Fixed and folding knife laws

[ktm525xcatv 5]

Is there a length limit?

What about open carring them?

Concealing?

[Jon 264]

NJ Law states that you must have a reason for carrying a knife, regardless of its size. Self-defense is not a reason.

[ktm525xcatv 5]

You have to be kidding.

I used to carry a real small folder when i lived there.

Dover NJ police stopped me walking out of a bar when i turned 21.

Surrounded me and asked a few questions... are you here to cut someone? are you here to cut someones tires?

But thats all they said about it.

Seem like they were more concerned why a white guy was in dover.

[ktm525xcatv 5]

Could i carry a ball peen hammer at least?

[ktm525xcatv 5]

Collapseable batton?

[djg0770 481]

Collapseable batton?

 

Illegal...

[djg0770 481]

Could i carry a ball peen hammer at least?

 

Legal.

[CageFighter 236]

Since I have a KA-BAR TDI Law Enforcement Knife - Hard Sheath, I cant carry it? what do you use as an excuse for need?

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

Since I have a KA-BAR TDI Law Enforcement Knife - Hard Sheath, I cant carry it? what do you use as an excuse for need?

 

You need to open boxes and cut twine occasionally.

[BRaptor 68]

NJ Law states that you must have a reason for carrying a knife, regardless of its size. Self-defense is not a reason.

 

I thought I read in the statutes that you could not carry a fixed bladed knife, but you could carry a folder with a blade less than 4 inches "for lawful purposes." The wording of "lawful purposes" is different from NJ's CCW "justifiable need," thus, I would think self-defense would be a lawful purpose.

 

Of course, I haven't read the statute in some time and I haven't read any cases on the issue, but I would venture to guess that self-defense is a lawful purposes for carrying a knife. Of course, we all should know to live by the mantra "Don't talk to the police." (sorry KPD).

 

Collapsible batons are illegal.

Stun guns are illegal.

Brass knuckles are illegal.

"Nun-chuka" are illegal (I think).

 

But feel free to walk around with the hammer of your choice. Carpenter's union is too strong to get those scary things outlawed.

[tommy3rd 132]

in a nutshell...

 

New Jersey - Code of Criminal Justice

 

- 2C:39-3 Prohibited Weapons and Devices...

 

e. Certain weapons. Any person who knowingly has in his

possession any gravity knife, switchblade knife, dagger,

dirk, stiletto, billy, blackjack, metal knuckle, sandclub,

slingshot, cestus or similar leather band studded with

metal filings or razor blades imbedded in wood, ballistic

knife, without any explainable lawful purpose, is guilty

of a crime of the fourth degree.

 

- 2C:39-1 h. "Gravity knife" means any knife which has a

blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof

by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal

force... p. "Switchblade knife" means any knife or similar

device which has blade which opens automatically by hand

pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in

the handle of the knife... u. "Ballistic knife" means any

weapon or other device capable of lethal use and which can

propel a knife blade.

 

- 2C:39-4. Possession of weapons for unlawful purposes...

d. Other weapons. Any person who has in his possession any

weapon, except a firearm, with a purpose to use it

unlawfully against the person or property of another is

guilty of a crime of the third degree.

 

- 2C:39-5. Unlawful Possession of Weapons... d. Other weapons.

Any person who knowingly has in his possession any other

weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for

such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of

the fourth degree.

- - e. Firearms or other weapons in educational institutions...

(2)Any person who knowingly possesses any weapon enumerated

in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection r. of N.J.S.2C:39-1

or any components which can readily be assembled into a

firearm or other weapon enumerated in subsection r. of

N.J.S.2C:39-1 or any other weapon under circumstances not

manifestly appropriate for such lawful use as it may have,

while in or upon any part of the buildings or grounds of any

school, college, university or other educational institution

without the written authorization of the governing officer

of the institution is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

 

- 2C:39-6. f. Nothing in subsections b., c. and d. of N.J.S.2C:39-5

shall be construed to prevent... (2) A person carrying a firearm

or knife in the woods or fields or upon the waters of this State

for the purpose of hunting, target practice or fishing, provided

that the firearm or knife is legal and appropriate for hunting

or fishing purposes in this State and he has in his possession

a valid hunting license, or, with respect to fresh water fishing,

a valid fishing license;

 

(3) A person transporting any firearm or knife while traveling:

(a) Directly to or from any place for the purpose of hunting or

fishing, provided the person has in his possession a valid

hunting or fishing license; or

 

- 2C:39-9. d. Weapons. Any person who manufactures, causes to

be manufactured, transports, ships, sells or disposes of

any weapon including gravity knives, switchblade knives,

daggers, dirks, stilettos... is guilty of a crime of the

fourth degree.

