Anyone have and carry a bowie knife?

[jordanmills]

I kind of want one to carry around when I'm not in the office. Don't know much about them or anyone who makes them and want to learn more.

 

[BG1960]

I have several but since it is against the law to carry one, they stay at home.

 

[Jon Payne]

I often keep this Bowie in my Jeep.

 

[jordanmills]

I have several but since it is against the law to carry one, they stay at home.

Not against the law if you have a CHL and are carrying a concealed handgun.

 

[ROGER4314]

I have several Bowie knives and several Kukri's, too. The knives are so big and heavy that I'd never consider carrying one of them. Of the two knife styles, the Kukri would be my choice. I bought a book on Kukri combat and can tell you that the Gurkas are some bloodthirsty folks. The Kukri is an evil weapon! Check Amazon.com. They actually carry Kukris from the authorized military maker in Nepal.

Flash

 

[Jon Payne]

Not against the law if you have a CHL and are carrying a concealed handgun.

I keep reading this over and over, but when I read Sec. 45.16 I see only the applicability to a handgun of the same category identified on the CHL. My District Attorney holds the same opinion as does a criminal defense attorney friend of mine.

 

[alexVT]

What are the knife caring laws around here? I sometimes carry a Marbles bowie knife when hiking, more for the fun of it than usefulness. Fallkniven and Bark River Knife and Tool also make some really slick Bowies

 

[Jon Payne]

What are the knife caring laws around here? I sometimes carry a Marbles bowie knife when hiking, more for the fun of it than usefulness. Fallkniven and Bark River Knife and Tool also make some really slick Bowies

Texas Penal Code Title 10 Chapter 46 Weapons

 

[alexVT]

I will check it out. I'm starting to miss the knife/gun laws of Vermont...But certainly not the weather

 

[jordanmills]

I keep reading this over and over, but when I read Sec. 45.16 I see only the applicability to a handgun of the same category identified on the CHL. My District Attorney holds the same opinion as does a criminal defense attorney friend of mine.

Going to play fast and loose. All from this page: PENAL CODE  CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS Anything in brackets [] is my commentary.

(6) "Illegal knife" means a:

(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;

(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;

(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;

(D) bowie knife;

(E) sword; or

(F) spear.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:[no relevant exceptions here]

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
[...]
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
[...]
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;[...]

So, we have a bowie knife defined as an "illegal knife". 46.02 is the section that prohibits carry of things including an illegal knife in certain places. 46.15(b)(6) says that 46.02 doesn't apply to anyone who has a CHL and is carrying a concealed handgun that matches their license. So if you meet the criteria in 46.15(b), you are exempted from the only part of the law the prohibits carry of a bowie knife.

Just for comparison and to get insight on intent, we can look at other weapons defined in 46.01 (where "illegal knife" is defined). Many are listed later in 46.05(a), including "switchblade knife", but not all of them. So it seems clear to me that the intent of 46.02 was to only list a subset of the items defined in 46.01, and the exemption of 46.15(b)(6), would could have easily included a phrase limiting exemption to weapons covered by the CHL. If the intent was to completely outlaw bowie knives, they could easily have been listed in 46.05.

 

[BG1960]

God Bless you and good luck. I have had enough LEO friends tell me Bowie's are illegal to convince me that it's in my best interests to not be caught with one. I don't doubt I could Lawyer my way out of it in front of a Judge, but it just isn't worth the hassle to me.

 

[coachrick]

Going to play fast and loose. All from this page: PENAL CODEÂ*Â*CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS Anything in brackets [] is my commentary.








So, we have a bowie knife defined as an "illegal knife". 46.02 is the section that prohibits carry of things including an illegal knife in certain places. 46.15(b)(6) says that 46.02 doesn't apply to anyone who has a CHL and is carrying a concealed handgun that matches their license. So if you meet the criteria in 46.15(b), you are exempted from the only part of the law the prohibits carry of a bowie knife.

Just for comparison and to get insight on intent, we can look at other weapons defined in 46.01 (where "illegal knife" is defined). Many are listed later in 46.05(a), including "switchblade knife", but not all of them. So it seems clear to me that the intent of 46.02 was to only list a subset of the items defined in 46.01, and the exemption of 46.15(b)(6), would could have easily included a phrase limiting exemption to weapons covered by the CHL. If the intent was to completely outlaw bowie knives, they could easily have been listed in 46.05.

Sounds like someone is trying to read in the Bowie knife as part of the CHL 'carry'; but that sure doesn't make sense to me. I read that the CHL permits the carry of a handgun allowed(presumably semi-auto vs revolver)...NOT any of the other weapons listed. By the 'allows a bowie knife' reading, it would NOT be legal when NOT carrying a handgun(since the wording is:
"Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
[...]
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
[...]
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;[...]

AND...a Bowie knife, back when I was young, was a darned large knife. Does the law specify the size of the bowie or is it the 'style' of knife? How about a "bowie" that has a blade UNDER 'five and one-half inches' ?

Clear as mud.

 

[coachrick]

AND, how many people agree on the pronunciation of "Bowie" ? I always heard 'boo-wee' when growing up in South Carolina; but I've heard more 'BOH-wee' here in Texas. (Wasn't it pronounced 'boo-wee' on the 60s TV shows?) Guess we can add it to the 'car-BINE' vs 'car-bean' discussions

 

[Younggun]

I like bow-ee knives and car-beans. Car-bine just sounds too.........british.

 

[Jon Payne]

jordanmills,
Like I mentioned, I've discussed this at length with the Orange County D.A.'s office (which according to their opinion they are the most CHL friendly county in the Great State of Texas). Their opinion is 46.15 applies to the carry of a handgun by a CHL holder period.

