TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote:

lunchbox wrote:back to the subject at hand did we ever get any documentation to support this claim

Nope!

Still no documentation for his claim.

Bart wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

lunchbox wrote:back to the subject at hand did we ever get any documentation to support this claim

Nope!

Still no documentation for his claim.

i dont think it exists

Roshi wrote:Now that Texas has decided that assisted opening knives are switchblades, have you seen any changes in sales of these knives or how law enforcement treats them?

Would you support making switchblades legal in Texas? I would. They are tools just like guns and there are no bad knives as there are no bad guns.

where did you come by this really i would like to know what sparked this fire

The case does exist and is styled Thompson v. State WL 4403585. A copy is attached.

Chas.

Charles,

I registered as a non-attorney user. Your link still only takes me to their website and does not bring up the referenced case.

If it is in the Case Digest section, that has a subscription of $29/year.

I tried to do a search and was told only attorneys can search.

What am I doing wrong?

Mike1951 wrote:Charles,

I registered as a non-attorney user. Your link still only takes me to their website and does not bring up the referenced case.

If it is in the Case Digest section, that has a subscription of $29/year.

I tried to do a search and was told only attorneys can search.

What am I doing wrong?

I thought that link would work. I've attached a pdf of the decision.

Chas.

That's really distressing!

So now there is case law stating that assisted opening knives are the same as switchblades?

It also didn't help that the defendant couldn't get his story straight.

IANAL, but the way I read the decision the knive really was a switchblade, and not merely "assisted opening". Ortiz testified "it has a spring and that springs it into action." The court concluded that the knife in quesiton was "spring-loaded and therefore a prohibited weapon." It also talks about opening and locking a "with a button or lever". The appellant Thompson was the only one claiming that the knive had a "gravity torsion bar", but his testimony was rejected. It would be nice to know what brand and model of knive was involved. What am I missing?

Mike1951 wrote:It also didn't help that the defendant couldn't get his story straight.

"Honest, I didn't have a knife on me, and if I did it wasn't a switchblade, and if it was a switchblade I didn't know it was."

The way I interpreted it, they focused solely on the spring assist and discounted the trigger mechanism.

This is why bad cases make bad case law. If the appellant had been Charles Cotton, Esq., busted for a "prohibited weapon" on school grounds because he pulled into the parking lot to let an ambulance pass, I have no doubt the court would have found differently.

The court correctly stated the law, then ignored a critical portion of it. I'm also curious that at trial, a police officer was allowed to state a fact of law:

"Well, it has like a little button. It's a lever that's on the blade. And all you have to do is barely just touch it and it opens... Any time you can just go like this and it opens, it has a spring and that springs it into action and that's what makes it prohibited."

What's with the "DO NOT PUBLISH" heading? Does that indicate it's under further appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals? Does it only apply in the 4th district?

I think it would cover my now-lost Kershaw Ken Onion, but I'm not sure. It's hardly what I would consider a switchblade, but I seem to recall it had a spring-assisted opening system. All I had to do was "get it started."

Chas.

KBCraig wrote:What's with the "DO NOT PUBLISH" heading? Does that indicate it's under further appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals? Does it only apply in the 4th district?

It means it cannot be cited as authority.

Chas.

I've got several Kershaws, from a Chive, to a Whirlwind, to a Boa.

While concerned about this ruling setting precedent, I will not stop carrying any of them.

That Boa has so much mass, you can time it opening with an hourglass.

The narrative doesn't make it clear at all what the mechanism was. This could have been a "switchblade" if it was a "lever lock" or similar design. No one would really think of it as a switchblade, but it would meet the Texas definition if it had an assist, because the lever is on the handle.

But a normal assisted opening knife, as described by the officer on the stand, where the button or lever is on the blade, does not meet the statutory definition.

This is yet another reason to take a machete to PC chapter 46. Ooops -- a machete would be an illegal knife, wouldn't it?

After reading more closely I see. I took "lever on the side" to mean on the handle, but then he says it's on the blade. It's also interesting that the testimony about how this makes the knife "dangerous".

Here's another link to the court decision
http://www.precydent.com/citation/TX+App+(4th" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)/04-06-00864-CR

The link doesn't work, but you can get to it if you Google: "Gabriel Thomas" switchblade