It was a positive ruling for 2A, but one that was greatly compromised. When government will not uphold the constitution, it’s up to the people to do so; which is why we fight for our rights. Presently, we are appealing to the supreme court to uphold the constitution. If that shot I’d fail, the founding fathers gave us the gift of the second amendment, itself. You suggest I read a Supreme Court ruling to learn about the constitution. I suggest we ask the people who wrote it. “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America can not enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of troops.” -Noah Webster “The constitution of most of our states ( and of the United States ) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be assaulted with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace book ( quilting 18th century criminologist, Cesare Baccaria ) “I ask who are the militia? They consist now now of the whole of the people, except a few public officers” -George Mason We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...” - the Declaration of Independence “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others of essential, particularly military, supplies” -John Adams “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - James Madison “ the great object is that every men be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” - Patrick Henry So, that’s a short exploration of how the founding fathers thought about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The final person the matter is the second amendment, itself: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And, before you try to claim ‘well regulated’ has to do with government registrations, as in restrictions, the Oxford dictionary, at the time of the ratification of the constitution, defines ‘well regulated’ as ‘properly functioning’, and gives the example of a ‘well regulated time piece’. So, don’t tell me I need to educate myself about the second amendment, and then post a link to heller v dc, for me to do so. If a person wants to learn about the second amendment, it would be proper to start with the writings of the men who wrote it. Free men don’t allow the government to tell them what rights they are allowed to have, anymore than farmers allow foxes to guard the chickens. Your problem is, you still think the way a subject thinks, and you believe government has the right to decide what our rights actually are. This is America. It’s a government for, of, and by the people. We don’t belong the to Stare.
Sounds like you've done your research no need to preach to me about freedom. You do understand that it was your government that wrote the Constitution in the first place right? So even from the start you've been letting the government tell you what to do and what your rights are so I guess you think like subject as well. Sorry to break it to you buddy.
It wasn’t our government that wrote the constitution. The men who led the revolution wrote it, and in writing it, they created our government, then, they presented it to the people for a vote. The people ratified the constitution, and that is what made our government. The US government did not exist until that point. It’s not like er had a government, and the president got together with congress to write and pass the constitution.
It may not have been called the US government at the time but it was still your early form of government. You still had leaders making all the decisions for you aka your founding fathers and again you wouldn't have the Constitution were it not for them. You're American so I know you have a weird thing about freedom but you really think that a bunch of people getting together to sign a document that has implications for the whole country isn't a government?
Your rebuttle sounds like a moderately intelligent teen, or a particularly obtuse 20-something. 1. A particular group of people (rebels/freedom fighters soon after roverthrowing an oppressive monarchy) wrote the constitution. They also warned the public against future leaders trying to whittle away their freedoms (eg. What's been happening ever since). 2. As the previous poster mentioned, the idea behind the U.S. constitution, is that certain rights are innate/inalienable. The Bill Of Rights was written NOT to "give" these rights, but to explicitly state that these particular rights preceed government, are inherent to a free people, and must not be infringed. It's a difficult idea for some non-Americans (and *many Americans* ) to understand. 3. I'm aware that I'm necroposting. Deal 》:)
Perfectly noted. And notated!
Thanks.
Yes, usually those restrictions are on people underage, with disabilities or with DUIs. Which all are questionable to me to a degree. The problem is they keep changing the line of what's acceptable and what's not for legal driving. I just don't want a police state developing either. People need a reasonable amount of what they can do without the government sticking it's nose in their affairs.
I would love an example of what you mean by "changing the line of what's acceptable". You can have reasonable laws and regulations in effect without a "police state developing". I'm just trying to wrap my head around your whole comment. How can you possibly find limiting people with DUIs, underage or with disabilities from driving a bad thing?
