Question on legal knife length in Canada

[wisnoskij]

I cannot figure out what that phrase is supposed to mean. If I have broken some unwriten code fo conduct, I am sorry.
I though resurrecting an old thread to ask for clarification would be better than starting a brand new one.

 

[Bluebulldog]

wisnoskij,

If you had read the entire thread, you would have your answers.

Now giving you the benefit of a doubt, and assuming you're not a troll ok, here goes.

Backpacks or bags....well it all depends on intent. As you would have read in the previous threads. A knife being carried in a schoolbag by a student at college is highly suspect. In a schoolbag by a student going on a boy scout trip...not so much.

Nowhere was the act of carrying a knife for the purposes of cutting seat belts defined as "self defense" simply a purpose, and perfectly legal reason for carrying a knife.

There is no such thing as "very illegal" it either is or it is not. Carrying a knife to defend yourself may be a justifiable defence depending on circumstance, but chances are, you will be dealing with the justice system by the time that happens, regardless.

 

[wisnoskij]

I had read the entire thread, though it is possibly I missed something. I saw Container's very next post where he expanded on that statement.
Still the focus was on the body, inside and outside of your clothes. I was wondering what people with experience though carrying it around in a bag/napsack, as that would likely be my "playing it safe" alternative, except I do not know how safe I would be from concealed weaponry charges.

 

[wisnoskij]

There is no such thing as "very illegal" it either is or it is not. Carrying a knife to defend yourself may be a justifiable defence depending on circumstance, but chances are, you will be dealing with the justice system by the time that happens, regardless.

Really, so if you have a justifiable reason to expect you need to defend yourself then self defence is a justifiable reason? I thought the reasoning went that, Canadians are simply never allowed concealed weapons, and if a knife is for self defence it is a weapon; Therefore self defence is never an acceptable excuse for a knife?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[wisnoskij]

"Self defense isn't a lawful purpose- so a sword to cut seat belts would be confiscated."

Well this is what confuses me. It implies that cutting seat belts is self defence.

Also, "lawful purpose" does not seem to imply "necessary" or "utilitarian". The law seems to say that I could carry around a sword simply because I like the look of it, or to cut up my sandwiches (both are lawful, just not nessesary or very utilitarian). But this quote from an experienced professional seems to imply that I would not be able to. So would you agree that it would be right to say a better expaination of the law would be: "lawful and reasonable" reason.

 

[Kat Stevens]

As I understand it, intent is all consuming.  If for some reason a cop finds you in possession of a knife of any description and asks you why you have it, and you answer it's for self defence purposes, that's illegal, as you show intent to harm or threaten someone with it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Sir to cut my finger off if I dishonour my regiment sir.

 

[Bluebulldog]

Really, so if you have a justifiable reason to expect you need to defend yourself then self defence is a justifiable reason? I thought the reasoning went that, Canadians are simply never allowed concealed weapons, and if a knife is for self defence it is a weapon; Therefore self defence is never an acceptable excuse for a knife?

Thanks for the clarification.

Wow......your extracting that nugget from the reams of info provided in three pages of posts, shows that you are either a troll simply out to argue, or you're willfully ignorant. Either way, I have wasted way too many keystrokes already.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

How about you familiarize yourself with that particular site, and pertinent legislation, and come back with how you interpret the C.C. I'm sure the folks on here who are directly involved with Law Enforcement would love to hear your opinions.

Personally, I stand by my earlier call.

 

[wisnoskij]

I had a read through the laws a little, but they are hard to understand. Laws are nto designed to be read or understood by the average person.

One question, as I am reading through it.
What do they mean when they say "Former Prohibited", as in

Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 1

1. Any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge therefrom of
(a) tear gas, Mace or other gas, or
(b) any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person.

It is saying that these are not prohibited any longer, but were at some time?

 

[mariomike]

I had a read through the laws a little, but they are hard to understand. Laws are nto designed to be read or understood by the average person.

You may find this discussion helpful.

The Legality of Self Defence In Canada 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97769.0
7 pages.

 

[wisnoskij]

OK, I browsed it for all pertinent information, all relevent quotes are included below post.

First off, while the document uses “restricted weapon” a lot, it never defines what it means by that.
Specifically this is the only definition it gives:

“restricted weapon”
« arme à autorisation restreinte »
“restricted weapon” means any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a restricted weapon;

So a restricted weapon is a any weapon that is defined as a restricted weapon by law.... That is a meaningless phrase, and can tell us nothing about what “restricted weapon” means (unless there is another unmentioned document that gives a better description, or a list of these restricted weapons). Note: there is a list of restricted firearms, but there does not appear to be any for generic weapons, at least none mentioned.

But forgetting that, lets assume we are talking about a generic knife that is neither restriced nor prohibited.

My interpretation of these laws.

A knife is a weapon if you intend it as a weapon or deterrent or it was designed as a weapon.
Which seems to me a bad definition. Personally, I would say it needs "primarily" added to that definition. Any and all hunting or survival knife where designed at least partially as a self defensive or even offensive measure against animals, and a person is a subclass of the animals.

You are not allowed to own any weapon if you own it for a "purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence". I have not idea how the law goes about determining what is "dangerous to the public peace" if it is not an offence. If the purpose is not illegal, then why should it be an offence to do it????
Basically, don't do illegal stuff with your knife, and do not even look like you might if you want to play it safe.

