Still, you have to wonder if that's really true when you read stories like this:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/warnin...article/2535216

I continue to believe that going anywhere near a firearm-hating state (district) with a firearm in your possession is just asking for trouble. That includes accidentally getting diverted there when you actually had zero intention of setting foot in the place.

What is that cop saying I've heard, "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". Something like that. Alluding to the situation where you may ultimately escape legal penalty, but only after enduring much inconvenience, wasted time, confiscated possessions, lost job, jail time, lost money for legal representation, etc.

This thread has diverged from the initial question regarding knives to firearms. But I think the discussion is still very relevant. Often times, once a place goes after guns hog wild, and finds that in the end that doesn't really help anything, then they go after knives. A fantastic example of this is Great Britain, with their current "knife crime" hand wringing. They pretty much totally outlawed guns. And then didn't they move on to knives? They were trying to outlaw pointy knives. I don't know if that effort succeeded. I think they have outlawed locking knives, haven't they? So it's not a good idea to overlook what a place does against firearms owners thinking "they'll never do that to my knives". I think someone thinking like that would be in for a rude surprise. I also have a hunch that someone who looks at a knife foremost as a tool, but something that someone of evil intent can use as a weapon, probably looks at firearms the same way. Similarly, someone who has an irrational fear of guns probably has an irrational fear of knives too. And the irrational folks are the ones pushing these crazy restrictive laws. So firearms and knives are closely related when it comes to "rights".