Knife Laws in IN

[rhino]

Yes there is. If you are an amputee or are handicapped (like arthritis or something) or deformed. I know you can for a fact. I know this one guy, and he carries his all the time.

I suspect your referring to either Federal law or the law of some other state.

If you can find such an exemption in the Indiana Code, please share it with us here. Until then . . .

 

[Dragon Talon TSi AWD]

The state will never supercede federal orders and laws. That's in the constitution, read it and weep. I know where he works, and he always carries this. Its his right to bear arms, since he doesn't really have any. He can hardly hold a phone sometimes, but he says if he ever needed to, it would protect him.

 

[CarmelHP]

The state will never supercede federal orders and laws. That's in the constitution, read it and weep. I know where he works, and he always carries this. Its his right to bear arms, since he doesn't really have any. He can hardly hold a phone sometimes, but he says if he ever needed to, it would protect him.

Wrong, state law often takes precedence if the state law is more restrictive, unless the federal law is meant to preempt.

 

[Dragon Talon TSi AWD]

Wrong, state law often takes precedence if the state law is more restrictive, unless the federal law is meant to preempt.

No, read the constitution again.

Federal law supersedes local or state law when they are in conflict. However, a state or local law can be made that goes further than federal law. For example, a federal laws on firearms ownership (can't be a felon, can't be convicted of a domestic violence charge, cannot be mentally incapacitated, etc). A state can go even further and require a permit and set the requirements. What the state can't do is say that anyone can own a gun, including someone mentally incapacitated because it would violate federal law. In California, the state allows medical marijuana, but it is still illegal on the federal level, however, The US Attorney has chosen not to enforce the law at this time. At any point, he could go after anyone for selling it if he so decides.

The supremacy clause in the constitution says that federal law will rule. Most often, state laws are stricken under what is referred to as "the incorporation doctrine." If you want to know more about this topic, do a search for that term and you will find a lot. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Ed, Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona were all based on the incorporation doctrine.

Federal Law always prevails, unless the Supreme Court decides that the power to legislate that issue lies with the state.


I took these answers from a .gov website. They were confirmed by some legislators.

 

[rhino]

I submit that your understanding of law is less than you believe, sir.

Feel free to act as you wish, but it won't change reality.

 

[cubby]

so... how do states put restrictions on firearms which aren't federal restricted??

you can't own a automatic knife in indiana legally. i don't care who does what. i could rob a bank. doesn't make it legal.

 

[rhino]

so... how do states put restrictions on firearms which aren't federal restricted??

I don't know "how," but they do. Consider the gun laws in California, for instance. Many guns are not restricted under Federal law that can no longer be sold or transferred in California such as AR15 and AK47 variants.

 

[schwaky18]

Wrong, state law often takes precedence if the state law is more restrictive, unless the federal law is meant to preempt.

+1 cause you are dead on correct.

No, read the constitution again.

Federal law supersedes local or state law when they are in conflict. However, a state or local law can be made that goes further than federal law. For example, a federal laws on firearms ownership (can't be a felon, can't be convicted of a domestic violence charge, cannot be mentally incapacitated, etc). A state can go even further and require a permit and set the requirements. What the state can't do is say that anyone can own a gun, including someone mentally incapacitated because it would violate federal law. In California, the state allows medical marijuana, but it is still illegal on the federal level, however, The US Attorney has chosen not to enforce the law at this time. At any point, he could go after anyone for selling it if he so decides.

That is what CarmelHP said.

The supremacy clause in the constitution says that federal law will rule. Most often, state laws are stricken under what is referred to as "the incorporation doctrine." If you want to know more about this topic, do a search for that term and you will find a lot. Cases such as Brown v. Board of Ed, Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona were all based on the incorporation doctrine.

Federal Law always prevails, unless the Supreme Court decides that the power to legislate that issue lies with the state.


I took these answers from a .gov website. They were confirmed by some legislators.

Wrong, refer to the first part of your statement.

