Evening Doug,

Point taken. You are correct - the source of the article is not the most reliable. I don't reside in Alberta and not familiar with the violent crime in its major cities. It is the intent behind the story that concerns me.

The difficulty is where the line is going to be drawn by the LEO/Crown. The Criminal Code is not absolute in its definition of what is legal other than to state that mechanically activated and gravity knives are prohibited weapons. Everything else is open to interpretation.

What defines a legitimate purpose?

I'm worried that the vagaries of our laws are being exploited. Currently here in Toronto the police chief has initiated a program for patrol officers to visit the home of elderly legal gun owners to complete a spot check of their firearms. Despite the fact this is completely outside their jurisdiction and contrary to the firearms act.

Although, I have met with no opposition from LEO - I don't want the public to automatically associate knife ownership with being a criminal.

The "legitimate purpose" language was only so bad back in the day when individual officers had more personal discretion in these matters. Unfortunately all it takes is a departmental directive to "hook everyone up and let the court sort it out" to land a lot of normal folks in trouble.

Doug,
Thank you for pointing out the credibility of the source to those of us that linked to the story without being familiar with the site.

We have the same thing here in Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg. Too many native youth gangs. They buy anything cheap that can be used as a weapon. Of late it has been the dime-store machetes that seem to attract a lot of attention. Of course balisongs, nunchucks, stars and the like are illegal and a bit harder to get so they go for anything cheap and lethal looking. The cops aren't worried about law abiding citizens with pocket knives and multi-tools. It's the punks they are after. The cops have plenty of laws, it just about enforcing them and the legal system to punish properly.

I suspect the legality of the hardware is going to be less of an issue than the very grey area regarding probable cause for search and seizure. LEOs will be walking a fine line here. Criminal charges won't stick without a legal search based on probable cause. I see this ultimately being tested in higher courts.

Even if charges don't go anywhere, a more proactive stance on the part of police may serve as control rods in the reactor -- trying to prevent meltdowns instead of cleaning up afterward. Whether or not this will work is frankly up in the air.

I was just reading an article about one of the G-20 arrests that seems relevant. In part, the article reported:

Police testified Puddy had a 15-centimetre knife attached to his belt.

Puddy, 32, from London, Ont., was eventually charged with obstructing police, concealing a weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon.
...
Justice Melvyn Green accepted Puddy's defence that he was not carrying the knife as a weapon and further ruled that since the arrest was illegal, so too was the search that uncovered the knife.

This seems to confirm a couple things.

First, having a knife is not the same as having a weapon; a knife only becomes a weapon if you intend to use it as such. This is likely a good thing about the way the law is actually worded. While the police may sometimes use terms like "legitimate purpose" with respect to knives, the law simply says you can't carry one with the intention of using it as a weapon.

Second, as dougwalkabout said, there must be a valid reason for a search to be considered legal.

Apologies, it seems the Canadians have taken hostage this thread.

As previously mentioned, the police are seeking a proactive measure against increasing urban violence by utilising existing law. As noted by dougwalkabout - does the law support the current initiative? Ultimately, time and the courts will decide.

The LEOs in Edmonton are now having to substantiate the intent of the person in possession of the knife and I don't envy them the task. Although, this would seem an obvious measure of common sense - common sense is not nearly so common.

My greatest fear is that we descend into a situation similar to what is happening in NYC - where Doug and Kniferights.org are currently having to issue a court challenge against the office of the DA to re-establish the boundaries of current law.

The public needs to be reassured that it is not the legal knife owner they need fear. Those that subscribe to this forum see them as tools for everyday use. However, that is not how the vast majority view knives and it is going to be an uphill struggle to convince them of otherwise.

And it is probably time to end my rant.

P.S.
Dennis, I'm sorry I didn't reply to your comment from a previous posting.

I found this article in the Friday edition of the Globe:

Gun Collector Sues Toronto Police

Take care everyone.

In the UK the law is worded differently. Penknives are presumed to be tools, but knives with blades that are long and/or fixed are presumed to be weapons. Both presumptions are rebuttable. In a case like the one you cite, Puddy couldn't just claim the 15cm blade wasn't carried as a weapon: he'd need to show what other purpose it was carried for.

In my view the UK law is a reasonably compromise, given that we want any kind of knife control at all (which I appreciate many Americans won't agree with). The biggest problem with the UK wording is that when the statute defined "penknife", it didn't allow for folding knives with locking blades. That the blade locks makes it a safer tool, but the courts have construed it as instead turning it into a fixed-blade weapon.

So I don't think that banning blades has to be all or nothing. I also have sympathy with the view that if you merely make it illegal to attack someone with a knife, then you can't get involved until it's too late and someone has already been stabbed.

Wow, I had no idea you could get away carrying an ~6" knife in public here. I wouldn't try it, it is way more than you need for a handy *urban* (pocket) tool. He's lucky to get away with it, if the search had been legal the charge might have stuck. I know on the sporting Canadian forums 3.5-4" is the most usually recommended. Whether you're right or wrong, it can cost you a helluva lot in Canada to "prove" it, and who needs that. Plus it's far too easy nowadays for some busybiddy to call 911 and seriously disrupt your day...

The big prob IMO in Canada is concealment. Any potential "weapon" it may be legal to own and carry moves to an entirely different category when it's concealed and on your person. Like a 4" knife inside your waistband, maybe even your pocket. Or a cheap pellet pistol being carried to a field in a backpack (an actual local concealed weapons charge). No diff here if you commit a robbery with a water pistol or a real gun, same charge. IOW it's the circumstances and not the item that brings the charge, which is what you guys are saying.

There's a problem there too if that what the law actually says. (I'm taking your word for it.)

What's wrong with carrying a knife with the intent to use it for self-defense, and therefore as a weapon? There's no problem in my book. Heck, I'm in favor of concealed carry of firearms, which would be a weapon.

If that's what the law says, then everybody has to do this fake dance about carrying their knife as a tool only. For example, "I'm a mover officer, and I open boxes all day; please don't arrest me; I promise I can show you my business card here."

It's not just a suggested fake dance. The person actually has to plan out their fake routine meticulously so they don't get arrested, charged, and convicted, merely because they're carrying a knife.

I see red flags when a knife law restricts behavior within the law. If the officer is not satisfied with what you're saying, then the officer can go ahead and make an arrest because he can. Getting arrested is a potential life changer, depending on your job and lifestyle.

Make a separate law directed toward behavior (e.g., threatening to kill someone is a crime). Really, what's the problem there?

I feel this is another example of the widening urban/rural gap in thought patterns.

You are in Canada for God's sake, a place where a knife can make the diference between life and death, outside the urban zone, and EVERYONE carried a knife only a few years back.

Now you have towns that are large enough that some folk never leave them, and they develop an urban mindset that is no diferent from that in Montreal or New York City.

"Someone please protect me from the knife wielding roughians!"

The only way one can go through life with the attitude that a knife is an unnecessary item for daily existance is to live in an urban setting where everything can be accessed with poptops or torn open with you teeth.

I have also noted, while going through life, that police are interchangable within their environment. An urban cop is an urban cop. You wear a badge or you do not wear a badge. Anyone with a badge is "one of us" and anyone without a badge is a criminal waithing for a chance to break the law. If you have a badge your knife is a tool. If you do not wear a badge the knife is a weapon, and you need to go to jail.