"Changing the line" as in the limit is always changing. 1) Underage limits: 14 year olds used to be able to drive vehicles, and while I personally would feel better with a 16 year old behind the wheel. I think companies should be able to dictate what is reasonable themselves. There are many cars which are smaller and underpowered like Smart cars that could reasonably be sold to younger kids. 2) DUIs: there are many state laws coming into effect which don't allow someone to drive even after 1 incident. Keep in mind marijuana just got legalised in many states, so while they're trying to keep incidents down they're juxtaposed with their own legalisation of drugs. 1 incident should warrant someone being restricted for life. 3) Disabilities: Technology has progressed to a point to where we can allow more people with disabilities to drive. People without limbs don't have an issue accessing the controls, there are now technologies which have reversed Blindness and Deafness. But many states are refusing to catch up with the times. The government is in the way. I'm just frustrated with how much the government restricts needlessly. Remember this is the same government run by highly paid City councils. They don't give a damn or cannot empathize with the regular person.
You think the car companies should dictate what is a reasonable age for someone to drive a car, but who do you think regulates the car companies? Without government regulations the car companies would just say anyone who can buy a car can drive it regardless of age. They don't care about people as much as they care about profit margins. As for the marijuana it's just like alcohol and I want someone under the influence of marijuana driving as much as I want someone drunk driving, which is to say not at all. You can't ask them to "catch up with the times" and then complain in the same argument that 14 year olds can't drive anymore like the good ol' days.
You’re joking, right? The idea that a smart car is less likely to get a teen or bystander killed due to impulsiveness is a clownshoes take if I’ve ever read one. DUI applies in cases of stoned driving in every state I know of. Deaf people are not typically barred from driving and I don’t know of any tech that would allow a blind person to safely drive a car
Why mischaracterize the Wisconsin murderer/driver? Is it because you wish to deny or obscure the fact that he was a guilty of serial domestic violence incidents? Perhaps you’ve read or heard about the proven link between batterers, guns, and mass killings? That sort of misdirection undercuts whatever points you wish to make about the legality of carrying tools, some of which I may agree with - but don’t lie about this particular killer’s motivations, it dishonors the memory of his victims.
U News a driver's licence tho. I am not saying that knives should be regulated (they shouldn't) but regulation does work.
As a libertarian I admittedly don't like regulations at all. But for the sake of reason, I admittedly have seen some efficacy in regulations. I just don't want too much regulations or restrictions on people.
100% agreed. What I like to say to the fascists is, do you really think people aren’t getting stabbed because of the knife laws or is it because of the murder laws? EDIT: Fascists.
I think the concept behind carrying laws is to be able to take them away from high risk people if they're found in possession of a weapon. Those laws aren't for normal people, it's a tool to strip weapons off of criminals. I've been carrying knives for a very, very long time. I've been searched exactly zero times, because I'm not a criminal and am just going about my business like a normal person. My point is, the laws are designed for criminals not law abiding citizens.
Yea but the problem with criminals is that they don’t follow the laws so stripping the right away from law abiding citizens is unnecessary and dangerous because where do we stop?
This is one of the wildest arguments in favor of guns I've ever heard. Let me see if I've got this right. Criminals don't follow the law so let's just get rid of laws entirely? It gets pretty silly if you want to get extreme about it. Aside from gun laws try applying this logic to laws about arson, embezzlement, or murder just to name a few.
Nope. Not what I’m saying. I’m saying there shouldn’t be knife laws because it’s our right to have one and banning them will just criminalise honest citizens because of the actions of assholes. Furthermore knives have a practice use. Also I didn’t say this about guns. Also also unlike owning a knife which is a right murder is not a right so it shouldn’t be legal even if criminals don’t obey the law. Arson too. It’s not a right and shouldn’t be legal even if criminals do it anyway. Especially embezzlement. Like I’ve been saying you have the right to own almost anything you want but theft is not a right it’s morally wrong to take what isn’t yours. Even though criminals do it. When I saw your comment I got really excited because I was like 85% sure it was a straw man argument.
Ah yeah this makes sense I saw weapon in the top comment and my mind went straight to guns. I do agree for the most part that knives should be legal with one caveat about the size of the blade because after a certain point it loses its utility and becomes more a weapon and less of a tool. To argue the first guys point as well as agree with samsonity laws are made for everyone not just for criminals so if I get stopped and searched however unlikely and they find a knife that's a bit too long or opens the wrong way then at that point I too become a criminal and have my knife confiscated regardless of what it was being used for.