You are not allowed to attend a public meeting (not sure that the legal definition of a "public meeting" is) with a weapon, unless you have a lawful excuse.
Seems like a very specific and easily circumvented law.

You cannot conceal any weapon for any reason.

But, the most important point to make is that a knife is not necessarily a weapon.

Summery, according to the letter of the law:
You can own any knife, sword, etc. (minus a very few specifically prohibited ones).
You can go into public with any knife, sword, katana, 13" long blade Khukri (again, minus the few prohibited ones).
You can only conceal a knife if it is not a weapon.
All survival/hunting/wilderness knives are weapons, at least technically in my opinion (though I disagree with the definition).

So if self defence is legal (will read that thread next), self defence should be an acceptable excuse for owning and carrying non-concealed weapons in public.

“weapon”
« arme »
“weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use

(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person


88. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

89. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, carries a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition while the person is attending or is on the way to attend a public meeting.

90. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries a weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition concealed, unless the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry it concealed.

Note: there are other sections dealing with Search and Seizure, Disposition, and Certificate of analyst that are not relevent to out discussion at this time.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Offensive measure against animals?

Here's the bottom line.

Don't treat cops like they're stupid. Their going to have a good feel on why you're carrying a knife. If you have a pocket knife in your pocket you're good to go. If you have the assassins creed wrist dagger then you better have got a 95% in drama class when trying to explain how you use it for self defense against animals.

 

[wisnoskij]

I have read up on everything in the self and property defence sections.

In general you are allowed to defend yourself, to the extent that you have to.
And unless it is covered in anouther setion, the law does not even come close to banning you from carrying around weapons to defend yourself. Anyone know where it it supposed to say this? Because everyone has told me over and over again that you are not allowed to carry knives for self defence, but I just read the law and it specifically does not mention that. Is this one of those unwritten laws, or am I just missing something here.

So self defence is legal, carrying weapons in public is legal. So strapping a sword to your back (in a non-concealed way) to defend yourself seems to be considered legal by the letter of the law.

Interestingly, you are not allowed to harm someone trying to take your stuff, unless they "persist". But if they are "forcibly breaking" into your house or "trespassing" you can kill them or do anything else that is necessary immediately.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Marginal note:Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

38. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.


40. Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.

41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

 

[wisnoskij]

So, I might just not be thinking straight. It is possible I missed something, or something that significantly effects the law regarding self defence or weapons is in another section entirely. But it really seems to me that the police enforcement of their law is unrecognisable from the letter of the law. Is there no mechanisms in place to ensure that police action is in accordance, at least generally, with the letter of the law?

Or what am I missing, everything said here by experts seems to not be that the letter of the law says.

 

[George Wallace]

SO?  At the end of the day, in layman's terms, what is it you are REALLY trying to ask to be able to do?

If you want to carry a two headed axe, wear red flannel shirts and be a lumberjack.  That is okey.


If you want to buy a sword to mount on your wall, it is okey to purchase it, carry it to your car, take it home, mounted on your wall and be happy.


If what you want to do doesn't fall into one of those two categories, what is it you REALLY want to do? 

 

[wisnoskij]

@George Wallace:
For me this has mostly turned into an interesting academic discussion.
Which is not to say that there is not a utilitarian reason.

I like knives, all kinds of knives. And I plan on collecting a little bit and using a lot on my property (there are a lot of of uses for knives on my farm).
But if I am going to own a 12" blade Khukri or even just a belt knife then I better know how to legally transport it through public and what to do if I forget about the blade at my belt and end up in town. Personally, I would love to have a nice survival knive with my at all times, as you never know when you have to cut something open; And like being prepared for anything (when I packed for a Flordia vacation I packed string and zip lock bags, among other thing, and was laughed at for that, but we ended up using both). This preparedness I guess if I was being honest includes a tiny amount of self defence (if I am legally allowed), though I cannot imagine someone my size being a likely target of random violence.

The really annoying part about the law with respect to my specific situation is that pretty much all general knives are easily proven to be weapons by the law's definition. I think they are aimed at a mostly American crowd because their descriptions always talk about using it on others. Take the wonderful Ka-Bar USMC, short. It is the exact length suggested by everyone for a general utility/survival knive (4-6", in this case 5.25") and is in the top of many lists for general utility/survival knives. But it is an american knife and is called a fighting knife for some reason. I guarantee you that some thought was put into the design about using it to cause death and injury.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Please, go ahead and carry if you wish. Unless you have the training and mindset for self defense with an edged weapon you'll only suceed in getting yourself killed . Thereby, allowing us to ignore your one person conversation.

You've gone well past the discussion phase. No one is listening anymore.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I walk out the door every morning with one of these, http://www.frosts.se/construction/craftline-q-allround-carbon-steel , on my belt.  I use it a dozen or more times a day at work, and it stays there when I go to town.  Lots of cops have seen it, none ever said a thing about it.

 

[Bluebulldog]

...and I never leave the front door without the Swiss Army knife that I've carried in my pocket for going on 20+ years. It seems to suffice in 90% of the tasks I need to use a knife / utility tool for.

Probably wouldn't do for self defense, but then.....I don't go looking for trouble either.......

 

[Jarnhamar]

@George Wallace:
For me this has mostly turned into an interesting academic discussion.
Which is not to say that there is not a utilitarian reason.

You're still coming across kinda nuts.