Understand there is no penalty for being incorrect in the interpretation of law on the internet. In the real world and in a place like Orange County you can be arrested for violating 46.02. The arresting agency will submit the charges to the D.A.'s office who will in turn present their case to a jury(if you decide to go to trial). BTW, because this is a class A misdemeanor and not a felony (unless the offense is committed at a business issued a license or permit to sell alcohol which makes it a felony 3) the prosecutor only needs an information, not an indictment. I believe the prosecutor would have an easier time convincing the jury that 46.15 did not apply to an illegal knife than a defense attorney would trying to convince them that 46.15 does apply.

Of course if you're convicted you may appeal. In SE TX your appeal would go to the 9th Court of Appeals (a very liberal court from my understanding) and the losing party may petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

None of this process is worth it to me to carry an illegal knife and I don't advise any of my students to carry illegal knives. I advise them about "en route" to a motor vehicle or water craft under their control and being inside them. I also advise them of their premises or premises under their control. I would hate for anyone to get "jammed up" because of my interpretation of law which is why I defer to those who would prosecute the offense's opinion.

Without doing your own research this information is worth exactly what you paid for it. This my opinion and only my opinion. I have come to this conclusion after conducting my own research and conferring with the D.A.'s Office in my county.

 

[jordanmills]

Sounds like someone is trying to read in the Bowie knife as part of the CHL 'carry'; but that sure doesn't make sense to me. I read that the CHL permits the carry of a handgun allowed(presumably semi-auto vs revolver)...NOT any of the other weapons listed. By the 'allows a bowie knife' reading, it would NOT be legal when NOT carrying a handgun(since the wording is:
"Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
[...]
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
[...]
(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;[...]

AND...a Bowie knife, back when I was young, was a darned large knife. Does the law specify the size of the bowie or is it the 'style' of knife? How about a "bowie" that has a blade UNDER 'five and one-half inches' ?

Clear as mud.

You're reading it wrong. (b)(6) lists a condition, not an exemption. The exemption is listed in the first line of (b). If you meet (b)(6), then (b) applies to you.

 

[jordanmills]

jordanmills,
Like I mentioned, I've discussed this at length with the Orange County D.A.'s office (which according to their opinion they are the most CHL friendly county in the Great State of Texas). Their opinion is 46.15 applies to the carry of a handgun by a CHL holder period.

Understand there is no penalty for being incorrect in the interpretation of law on the internet. In the real world and in a place like Orange County you can be arrested for violating 46.02. The arresting agency will submit the charges to the D.A.'s office who will in turn present their case to a jury(if you decide to go to trial). BTW, because this is a class A misdemeanor and not a felony (unless the offense is committed at a business issued a license or permit to sell alcohol which makes it a felony 3) the prosecutor only needs an information, not an indictment. I believe the prosecutor would have an easier time convincing the jury that 46.15 did not apply to an illegal knife than a defense attorney would trying to convince them that 46.15 does apply.

Of course if you're convicted you may appeal. In SE TX your appeal would go to the 9th Court of Appeals (a very liberal court from my understanding) and the losing party may petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

None of this process is worth it to me to carry an illegal knife and I don't advise any of my students to carry illegal knives. I advise them about "en route" to a motor vehicle or water craft under their control and being inside them. I also advise them of their premises or premises under their control. I would hate for anyone to get "jammed up" because of my interpretation of law which is why I defer to those who would prosecute the offense's opinion.

Without doing your own research this information is worth exactly what you paid for it. This my opinion and only my opinion. I have come to this conclusion after conducting my own research and conferring with the D.A.'s Office in my county.

I think any jury would agree with me with the simple demonstration above. I'm not interested in being a test case. If I were going to sport a bowie knife all day, I'd probably see about having the AG's opinion solicited.

 

[txinvestigator]

I keep reading this over and over, but when I read Sec. 45.16 I see only the applicability to a handgun of the same category identified on the CHL. My District Attorney holds the same opinion as does a criminal defense attorney friend of mine.

Read the VERY beginning of 46.15 "section 46.02 does not apply to a person who" ? That means 46.02, none of it , applies, to a person meeting the sections below. If you are only carrying your license, then you cannot carry an illegal knife. But if you carry a handgun and your license, then none of 46.02 applies.

If the legislators wanted to limit you to only the handgun, they could have do need so easily by using the same language they did in section (c)

c) The provision of Section 46.02 prohibiting the carrying of a club does not apply to a noncommissioned security guard at an institution of higher education who carries a nightstick or similar club, and who has undergone 15 hours of training in the proper use of the club, including at least seven hours of training in the use of the club for nonviolent restraint. For the purposes of this subsection, "nonviolent restraint" means the use of reasonable force, not intended and not likely to inflict bodily injury.

 

[M. Sage]

Read the VERY beginning of 46.15 "section 46.02 does not apply to a person who" ? That means 46.02, none of it , applies, to a person meeting the sections below. If you are only carrying your license, then you cannot carry an illegal knife. But if you carry a handgun and your license, then none of 46.02 applies.

If the legislators wanted to limit you to only the handgun, they could have do need so easily by using the same language they did in section (c)

This. The Orange County DA is mistaken.

 

[jordanmills]

Read the VERY beginning of 46.15 "section 46.02 does not apply to a person who" ? That means 46.02, none of it , applies, to a person meeting the sections below. If you are only carrying your license, then you cannot carry an illegal knife. But if you carry a handgun and your license, then none of 46.02 applies.

If the legislators wanted to limit you to only the handgun, they could have do need so easily by using the same language they did in section (c)

That's what I get from my reading of it. IMO it seems like that was done intentionally to keep lobbying groups or the press from noticing until it was enacted. But that effect is quite intentional.

One nit though. The handgun has to be concealed. So I can't have a CHL and OC my handgun while traveling and legally carry an "illegal knife".