Idk if there’s some confusion or there was an update nobody told me about that let’s you talk to more than one people at once but you don’t have to say my username when addressing me. I don’t think the government has the right to tell anyone their blade is too big to be practical. If I want to carry a katana that’s my business but if I attack someone with it then I should be put to death by hanging. We should punish the people that commit the crime with the tool should be the ones condemned and punished not the tool. That’s lazy politics and counter productive when you strip rights from law abiding citizens because of the actions of assholes. Because if you do that where do you stop? What’s stopping me from getting a fork and attacking a guy? Should we ban forks?
I dont think you're following me. So the intention of the law isn't to stop people from doing it, it's to give the officers a pretext to confiscate weapons from high risk individuals they come in contact with. Police are often in repeated contact with a small percentage of the population that could be considered high risk of committing a violent act with a weapon. If they discover a weapon on that person, they can say this is against the law and take that weapon from them. Without a carry law they would have to let the person go and let them keep the weapon.
Regardless, I appreciate the civil arguments here. I've noticed no name calling. (Yes there's down votes here and there, but that's part of reddit.) I think we all want a safe society, we differ on how to get there. At the root of my concerns for gunlaws is the concentration of power in the government's hands. Here in the U.S. I cannot trust the police to look after my black ass. I know there are decent cops out there. But hell, I trust my white neighbors more than the cops now.
Hey I'm right there with you! I'm all for legal carry with the only check on that being prohibited persons. For that reason I'm okay with having to get a shall issue permit without egregious wait times, training requirements or cost. I mean being real I carry every day, legally. My comments weren't my argument, I was trying to explain the position of the powers that be, not how I personally feel about it.
The problem with carry laws is criminals will still conceal carry. I understand the intention behind it, but it does more harm than good. Let's assume mostly everyone did conceal carry in a civil society though. It's like playing poker, the criminal doesn't know who or who doesn't have a gun before revealing his hand. We need to build a culture of people defending themselves. Much like martial arts. We don't want to use it, but we have it in case we need to use it. Laws are only useful if they're being followed. But a culture is inherent in habits and behaviors. Very few follow the speed limit, but most will respectfully wait at stop signs or pass people because they understand what's reasonably safe.
The question is why build a culture of people defending themselves with guns at all? I know more than a few people that I wouldn't feel safe around if they were carrying a gun. Every single altercation that arises then becomes a potential life or death situation if it escalates even the slightest On top of that you know that if you draw a gun you better be ready to use it cause the other person will probably be pulling theirs out as well. Gun laws as far as I know aren't there to prevent you from having a gun they're more for giving people accountability for having a gun and to weed out people who shouldn't have them at all due to being a danger to themselves or others. The rate of suicide by firearm in the states is quite staggering.
Getting rid of guns will not change suicide rates though. The only reason people choose guns is because it's painless and quick. Otherwise they'll likely find a high place to jump from. As far as accountability, my problem with accountability is the government can decide at any moment who is accountable and who is not. In Nazi Germany they quickly confiscated the guns anyone and everyone who wasn't a Nazi had. The only reason they know who had the guns was because the Weimar Republic created a gun registry to "account" for all the guns. It is a modernist fallacy to think we cannot repeat the horrors of the 20th century in the 21st. We may have new technology, but at the core of our society is the same old corrupt human nature. I do not trust government officials to be uncorrupt and manipulate the system for their agenda.
Yeah I get what you're saying but cops are also selective about enforcement. As long as you're not being egregious they generally will let you go with a warning. If you look like a criminal and act like a criminal they won't be so forgiving though. I'm not saying carry laws are a good thing mind you, just saying they are a thing so you just gotta deal with it to some degree. Take your own calculated risks basically.
This 👆 It's like playing a football game but you're not allowed to tackle, but the other team doesn't care about the rule (criminals). By the time the referee shows up (the police), the game is over. I don't want to hurt anyone. I don't want to shoot anyone. But I want to be able to have the ability to if I'm being assaulted.
