Are the T handled push daggers legal to carry in Texas?

[Moonpie]

Are the little(less than 4inch blade) T handle SINGLE EDGE push daggers legal to carry in Texas?

 

[txinvestigator]

A dagger is an illegal knife. See definitions in Penal code 46.01.

See 46.02 for specifics against carry.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Are the little(less than 4inch blade) T handle SINGLE EDGE push daggers legal to carry in Texas?

Isn't a dagger by definition a pointed, double edged knife? With a single edge, wouldn't it be considered just a knife?

 

[Shotgun Jeremy]

I've got a t - handle dagger I keep in my truck. Yea, I know. I should put it in the safe. Hey - isn't there something about being able to carry an illegal knife if you have a CHL and are carrying a gun? Would that cover a t - handle dagger?

 

[orbitup]

I've got a t - handle dagger I keep in my truck. Yea, I know. I should put it in the safe. Hey - isn't there something about being able to carry an illegal knife if you have a CHL and are carrying a gun? Would that cover a t - handle dagger?

 

[TheDan]

Only sharpened on one side right? The law itself doesn't give a very detailed definition of what constitutes a dagger, but my 3rd cousin's best friend says there is case law that defines it as having two sharpened edges.

 

[TXARGUY]

Only sharpened on one side right? The law itself doesn't give a very detailed definition of what constitutes a dagger, but my 3rd cousin's best friend says there is case law that defines it as having two sharpened edges.

There may be case law somewhere but...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

While vague this "is" the Texas legal definition of what constitutes an illegal knife. It makes no delineation between single or double edged knives defined as illegal under this subsection.

In all actuality if a LEO thinks that your knife is prohibited, you can be arrested, and a Judge at trial will decide whether it's actually an illegal knife or not.

Just ask Matefrio.

EDIT: Perhaps this is what your friend was referring to-

Former Texas Penal Code 1161, in connection with the law of assault with intent to murder, defined “dagger” and “bowie knife” as any knife intended to be worn upon the person, which is capable of inflicting death, and is not commonly known as a pocket knife. In Armendariz v. State, the Court upheld Mr. Armendariz conviction for unlawfully carrying a dagger. It found that the weapon Mr. Armendariz carried, which was slightly over seven inches in length when open, equipped with a double guard, had blade that locked in place when open, and was sharpened on both edges for slightly more than an inch from the point, was a dagger, not a pocketknife.

http://www.knifeup.com/texas-knife-laws/

 

[itchin]

I could have used one today lol. Had a guy square off with me over some BS. Luckily he didn't call my bluff because I have a torn rotator cuff and most certainly would have dislocated.

 

[TXARGUY]

Did a little more digging into the case law that I have seen people reference as to the State's definition of what exactly constitutes a dagger.


Armendariz v. State
396 S.W.2d 132 (1965)
Humberto ARMENDARIZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 38754.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
November 24, 1965.


http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/1965/38754-3.html

*133 The sole question presented for review is appellant's contention that the instrument which he was carrying was a pocket knife and not a dagger. A scaled picture of the instrument appears in the record. It is slightly over seven inches in length when open; it is equipped with a double guard, and the blade locks in place when open and is sharpened on both edges for slightly more than an inch from the point.

We have concluded that the trial court did not abuse his discretion in finding that the instrument met the definition contained in Article 1161, Vernon's Ann.P.C. See Bivens v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 604, 113 S.W. 2d 921.

Judgement is affirmed.

It appears to me that in this case it was only determined that the defendant's (complainant in this appeal) knife as described did not fit the definition of pocket knife as claimed by Armendariz.

Now on to find the referenced definition the referenced case Bivens v. State

Article 1161, Vernon's Ann.P.C. See Bivens v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 604, 113 S.W. 2d 921.

 

[TXARGUY]

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere (I think). Robert Golden v. state is another case citing Bivens v. State.

It appears that this defines a dagger as single edged and a dirk as double edged but the argument failed before the court.

GOLDEN v. STATE
648 S.W.2d 29 (1983)
Robert GOLDEN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 05-83-00056-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

March 11, 1983.

Jack W. Frieze, Irving, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., W.T. Westmoreland, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Before STOREY, FISH and GUILLOT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
Robert Golden appeals his conviction for carrying an unlawful weapon. The trial court assessed punishment at a thirty day probated term along with a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. Appellant contends that the evidence fails to show that he carried an "illegal knife to-wit: a dagger" as charged in the information. We disagree and affirm.
Public service officer B.J. Miller recovered a knife from appellant during a routine search upon book-in to jail. Miller testified that this knife was a belt buckle dagger. Appellant introduced Miller's drawing of the weapon. The drawing shows a knife with a three-inch blade. The parties stipulated that both sides of the blade were sharpened.
Citing Bivens v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 604, 113 S.W.2d 921 (1938), appellant argues that a two-sided knife is a dirk and not a dagger; therefore, the evidence is insufficient to show that he carried a dagger as alleged. We observe, however, that Bivens was decided under article 483 of the former penal code. That statute prohibited the carrying of certain weapons, including the dirk and the dagger. The present statute, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 46.02(a) (Vernon 1974), punishes the carrying of a handgun, illegal knife or club. Pursuant to section 46.01(6)(C) an illegal knife may be a "dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard." Whether or not the weapon recovered from appellant may be characterized as a dirk, for purposes of section 46.02 a dirk is included within the definition of a dagger. No insufficiency is shown.
Affirmed.