Brown v. Board of Ed, Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona do not support your argument these cases are dealing with state's rights vs. the rights expressed in the U.S. consitution. Anything not expressed in the U.S. Con., States are allowed to govern. If however, fed. law does preempt, depending on what the law is dealing with will govern what law stands. If the state's law is more restrictive it will usually stand. If the law is dealing with a fundamental right, right expressed in the U.S. Con (the first 10A thanks to the 14A), or commerce clause (dormant or expressed) then Fed law rules.

Disclaimer: Although I stated Fed law rules for rights granted in the U.S. Con for the first 10A, this seems to not apply to the 2 amendment. Why, I HAVE NO F'ING IDEA

 

[Bill of Rights]

Although I stated Fed law rules for rights granted in the U.S. Con for the first 10A, this seems to not apply to the 2 amendment. Why, I HAVE NO F'ING IDEA

Cuz, like guns are bad, mmmkay? Seriously, dude, like gag me with a spoon....

 

[schwaky18]

Cuz, like guns are bad, mmmkay?

Yea, well so is due process for a guy that murders 10 people in front of 30 witnesses. But it still applies. (Sorry still ranting)

Seriously, dude, like gag me with a spoon....

LOL, sorry guess I should have a disclaimer for the disclaimer ("please take spoon out of mouth before reading")

 

[Dragon Talon TSi AWD]

I submit that your understanding of law is less than you believe, sir.

Feel free to act as you wish, but it won't change reality.

I don't own anything illegal. I said a person I know does, he has little deformed hands, and both county cops let him go with his knife. Its an automatic, and he has no other way of defending himself. He can't hold a cell phone without his strap, let alone a gun that's fully loaded. Look, you guys can take this I am better than you attitude and I think I know everything $hit and shove it! I know what I saw, and I know what I am saying. I know this constituion, as well as the articles, I defend it everyday, for 5 years active, all 13 weeks of bootcamp, I studied this all day everyday, chow after chow, sunday by sunday. Reality, that's what I saw.

Less that I believe? How many bullets did you dodge for Uncle Sam? How many mortars flew by you so you can sit and here and talk down to me? None, cause if you did, you wouldn't give be this snobbed about this.

I even said I googled the direct answers from a .gov site. You tell the legislators of their typos, not me.

 

[Dragon Talon TSi AWD]

so... how do states put restrictions on firearms which aren't federal restricted??

you can't own a automatic knife in indiana legally. i don't care who does what. i could rob a bank. doesn't make it legal.

You are the cheif of police now? What, you are the underwriter for the state laws now? There are loopholes, and he is one of them.

Robbing a bank is a felony, carrying a knife that's automatic is a misdemeanor. That's like comparing apples to oranges, to different extremes.

 

[Dragon Talon TSi AWD]

+1 cause you are dead on correct.



That is what CarmelHP said.



Wrong, refer to the first part of your statement.

Brown v. Board of Ed, Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona do not support your argument these cases are dealing with state's rights vs. the rights expressed in the U.S. consitution. Anything not expressed in the U.S. Con., States are allowed to govern. If however, fed. law does preempt, depending on what the law is dealing with will govern what law stands. If the state's law is more restrictive it will usually stand. If the law is dealing with a fundamental right, right expressed in the U.S. Con (the first 10A thanks to the 14A), or commerce clause (dormant or expressed) then Fed law rules.

Disclaimer: Although I stated Fed law rules for rights granted in the U.S. Con for the first 10A, this seems to not apply to the 2 amendment. Why, I HAVE NO F'ING IDEA

I just quoted the websites from the questions asked, these are the answers I got. I know what I saw from my run ins and my experience, but others have seen different things in different areas.

Wrong? Its not even my statement, so I could care less... I just stated the facts like the .gov site did.

 

[schwaky18]

I am not trying to argue with you just saying your sources are wrong. (The government doesn't even know its own law or Con. big surprise there.)

The guy you know is probably breaking the law. Its easy to get such a knife but it is still illegal even though he is handicap. Now is he going to get in trouble, I would bet not. What cop or prosecutor wants to bring trouble to someone like this. Further, I doubt any Jury would convict him.

