Legal knife?

[Mexican_Hippie]

I don't know if everyone knows know this TXI...

I found this: TX Peace Officers...Question about a knife...

That thread is dated though. Do most of the LEOs and DAs have the same understanding now? Just curious if you have insight into that.

 

[txinvestigator]

I don't know if everyone knows know this TXI...

I found this: TX Peace Officers...Question about a knife...

That thread is dated though. Do most of the LEOs and DAs have the same understanding now? Just curious if you have insight into that.

Hey! Are you on that site?

I actually posted an answer in that thread, and I was wrong. I took the word of the lefty DPS CHL legal dept attorney rather than thinking for myself. After cousulting with several attorneys, other CHL instructors and just reading the law with an open mind I realized that 46.15 (b) clearly makes all of 46.02 non-applicable if you meet it.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Hey! Are you on that site?

I actually posted an answer in that thread, and I was wrong. I took the word of the lefty DPS CHL legal dept attorney rather than thinking for myself. After cousulting with several attorneys, other CHL instructors and just reading the law with an open mind I realized that 46.15 (b) clearly makes all of 46.02 non-applicable if you meet it.

He he, you never know. I am an internet ninja

No, I just hacked the Google.

Sounds like this the current interpretation in this new thread on TGT is the more common one now. I was just curious if it's clear to most Texas LEO and DAs or if you will still have to explain yourself in court in certain locals.

 

[Bithabus]

Hey! Are you on that site?

I actually posted an answer in that thread, and I was wrong. I took the word of the lefty DPS CHL legal dept attorney rather than thinking for myself. After cousulting with several attorneys, other CHL instructors and just reading the law with an open mind I realized that 46.15 (b) clearly makes all of 46.02 non-applicable if you meet it.

How can those people be so stupid? Poster after poster admitting they would arrest someone for violating a statute which clearly does not apply.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

How can those people be so stupid? Poster after poster admitting they would arrest someone for violating a statute which clearly does not apply.

I'm assuming it's how their department educated them on it. There's no way to know every law out there so they are probably relying on what they were told as dept training / policy. That's why I'm curious if the attitude has changed in the last 6 years.

 

[Angered_Kabar]

I just leafed through a .pdf of Texas weapon laws that includes some case law. http://ss.utpb.edu/media/files/university-police/TEXAS-WEAPON-LAWS.pdf

The dagger part is slightly confusing, but that may be because I read it 5 hours past my bed time.

Armendariz v. State, 396 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965) A knife slightly over seven
inches in length when open, equipped with a double guard, blade that locks open and is
sharpened on both sides of blade for over an inch meets the definition of a dagger.

So this only applies to folding knives? Would little bumps at the edge of the handle be a double guard? And I've seen a lot of knife designs that for a couple inches towards the tip of the blade, the spine is ground to an edge but dull like a butter knife---could that still be considered sharpened?

Maybe I'm angry because I'm an illegal knife.....

 

[txinvestigator]

I just leafed through a .pdf of Texas weapon laws that includes some case law. http://ss.utpb.edu/media/files/university-police/TEXAS-WEAPON-LAWS.pdf

The dagger part is slightly confusing, but that may be because I read it 5 hours past my bed time.

Armendariz v. State, 396 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1965) A knife slightly over seven
inches in length when open, equipped with a double guard, blade that locks open and is
sharpened on both sides of blade for over an inch meets the definition of a dagger.

So this only applies to folding knives?

No, it is referencing the knife specific to the case. [/quote]

 

[Bithabus]

No, it is referencing the knife specific to the case.

Yes. And this case is interesting because it established that a knife sharpened on one side, and the other side for only a fraction of its length, is considered a dagger.

The knife you describe would not be an "illegal knife", unless the blade length is over 5.5 inches. If a knife has a secondary edge which looks sharp, I always grind it to 1/16 or so before carry.