 

[TXARGUY]

I can't seem to find the full text of Bivens v. State but it appears that these two cases (synopsis referenced below) attempted to force the State of Texas to officially define daggers and dirks but it further appears that both cases failed in both the appeal and in forcing the definition therefore although widely referenced in cases before various courts of law and also referenced on internet forums and blogs it is my (untrained) opinion that neither case represents an official State of Texas definition of either dagger or dirk and thus neither case is a suitable reference for defense today.

A. Dirk: A two edged weapon, a dagger with a slender triangular or square blade. Not synonymous with a "dagger or a Bowie knife". Bivens v. State, 113 S.W. 2d 921.

B. Dagger: A short weapon for stabbing (Webster's Eighth Collegiate) A knife which was sharpened on both edqes for slightly more than an inch from the point and on which the blade locked inplace when open was a "dagger" within the statute prohibiting carrying a dagger. Armendariz v. State, 396 S.W. 2d 132.

Of course I could be completely wrong.

It seems to me in reading these and other related and referenced cases that the court has consistently rejected attempts to broaden or expand upon the definitions involved in the statute dealing with dirks and daggers. While the cited case law is somewhat confusing and could be viewed as contradictory in its definitions it may generally be said that the courts will be reluctant to convict on a true "pocketknife" or any "regular knife" which is not particularly lethal in design and cannot be clearly and convincingly brought within the definitions of the statute. Because there is to date a lack of case law providing a clear definition of the terms dagger and dirk involved in Texas Penal Code Section 46.02 it appears that successful prosecution under this section is easier than in other sections of the statute relating to knives.

So carry at your own risk and if you get caught and thrown in jail hire yourself one badass of a defense team because it seems we need your successful defense to use as case law.

I'll donate to your defense fund as long as you weren't doing something stupid (although some would argue that carrying an illegal knife without a firm understanding of the law and the "case law" you plan to use as a key element of your defense is doing something stupid).

Anyone else got anything countering my opinion here? Or other case law that was actually successful in defining the terms? I have not been able to locate any that were successful.

 

[Moonpie]

He knife in question is the Cold Steel Safe Keeper single edge.
Blade is only 2.5 inch long.
Knife handle has no finger guard so the double guard rule can't apply.

 

[matefrio]

With your CHL you should be ok even double edged...... It took $5k (helped by contributions from this forum and others) and some nail biting for me to prove that to the DPS in Austin and your results will vary until they clean up state law.

 

[Moonpie]

The owner of the knife in question does not have a CHL.
This person was asking if it was legal to carry it while at work and to/from. Their work place has no issue as they even sell all manner of large knives at the business.
I honestly told them I did not know for sure but would try to find out.
Owner is clean. Never had any legal problems ever. This person would not act a fool with it.
IMO the knife fits all the rules of NOT being a "dagger". It is even named Safe Keeper right on the blade.
Of course this is all moot if Po-Po puff up about it. Po-Po gonna Po-Po.

 

[txinvestigator]

If he transports it in his car to and from work it matters not if it is a dagger. If he has control of the premises while at work it matters not if it is a dagger.

penal code 46.02

 

[Moonpie]

If he transports it in his car to and from work it matters not if it is a dagger. If he has control of the premises while at work it matters not if it is a dagger.

penal code 46.02

So you're saying it doesn't matter what type of knife it is.
Po-Po can call it whatever they want and bring out the bracelets?
Peachy.

 

[TX69]

With your CHL you should be ok even double edged...... It took $5k (helped by contributions from this forum and others) and some nail biting for me to prove that to the DPS in Austin and your results will vary until they clean up state law.

From this mans experience carrying a BUG would be sound advice and skip the knife.

 

[TX69]

So you're saying it doesn't matter what type of knife it is.
Po-Po can call it whatever they want and bring out the bracelets?
Peachy.

IIRC much was the same in Rockwall with a guy that got busted with a little pepper spray bottle. The officer was on camera explaining the difference "to them" about the size of the bottles. My favorite is when cop was smirking about it. I think the guy spent THOUSANDS and YEARS to get the FELONY off of his record even if he did.

 

[matefrio]

So you're saying it doesn't matter what type of knife it is.
Po-Po can call it whatever they want and bring out the bracelets?
Peachy.

Po Po isn't there to figure out such nuances. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and illegal to be a duck they don't bother to check if it's a goose or pygmy swan. That is for the DA, judge or jury to work out.

You will be presumed innocent while arrested, booked, held in jail put out on bond and pay a lawyer to help you navigate the legal system for months if not a couple of years.

 

[Acera]

Bad misconception among many is that if WalMart, Academy and others sell it, it must be ok. My local sporting goods stores carry all manner of daggers, spear points, etc. Hate it when I see minors begging their parents to get something like that for them unknowing of the potential consequences.

I think the only reasonable answer is to adopt a strict law that follows the lead taken by New Hampshire.