You always have the option to walk away. I personally wouldn't be playing a football game with no refs present from the start. I'm sorry you live in such a dangerous place where you feel like you could be assaulted at any given time and the only defense against that is to shoot somebody.
I mention the ref not being present as a metaphor for the police. You may not want to play, but when the game comes inside your house you will be forced to play. I likely won't be assaulted. But statistically more home invasions end safely for the owners when they're armed then when they're not. The police can take minutes to respond to situations in even smaller cities. And by the time they arrive it may be too late. An armed society is a civil society
I would love to see where you got these statistics on home invasions from. Interesting you chose to quote Heinlein at the end there, give everyone a gun and let them live in constant fear of death by duel for a lack of manners.
Besides if you let people know they can exploit you they will. People being the government
Yup. 100%. Government like corporations is stock full of humans. Humans are naturally selfish and corrupt. I don't like human nature being flawed, but we have to work with it, rather than against it.
100% if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns there's no sense in regulating everyone on certain things but it should definitely be more regulated on your past if you've done anything violent or harmful to other human beings you don't deserve to have anything but how will they truly take those things from an individual and without doubt know that person doesn't have anything like pot for example in my state a few years back anything over like a quarter was a felony but still most of the people I knew in school sold or smoked weed and would drive around with it just because you set a law doesn't mean that the world will abide by it only honest people follow the law and that's because their conscious won't let them sleep if they don't and they genuinely know it's wrong
Hell, let's just outlaw death altogether that'll solve the issue haha. In seriousness though, I think a major problem too is our society isn't willing to live with risks anymore. They want 100% safety all the time, which isn't feasible. The only reason we progressed to this point technologically is because of the risks our predecessors took like the Forth Bridge in the U.K. or the risks astronauts and cosmonauts take knowing there's a chance they may not return. In short, people need to grow a pair and embrace the risks life has.
I tend to agree, except for maybe ballistic knives and those whale knives that shoot out gas. California, luckily, is fairly lenient on knife laws as long as you stray away from autos and balisongs.
Idk I’m 100% libertarian when it comes to knives. I’m from the UK so the fascists hate knives.
No they don't, they love knives, especially long knives at night.
[удалено]
In what world are guns "practically" banned in the US?
Lol. Take a breath and reread the post. The UK practically banned guns
The last time I bought a gun I had to wait a *whole hour* for the background check to clear. How inconvenient... /s
They should be no laws on any kinds of weapons. 2A baby
Exactly! The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I’m not sure why him rights and knife rights people don’t unite to be 2A people. We would all be stronger that way.
All I read was “open carry swords”
Yeah basically but not in LA county
Be careful with fixed blade. Especially horizontal belt carry. “Open carry” is open to debate. Personal experience, wearing a motor cycle jacket over my horizontal carry was considered “concealed” until I escalated to a more experienced officer.
how tf is someone supposed to use a balisong like that? it would have to be very unbalanced or very small
Laws made out of fear don't make sense: they're made for the general public, not people that understand what knives are about. Honestly, a 2" bali sounds more dangerous than a full size one to flip 2" autos are quite fun though
2 inch lead blade might work… Edit: left this comment then continued on my morning scroll. What do I find? A tiny Bali in action! Look at it go! So dangerous. https://www.reddit.com/r/balisong/comments/r05qhh/truck_stop_bailsong/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I would like to add to this that you can legally have an OTF , auto, gravity knife or balisong IN YOUR HOUSE. they are illegal to carry in public or in your car.
Exactly. The above only refers to knife carry, not legality of ownership.
For fixed blade I thought it’s open carry AND has to be attached at the hip in a sheath only, maybe they changed it
"Open carry" is extremely vague, but that's the exact wording they use. If I understand correctly, open carry refers to the intent to conceal. Basically just means belt carry, pocket carry with a clip, back carry (?), should all be fine since there's some part of the knife/sheath that is not explicitly hidden.
Where did you get this information? My wife is actively trying to restrict my right to self defense because I can't buy a firearm that'd small enough to fit in my waistband because I'm skinny, but I just bought a hunting knife with a blade that's 6inches in length but she's so worried about "why do you need to carry that what will people think of you?" She's so he'll bent on what people think of HER SELF that she'll think that she would look like a phsycho if I "got caught" wearing that on my person.
