If assault is a behavior, not a device...

[philbert001]

But firearms are automatically deadly weapons, then how are "weapons" legally defined?

We all know that a hammer can be a weapon or a tool, depending on how it's used. A baseball bat, a kitchen knife, etc., same story.

How does the law define "Weapon"? Does a device only become a weapon when used as one?

Is my fullsize folding knife that is nearly always on me a deadly weapon too, or only if used as one? (99.99999% of the time, I'd consider it a tool, not a weapon!)

I'm just curious where the line is drawn legally and how gray that line is.

 

[philbert001]

Kinda looking for the INGO legal community's take on this.

 

[HoughMade]

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), "deadly weapon" means the following:

(1) A loaded or unloaded firearm.

(2) A destructive device, weapon, device, taser (as defined in IC 35-47-8-3) or electronic stun weapon (as defined in IC 35-47-8-1), equipment, chemical substance, or other material that in the manner it:

(A) is used;
(B) could ordinarily be used; or
(C) is intended to be used;

is readily capable of causing serious bodily injury.

(3) An animal (as defined in IC 35-46-3-3) that is:

(A) readily capable of causing serious bodily injury; and
(B) used in the commission or attempted commission of a crime.

(4) A biological disease, virus, or organism that is capable of causing serious bodily injury.

(b) The term does not include:

(1) a taser (as defined in IC 35-47-8-3);
(2) an electronic stun weapon (as defined in IC 35-47-8-1);
(3) a chemical designed to temporarily incapacitate a person; or
(4) another device designed to temporarily incapacitate a person;

if the device described in subdivisions (1) through (4) is used by a law enforcement officer who has been trained in the use of the device and who uses the device in accordance with the law enforcement officer's training and while lawfully engaged in the execution of official duties.

Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-86

For things that are not firearms, the key seems to be: "...readily capable of causing serious bodily injury".

 

[philbert001]

Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-86

For things are not firearms, the key seems to be: "...readily capable of causing serious bodily injury".

That makes for one heck of a list! Hammer=deadly weapon
butcher knife=deadly weapon
shovel=deadly weapon
axe=deadly weapon

How can something be a weapon, before it's used as one?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But firearms are automatically deadly weapons, then how are "weapons" legally defined?

Hough beat me to it.

How can something be a weapon, before it's used as one?

Because it is a per se deadly weapon, not an as used deadly weapon.

That makes for one heck of a list!

Oh, yeah, just the Tippecanoe County murder files will open your eyes (list of unusual murder weapons):

chunk of concrete block

dog leash

Rope with pad lock on it

parking garage (thrown off top floor)

kitchen knives

ball peen hammer

 

[philbert001]

Oh, yeah, just the Tippecanoe County murder files will open your eyes (list of unusual murder weapons):

chunk of concrete block

dog leash

Rope with pad lock on it

parking garage (thrown off top floor)

kitchen knives

ball peen hammer

Is parking garage actually listed as the weapon!? Wouldn't the concrete below be the weapon? Or gravity, for that matter!?

 

[Mgderf]

Don't forget the simple fist.
Properly used, it can and has taken a life. It's even taken a life with a single blow.

A "weapon" can ONLY be described with the consideration of intent, which is hard to prove sometimes.
A firearm can be a weapon, or it can be a tool, as can a hammer... and every other item mentioned.

A 2'x4"x 8' piece of pine is construction material, until the wielder intends to use it as a "weapon".

This is precisely why the NRA has asked all of it's instructors to refrain from using the terminology of "weapon(s)" when referring to firearms.
The term "weapon(s)" infers hostile intent.
The NRA would much rather you refer to them as "firearms, or guns, or pistols, rifles, sidearms, handguns..." basically ANYTHING you can think of BESIDES "weapon(s)".

I know it's mostly semantics, but the power of words can work both ways.

 

[philbert001]

Don't forget the simple fist.
Properly used, it can and has taken a life. It's even taken a life with a single blow.

A "weapon" can ONLY be described with the consideration of intent, which is hard to prove sometimes.
A firearm can be a weapon, or it can be a tool, as can a hammer... and every other item mentioned.

A 2'x4"x 8' piece of pine is construction material, until the wielder intends to use it as a "weapon".

This is precisely why the NRA has asked all of it's instructors to refrain from using the terminology of "weapon(s)" when referring to firearms.
The term "weapon(s)" infers hostile intent.
The NRA would much rather you refer to them as "firearms, or guns, or pistols, rifles, sidearms, handguns..." basically ANYTHING you can think of BESIDES "weapon(s)".

I know it's mostly semantics, but the power of words can work both ways.

This is how I would have assumed the letter of the law would/should be written! Otherwise, who determines what differentiates an axe from an edged "Weapon"?

Black's law dictionary defines "Weapon" as, "the name that is given to an instrument that is used to injure another person or to protect yourself from harm."

I read that as saying that the hammer is just an instrument, until it is used to injure or defend, THEN it becomes a weapon!

This is how I would assume the law would be written, but it doesn't appear to be! (Not in Indiana, at least!)
No wonder so many laws are thought to be open to interpretation!

 

[DRob]

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

This is precisely why the NRA has asked all of it's instructors to refrain from using the terminology of "weapon(s)" when referring to firearms.
.......................................................
I know it's mostly semantics, but the power of words can work both ways.

And precisely why we should be careful about the terminology we use. Many of us get completely out of square when somebody else uses the term "assault weapon" then we use it ourselves.

 

[philbert001]

And precisely why we should be careful about the terminology we use. Many of us get completely out of square when somebody else uses the term "assault weapon" then we use it ourselves.

Agreed!

 

[Leo]

I do not have any weapons. I do have a firearm or two. I have an axe and a hatchet. I have an old school recurve and a quiver full of arrows. I have a set of cutlery in my kitchen. I have rocks in my yard. None of them are weapons until I need them to be used that way. Just because some jerk with a journalism degree wants me to be terrified and nervous by a word, does not mean I do not have the mental capacity to refuse the leading.