Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-
On July 29th, 2014, William Battle entered the Pike County Administrative Building for an appointment with a probation officer. Battle had plead guilty to aggravated assault involving a firearm in 2009, when he was 18, for a crime committed eight months earlier, when he was 17. He was convicted as an adult. Aggravated assault is a felony in Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania law Battle may not legally possess firearms.
Battle emptied his pockets as preparation to passing through a metal detector. An automatic knife with a four inch blade was part of the contents. A deputy saw the knife and examined it. Battle was arrested for illegal possession of an offensive weapon. The jury trial took place in 2016, and Battle was found guilty of possession of a prohibited offensive weapon. Battle was 25 years old.
An appeal was filed shortly after the conviction, based solely on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The appeal did not reference Pennsylvania’s state Constitution. Pennsylvania has a strong right to bear arms provision in the State’s Constitution. From ucla.edu:
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
The superior court that heard William Battle’s appeal found that switchblade knives are not protected by the Second Amendment, because they “serve no common lawful purpose”.
“The superior court that heard William Battle’s appeal found that switchblade knives are not protected by the Second Amendment, because they “serve no common lawful purpose”.”
__________________________________________________
I agree. Now, if that knife had been thrusted into a politicians backside….well, then to me that is purposeful. And although the act may not be common, the thought of the act is all TOO common.
“serve no common lawful purpose”
How would they know?
Those disgusting Peeps candies serve no common lawful purpose either. So why are they legal?
Any knife with a cutting edge can serve a lawful purpose. The “assisted opening” (spring assisted) knives that are quite plentiful in the marketplace are just as quick to open as an “automatic” knife and they are also more durable by the very nature of the opening mechanisms (the blade attachment to the frame is more durable than “automatic” knives).
As a knife collector since I was a wee tot, I have several hundred of them in all varieties and types. I have carried at least one knife if not more for every day of my life since I was about 6 years old (right now, I have a large tactical knife with a pocket clip that I can flip open in a millisecond, another lock-blade that is my “workhorse” that is in my pocket, another medium sized, 3 blade pocket knife that I use for finer detailed work (including splinters and stripping electrical wire) and a small multi-tool that has a small knife blade as one of the implements.
All of them have a “common lawful purpose” and they all are used practically every day for a variety of completely lawful tasks. This judge should be put behind bars for being so stupid in addition to ruining someone’s life over possessing a common tool used by millions of people daily. How the tool opens has no bearing on how it is used by most people.
This whole problem could have been avoided if the idiot had left his knife at home or in the car trunk like any sensible parolee would have done. Even if it had been an ordinary penknife, he would have been instructed to take it back outside*, so why not avoid the hassle?
(* – That’s the way it works in Texas, anyway.)
I suppose the stinger shooting gun knife would be out of the question then … Nevermind.
Sounds like William Battle’s attorney was court appointed. He got what he paid for.
I suppose this leaves out any possible chance of playing mumblypeg while in court.
So, I’m going to assume that a semi-automatic knife is legal? What about an assault and pepper shaker?
These people have lost their minds…
“It depends on what the meaning of is, is.”
“… it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“Two plus two equals what I say it equals.”
Welcome to the Brave New World of Pennsylvanian mindfuck.
izlamo delenda est …
This is why we need so many H1B judges from the former Soviet Union. The basis of American, and almost all Western, law is the prohibition of “undesirable” activities. The old “if it’s not forbidden, then it is permitted” paradigm. Even without a constitutional amendment specifically limiting the government’s ability to limit the citizens’ activities, the argument “it’s not authorized, therefore it is in violation of authorizations” is literally anti-American.
Judges shouldn’t get to “interpret” simple sentences in Constitutions and establish “precedents” based on personal belief.
Bubba’s Brother:
I have about 20 antique switchblades
in my collection including a 13″ Italian
stag stilletto from 1962.
“Battle was arrested for illegal possession of an offensive weapon.”
I’d just like to know what that knife said to the deputy that was so offensive. Did it call him a pig? Did it offer him a doughnut?
This guy was a “convicted felon”. He has no 2nd amendment rights now. The story seems to gloss over that fact when it makes the case for an automatic knife being protected by it.
@jpm March 12, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Ooh… I knew I shouldn’t a bought this “Printed in China” “American Constitution” at Walmart! The duplicitous chinamen left out ALL the “except for convicted naughtymen” clauses.
The second amendment unambiguously states the “bearing of arms”. That means, for the curiously uninformed judiciary a hammer, a crowbar, a 105 mm howitzer, a wrist rocket…they have no standing in determination. Sorry.