Also, he could have a discrimination argument against the state which would fall under federal law. State's knife law is to broad and not narrowly tailored. So you could be correct but in a totally different way.

 

[cubby]

Robbing a bank is a felony, carrying a knife that's automatic is a misdemeanor. That's like comparing apples to oranges, to different extremes.

i thought you said it was legal?

 

[cubby]

I don't know "how," but they do. Consider the gun laws in California, for instance. Many guns are not restricted under Federal law that can no longer be sold or transferred in California such as AR15 and AK47 variants.

retorhical question........... i was on a time limit...

 

[cubby]

DTTA,

i am not trying to be disrespectful. but so much stuff floats around and people take it as gospel. automatic knives are illegal in indiana. and THAT is the law. we all know you can buy autos here.... just go to any gunshow. but you can't legally own one. there are no acts, or amendments, or loopholes. if you have a number for the law or loophole which he is entitled under the law, please share it. but i think your friend was misinformed. and whoever misinformed him did him a big disservice... because he could, potentually, go to jail for it. would he? probly not. but that doesn't matter to who ever gave him that info. and by him passing the info on it missinforms OTHERS and before you know it, we can all own autos, becuase the guy at the gun shop said so.

its just the indiana state law. do i agree? no. do i abide? yes.


ps- has your friend checked into a fixed blade for carry and use? that would be my first choice, as the number of high quality auto knives available is small, but quality fixed blades abound. much less do go wrong than with a complicated auto, too.

 

[Disposable Heart]

This cant end well....

 

[Dragon Talon TSi AWD]

I am not trying to argue with you just saying your sources are wrong. (The government doesn't even know its own law or Con. big surprise there.)

The guy you know is probably breaking the law. Its easy to get such a knife but it is still illegal even though he is handicap. Now is he going to get in trouble, I would bet not. What cop or prosecutor wants to bring trouble to someone like this. Further, I doubt any Jury would convict him.

Also, he could have a discrimination argument against the state which would fall under federal law. State's knife law is to broad and not narrowly tailored. So you could be correct but in a totally different way.

My sources were on a in.gov interactive site. It stated what people asked, and it told them the laws according to it. Well, if he is, people are looking the other way, blatantly. Show me where it says handicapped people can't bear weapons, even if they don't have any to begin with? Maybe for normal people, but its a case by case situation. If he gets robbed, and he kills a guy with the automatic knife, he will not get convicted. I know that from experience. That would be the only way he could defend himself, so be it. If he did get tried for it, he would be on his way to the Supreme Courts. I know he would go and do that. This is just one case I am saying it would be correct. Now, for thats only for amputees and handicaps with deformities, us "normal" and 10 fingered people its not allowed.

 

[Dragon Talon TSi AWD]

DTTA,

i am not trying to be disrespectful. but so much stuff floats around and people take it as gospel. automatic knives are illegal in indiana. and THAT is the law. we all know you can buy autos here.... just go to any gunshow. but you can't legally own one. there are no acts, or amendments, or loopholes. if you have a number for the law or loophole which he is entitled under the law, please share it. but i think your friend was misinformed. and whoever misinformed him did him a big disservice... because he could, potentually, go to jail for it. would he? probly not. but that doesn't matter to who ever gave him that info. and by him passing the info on it missinforms OTHERS and before you know it, we can all own autos, becuase the guy at the gun shop said so.

its just the indiana state law. do i agree? no. do i abide? yes.


ps- has your friend checked into a fixed blade for carry and use? that would be my first choice, as the number of high quality auto knives available is small, but quality fixed blades abound. much less do go wrong than with a complicated auto, too.

People act like there isn't an "unwritten" rule or law that isn't given to those less fortunate as us fully equipped people. He could go to jail, he could get in trouble, but when they see his "take my strong hands" (from scary movie) they will toss it out like a decade old phone book. He has no other way other than biting to stop an opponent.

I don't own an automatic knife, nor do I care what the law says. I am just stating what I saw, and he is a good friend of mine, and I would back him up 100% on this. I never bring a knife to a gun fight anyway, but he has no choice to.