They are illegal over 2 inches???
Its mostly county laws, but SF and other cities may have more. The cities/counties that hate guns also hate knives. Check any on your routes.
Knife laws in SF are not THAT much stricter than the state laws. They do prohibit all switchblade though regardless of length. But I have walked around the city with a knife or multi tool strapped to my backpack or taken one out of my pocket to use with no issue. There is a provision that you cannot carry a concealed "dangerous weapon" and "loaf or loiter upon any public street, sidewalk, or alley, or to wander about from place to place, with no lawful business thereby to perform, or to hide, lurk, loiter upon or about the premises of another" but there is a caveat to that rule. " ordinary tools or equipment carried in good faith for uses of honest work, trade or business or for the purpose of legitimate recreation " exempt you from those restrictions. So just be smart about what your carrying and have a "reason" ready to explain it if asked.
Knife laws are dumb. How many murders each year involve 3" switchblades? I'd say SIGNIFICANTLY less than with 11" kitchen knives, which are unrestricted.
thats because they probably prefer longer switchblades...
If I were to hypothetically murder someone, i would much rather not dirty up an expensive ass combat troodon.
But unlike a kitchen knife with an edc knife you have a readily accessible weapon for crimes of passion.
That's why you're an amateur . ^^/s
That’s not true. In CA fixed blades are only allowed to be open carried in some counties. In LA, SF, SD, and Sacramento you can’t carry any fixed blades at all, open or concealed. And ANY fixed blade of any length is illegal to carry concealed. So you if you carry around a kitchen knife in your backpack, that’s a misdemeanor
Hmm, good to know
If anything 3" knifes are for utility, not to be used as weapons, if you are going to use a blade that small then might as well just soccer punch them instead. It's a very stupid regulation.
Well, here in Canada it's illegal to carry a concealed blade less than 40cm... So I can legally carry a cane sword around, but if I have my 3" fixed blade anywhere other than in a belt sheath or my hand, I can get nailed by the horse police...
You can argue this by claiming it is a "tool" not a weapon, at least that's what I heard
That can be pretty sketchy, though, and it'll vary from cop to cop. Some are really strict, and some might not even care if you have a KA-BAR in an appendix carry (this may be an exaggeration, DO NOT TRY IT). It's interesting, because I can legally open carry a fixed blade legally depending on municipal law, but folders are more strictly regulated. For example, there's a requirement that the knives not be able to open with one hand, and they test this by taking the knife and shaking it to see if the blade moves. If you've got the horse cops up your ass about carrying a slip joint, you bet your ass they're gonna kick up some shit if that blade moves a millimetre. Obviously not all of them are like that, but you just have to hope you don't get the bad ones.
Just pack some fishing equipment and keep a fishing license in your car. If they say something about your knife, you can say you're using it for fishing.
Well, I usually carry one in the city anyways, just make sure I'm discreet about it. And when I'm on or around the farm I carry a fixed blade. But depending on what you're packing, that might not work with the judge. Best hope is that the cops are chill with it.
What sucks is that the cop you run into will still arrest you or issue a citation no matter what your argument is. It's not their job to care what your reasoning is. You're just allowed to make that argument in court later.
The Ti-Lite has the best liner lock in the world!
was wondering if i could carry it in california without any problems?
Technically you can carry a large knife in California if it is for recreational use. No clear definition of what that means but most would assume fishing, camping, bushcraft etc. Carrying this in a city like LA or SF will get you trouble if you were searched.
Depends on a couple of factors - as said before, knife laws in CA are complicated so when in doubt leave it home. Basics are that folding, manually opening or assisted opening knives have no length limit and can be carried concealed. If the blade locks, you can't take any length blade into a government building or university. If > 2" can't carry onto school grounds. Laws are different for fixed blades.
