What is the reak scoop on the 5 inch blade limit

[Bamban]

I was told there was a case where the accused got convicted with the 5 inch knife and was further told the fixed knife 5 inch blade limit starts from the tang (an element in the mentioned case) and not just the sharpened section.

What is the real deal on the blade limit?

Have you guys heard of such a court case?

 

[Countryfried Frank]

Do you know which case it was? At first blush it sounds like a story a guy heard from a guy who saw it on the internet. Per penal code 46.01 an illegal knife is, among other things, a knife with a blade over five and one-half inches. There are several ways there conditions for an illegal knife. I'm curious if it was an attribute other than length making it an illegal knife.

I haven't heard of a case like you described but I would be interested in learning more if there is one.

 

[Bithabus]

I was told there was a case where the accused got convicted with the 5 inch knife

blade must be over 5.5 inches to be unlawful carry

and was further told the fixed knife 5 inch blade limit starts from the tang

No, the measurement starts at the guard or where the grip terminates and extends to the point

(an element in the mentioned case) and not just the sharpened section.

That is correct. The entire measured length does not have to be sharpened.


A double edged knife or throwing knife is unlawful to carry regardless of length.

 

[Countryfried Frank]

No, the measurement starts at the guard or where the grip terminates and extends to the point



That is correct. The entire measured length does not have to be sharpened.

What is your source for that. I am genuinely curious, not trying to be an internet butthead (this time).

 

[Bithabus]

What is your source for that. I am genuinely curious, not trying to be an internet butthead (this time).

Rainer v. State, 763 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1989, pet. ref’d)


McMurrough v. State, 995 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. App.-Ft. Worth 1999).

 

[Countryfried Frank]

Thank you.

 

[Mic]

Rainer v. State, 763 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1989, pet. ref’d)


McMurrough v. State, 995 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. App.-Ft. Worth 1999).

Always nice to see somebody backing up what they "know". Thanks for posting these.

 

[MississippiRifleman]

It's kind of appalling to see how law-abiding citizens are forced to pore over and examine every minute detail of the law to ascertain whether anything we intend to do, say, carry or use is "allowed," while criminals of every stripe get to do literally as they please, often with no serious repercussions.

 

[Mreed911]

often with no serious repercussions.

Well, other than a criminal record and everything that comes with that.

 

[Wyldman]

Well, other than a criminal record and everything that comes with that.

As if they really give a crap about having a "record".

Caring about oneself, and the reputation carried, is something that has been bred out of society.

Crush, kill, mangle, maim, destroy.

 

[Mreed911]

As if they really give a crap about having a "record".

I answered the comment I quoted. Nothing more.

Caring about oneself, and the reputation carried, is something that has been bred out of society.

I'd argue the opposite. Having a record, being known as someone who ignores the law, is violent, and is armed, is often exactly the reputation desired, regardless the consequences.

One need only look at the number of fatherless families and the impact of that to see how far this selfishness extends.

 

[Wyldman]

I was agreeing with the sentiment of your post, I believe.

Crush, kill, mangle, maim, destroy.

 

[MississippiRifleman]

Well, other than a criminal record and everything that comes with that.

That doesn't seem to be working as much of a deterrent, if it ever did.

My point being, why are WE the ones who have to bear the burden of proof, jump through all the fiery hoops and meet asinine requirements in order to exercise a legitimate right to self-defense we were born with?

If some thug moron breaks down my door with the clear intent to rob, rape and kill my family, he is free to do as he pleases, while I bear the legal burden of defending my actions on contact in a court of "law," where I will be subjected to examination, humiliation, threats and monetary burdens that most normal people can ill afford. Peoples' lives are literally destroyed by our so-called legal system because law-abiding citizens are the low-hanging fruit. Everyone from the cops to the legislators lives on the money they siphon from us, all the while coming up with more and more laws to break us even further.

Meanwhile, criminals keep doing crimes and laughing at us for footing the bill for the whole thing.

The entire system is broken.

 

[Wyldman]

Amen.

Crush, kill, mangle, maim, destroy.

 

[Charlie]

That doesn't seem to be working as much of a deterrent, if it ever did.

My point being, why are WE the ones who have to bear the burden of proof, jump through all the fiery hoops and meet asinine requirements in order to exercise a legitimate right to self-defense we were born with?

...............................................

The entire system is broken.

It's you own fault 'cause you bury the deceased deep enough and somebody found it!!

 

[MississippiRifleman]

It's you own fault 'cause you bury the deceased deep enough and somebody found it!!

I'd burn them in the fiery hoops first; I ain't digging no holes in this gumbo dirt!