^ Yeah, being from Edmonton (born there) I am extremely surprised this is going on there...it sure has changed attitudinally. For those who don't know, check where Edmonton is on a map, then check what's around it. Still, I find it very very hard to believe Albertans (think of them as northern Texans lol) are going along with this.

Even in prissy Ontario, it wasn't that long ago (OK, longer than I probably think...) that a teenager could walk down a back road with a .22 rifle and nobody would say a thing. They wouldn't dare lol. People minded their own business when it came to other people minding *their* own business. No more. Everything has to become open for public discussion, even your personal behavior in your own home or car.

Around here the police are pretty reasonable. But they have their marching orders from their supervisors, and the chief law enforcement types are all *political appointees*, they are NOT voted in.

It turns out that aspect of the news report was incorrect, maybe someone did their math wrong? I found a copy of the judgement online and it describes his knife as a wooden-handled folding Gerber with a 3-4 inch blade carried in a sheath, unconcealed on his belt.

The judgement also explains prohibited weapon charge. The officer was able to open the knife using centrifugal force and the judge did find that the knife clearly met the criteria for being a prohibited weapon. However, interestingly he found that it wasn't shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Puddy either modified the knife (loosening the pivot) or knew that the knife could be operated in such a way and therefore found him not guilty of the charge. The judge recognized it was an ordinary, legal knife which could have unintentionally developed the characteristics of a prohibited weapon.

It is my understanding that in Canada it is illegal to carry a knife for the purpose of self defence; it would be considered a weapon in such a case. I'm no lawyer or expert, but this is what I've come to understand from others.

The law defines a weapon as "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 and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm."

Not arguing whether this is right or wrong, but it seems to be the way it is.

I think part of it makes sense, however the 'designed to be used' part is subjective.

If an object (knife, gun, bowling pin, etc) is used to commit or threaten violence in the commission of a crime, it is a weapon.

A logical stretch might be if a knife, gun, bowling pin, etc is in the possession of a person who is committing a crime, or the person is a convicted violent felon, that object may be intended as a weapon.

Leave everyone else alone.

this is why our friends up in Canada are know for their world class fist fights and not so much for mindless blasting away at each other.

It is not that subjective. Some things are designed for a fairly narrow array of uses. E. g. daggers are designed to be used as weapons and they are of limited use for other tasks. SAKs are design as tools. They still can be used as weapon.

I've read about that kind of decisions by judges in both Canada and Britain. Apparently, they are at least somewhat interested in the INTENT of the law.

Here in the U.S., that doesn't seem to be the case -- here it is only the LETTER of the law. Here, judges seem to be nothing but tax collectors in black robes.

Even 25+ years ago, it was like this. For instance, a man was walking with his family from a parking lot to a restaurant in San Jose, CA. An off-duty, out-of-uniform LEO in his own personal, unlighted car, ripped through the parking lot at a fairly high rate of speed (for a parking lot), and almost hit one of the kids. Mom grabbed the boy's clothes and jerked him back, Dad slapped the back of the car with the flat of his hand. Dad subsequently received a fine by the judge for interfering with a police office.

The red-light cameras are touted as safety features, but to collect more fines, the yellow-light timing has been shortened.

As one of our members here once said, "America doesn't have a judicial system, it has a legal system".

Sue

Laws like this lead to the regurgitation of distinctions that are more artificial than real. The good ol' Swiss Army Knife is in the same boat as an "evil" dagger. A SAK can be a highly effective weapon, and not just the blade. The corkscrew on a SAK may be a preferable weapon sometimes, and is something regular knifes don't have. I guess Canada had better start banning cork screws too!

A dagger may be used effectively to do the same things for which I use my regular folder. In fact, if I needed to punch my way into many boxes for whatever reason, I'd prefer a dagger over a regular folder. A person shouldn't have to get special permission (license) from big daddy government just to carry a dagger.

Easy there , we're still quite a way's off from either of those things and I haven't seen anything suggesting the laws will be changing any time soon.

If you want to see all the sordid details, section 84.1 of the Criminal Code has the general definition of a prohibited weapon and part 3 of SOR/98-462 has a specific list of prohibited weapons (i.e., those 84.1's definition refers to as the ones "prescribed to be a prohibited weapon"). Between the two, it lists the things Canadians cannot legally own (without some exceptions of course).

To skip to the Coles Notes version, the Canada Border Services Agency has a consise list of prohibited weapons. The sharp & pointy things on the list include:

• automatic knives such as switchblades;
• centrifugal knives such as flick knives or butterfly knives;
• gravity knives;
• finger rings with blades or other sharp objects projecting from the surface;
• shuriken (throwing stars);
• Constant Companion (belt-buckle knife);
• push daggers;
• devices shorter than 30 cm concealing a knife blade (e.g. knife-comb);
• spiked wristbands.

While, in theory at least, the the general definition of a weapon quoted earlier could be used to prosecuting an otherwise upstanding citizen for carrying a "scary" knife concealed, I'm not aware of any cases where this has happened or if the case law would even support such a conviction.

Evening Denis,

If the Edmonton police make good on their original media release - we may very well see the upstanding citizen prosecuted for that very offence.

The worst possible outcome is for the courts to establish precedence and for that decision to spread throughout the rest of the country.