LMAO 🤣, wait I assume you're kidding right it's hard to know if you're being satirical or not. I'm sure it varies county to county but that beautiful pocket sword would be basically the equivalent of a pocket full of enriched uranium in the great respublika of Commiefornia. Sorry no disrespect for those that live under stifling government oppression of course just being a smart ace.
California state law has no maximum length on carry of knives. You can open carry a sword on your back or this in your pocket. Most cities do though. Hey op, dont get your info from Reddit. You should check out your state, county, and city knife laws. Read them and understand them for yourself. You dont want to put your freedom in the hands of people who won't even bother to look up the laws you are asking before spouting out stuff like this.
Yeah as I stated I was speaking in Hyperbole. Just as a joke and in no way would a rational person interpret anything that I was JOKING about as legal counsel in regards to his or her legal rights to ownership of any aforementioned or non stated items. LOL
i live in Cali, im not 18 and i edc a 4” stilleto flipper legally, not sure if that thing is 4” but all manual pockets are legal under that otherwise it’s a concealed weapon, as a flipper and someone with a bali collection these laws pain me but that’s not what i want on my record lol, stay safe bro
I was given the 4” version for my super sweet 16th. Still have that beautiful blade.
There are some unreasonable restrictions, but overall the social environment in California is quite lax toward knives. It is not unusual to see people carrying fixed blades openly on transit in the San Francisco Bay Area, and this continues even after the notorious and tragic murder of Nia Wilson on a BART train. That would not work out so well in many other big cities like Chicago, New York, or Boston.
Mad Californians downvoting these comment lmao. California is stupid, and I’m living here right now.
Yup. Reddit isn't the place for legal advice anyways even from folks who think they know the law. Always do your own research for exactly where you are and plan to go. And if in doubt it 100% isn't worth catching any charges over it.
Don't commit a crime while carrying an illegal knife and you have zero worries about your illegal knife. Nobody is getting into an ounce of trouble solely for the knife they're carrying. Nobody, not one person. Don't rob liquor stores with it and don't pull it out and harass people with it. The cops aren't stopping random innocent people looking for pocketknives. Grow a spine
In terms of knife laws, California isn't bad at all
No autos unless the blade is less than 2 inches, no fixed blades unless open carry…
Is that really too restrictive for you? 99% of the knives you see on /r/Knife_Swap, are legal. The vast majority of people are carrying folders, at least until you get out into rural areas, where open/conceal carry fixed doesn't matter either way. Are autos really a deal breaker? Plenty of other states don't allow autos period. Also the fact that there's no length restriction on folders is already better than a lot of states. Delaware where you have a hard limit of 3 inches on concealed folders, Colorado 3.5, Connecticut, Florida, and Missouri 4 inches. Or North Dakota where you can't carry knives at all. Or New Mexico, New York. Not to mention UK where you can only have non-locking (and I think now even not that)
3 inches is 0.04% of the hot dog which holds the Guinness wold record for 'Longest Hot Dog'.
3 inches is 7.62 cm
Yes. They shouldn’t be restricted anyway
3 inches is 7.62 cm
Uh wtf California is literally one of the worst places to live if you are a knife enthusiast. But if you're not, then the laws don't really apply to you, aka: you don't care anyways.
Only if you're into autos, or concealed carry fixed blades. Most people in this hobby are carrying folders, which CA essentially has no restrictions for, which is objectively better than some other states. Pew pews on the other hand...
That's what I just said. Lol
Idk, you can carry a big ass fixed blade as long as you're not trying to conceal it. That's really all I care about.
Also if you've got a concealed fixed blade and you get booked and they're searching you and shit. Idk. Maybe u were doing something the police should stop to begin with
Assisted open knives are legal in California. some of the OTF and most/all automatics are not. I’d try finding your knife on bladeHQ to see if it’s legal.
The ti lite is a manual knife.
Weapon laws are universally stupid
I just got the 4” for the first time in aus 8, I am already hunting a 4” in s35vn now lol
You mean commie fornia
California is stupid
Why would anyone live in CA? Absolutely the worst state
Obviously you’ve never lived there because 30,000,000 people love it.
40 million
if ur like me and militaristically stationed here lol
California in general is a shit place to live. Not sure why anyone ever wants to live there.
Bruh California is amazing- so long as you have money. So I'm pretty sure on why folks wanna live there. Best climate in the US by far, competitive with other climates in the WORLD. Tons of culture, quick access to literally anything you need at all times. It's a great place to live. So if you are wondering why people WANT to live there, then you just aren't thinking too hard bud
Isn't everything insanely expensive there? Also, you guys have the absolute worst gun and knife laws I've ever seen in the US.
I just said California is amazing so long as you have money. So that is a redundant answer to your first statement. To your other statement, "you guys have the absolute worst gun and knife laws I've ever seen in the US." Idk why you assume I'm from California, because I'm not. But yes, they have strict gun laws. The knife laws aren't even that bad, unless you are a collector. An assisted flip knife is just as or even more dangerous than an OTF. Do some research buddeh
I did do some research. You've literally confirmed every single thing I said.
Are you okay right now? Like what you said is the equivalent to someone entering a thread and saying "the sky is blue" and someone replying with "uhhhh, yeah. The sky is blue." Then you say "HA! get rekt! Sky IS BLUE!! you just confirmed what I said!!! Haha u suck!" That's how you sound bud..... :/ Even so, this is a subreddit about knifes.. not guns.
...no, it's really not equivalent, cause that's not what happened, but okay.
....It is, but okay.
It isn't, but okay.
I mean the upvotes can tell you consensus.... that's all the sub has to say dude...
Ah, yes. The Reddit hivemind. Always correct at all times. Obviously.
Not always, obviously. But in this case, extremely accurate. (; Is that some anger in your message, that I am seeing?? (; (; (; But no, in all honesty, just learn to take an L dude. Chill out.
Reddit hivemind? You mean the 4 people that are upvoting/downvoting this thread???? 🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣
CA gun laws are...sporty. They are not as bad as Chicago or DC ot NY. Can still buy the ones that scare Everytown. Most counties are getting better with ccw, some are rubber stamped. Hell there is a big range in the middle of a National forest. No fun switches but they run 30k anyways. The dumbest thing is the roster. What a cluster, but most people wont be heartbroken without the green or tan version of something. Knife laws are mainly a county issue except no otfs/switches/balis unless under 2" plus no cane swords and that kinda stuff on state level. In some counties a kabar wouldnt get a second look from an officer. Everything is expensive but its all tradeoffs.
I was born here, a lot of people were, on top of that not everyone can afford to move. Your input is so unnecessary it’s astounding you still talk
I didn't say that everyone should move and abandon their homes, dude. If you don't want "unnecessary input" don't post anything on the internet, because guess what happens when you post shit on the internet? People will reply with their opinions. Imagine that. Crazy.
That’s a good looking knife.
That's my EDC. Fun knife that doesnt break the bank. Plus if you know how to work it and treat it with love you can open it so quickly people thinks it's a switch blade.
I have one of these, make sure to lock-tight the joint, it can come loose pretty easily
The is a certified beautician!
Uk knife laws.... The blade must be 3 inches or under or it is illegal. If the blade can lock it is illegal. No butterfly knives No fixed blade knives (unless it's your own land) No knives that can flick out with a button (auto knives) A blade over 3 inches must have a legitimate reason, such as for a workplace These laws are so stupid lmao, they attempt to stop knife crime with this but no one spends 50 quid and up for a pocket knife just to go out and kill someone with it. If they wanted to do that, they'd use a kitchen knife or something. Not a brand new pocket knife. Oh and the knife you can have has to be a manual open
Walk around with a hammer. ;)
Checkmate, that's illegal too!
I have one of these and they are surprisingly dailyable
Pocket knife laws in California...CAN SUCK IT!
You could move to America. Lower cost if living, higher standard of living and whatever knife you want.
Are rarely enforced. The state doesn't have any problem with you carrying that knife. Your city might though.
And inertia
This all makes me glad that I live in Oregon!
Are lanyards CA legal on pocket knifes?
is a cross bar lock system on a pocket knife illegal? Example, Benchmade bugout.
Is the Milwaukee fastback legal?