 

- 2C:39-9.1... Any person who sells any hunting, fishing,

combat or survival knife having a blade length of five

inches or more or an overall length of 10 inches or more

to a person under 18 years of age commits a crime of the

fourth degree...

 

New Jersey Case Law:

- "Concealment was not a necessary element of the offense of

carrying a dangerous knife." (1973)

- "Concealment of weapon at time of incident constituted

important factor of offense of possession of dangerous

knife." (1971)

 

good luck coming up with an "explainable lawful purpose".

It's so subjective that you could get royally screwed if caught.

[RecessedFilter 222]

Of course, I haven't read the statute in some time and I haven't read any cases on the issue, but I would venture to guess that self-defense is a lawful purposes for carrying a knife. Of course, we all should know to live by the mantra "Don't talk to the police." (sorry KPD).

 

 

That is incorrect. Self-defense is not a lawful reason to own a knife in NJ.

[Nick T 4]

That is incorrect. Self-defense is not a lawful reason to own a knife in NJ.

The way it is written though it states that to be in possession of those weapons listed without lawful purpose is illegal, now I am in no way shape or form an attorney, but shouldn't you be able to carry any "normal" knife and not have need for lawful purpose?

[RecessedFilter 222]

The way it is written though it states that to be in possession of those weapons listed without lawful purpose is illegal, now I am in no way shape or form an attorney, but shouldn't you be able to carry any "normal" knife and not have need for lawful purpose?

 

This is NJ though, first of all.

 

Secondly, just like most other states, whether you're carrying a 3 inch folder or a 6 inch bowie, you don't need any type of 'reason' to be in possession of it.

 

Thirdly, this is NJ.

 

Get where I am going?

[Nick T 4]

This is NJ though, first of all.

 

Secondly, just like most other states, whether you're carrying a 3 inch folder or a 6 inch bowie, you don't need any type of 'reason' to be in possession of it.

 

Thirdly, this is NJ.

 

Get where I am going?

Yea I get what you are saying, you get caught and fight it they will just revise the law

[deviated rationality 4]

I can't wait to move out of this place. Seriously. I have to wait at least another year or two though now

[BRaptor 68]

That is incorrect. Self-defense is not a lawful reason to own a knife in NJ.

 

OK, now you forced me to do research. Here is what the courts have said:

 

Conviction of possession of a weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful use, in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5(d). conviction was reversed., The question which is directly before us is whether a knife of the nature here involved is by itself of such a character as to permit a conviction in the absence of any incriminating factor other than its presence in one's pocket as he is walking down the street. We conclude that it is not.[/size]. Obviously, a folding knife with a four-inch blade can be used lethally and is capable of inflicting serious injury. state must prove not only the fact of possession of an implement that could be used as a weapon but circumstantial culpability as well. State v. Blaine, 221 N.J. Super. 66, 533 A.2d 980 (App.Div. 1987).

 

But, what Recessed Filter said, the courts have also said:

 

Self-defense does not excuse possession of a weapon in violation of section 5d except in "those rare and momentary circumstances where an individual arms himself spontaneously to meet an immediate danger." State v. Kelly, 118 N.J. 370 (1990)

In this case, a woman said she was threatened by her ex and "armed" herself with a box cutter. She cut her ex when he attacked her. The court didn't care, [you're not allowed to fight back, apparently.]

Specifically, the court instructed the jury that the concept of "self-protection" could be used as a defense to aggravated assault, but could not be used as a defense to both weapon charges.

 

The court also says:

 

[The Case of] Harmon defines the extraordinary circumstances that allow for a self-defense under section 5d as those in which a person makes spontaneous use of a weapon to repell immediate danger. 104 N.J. at 208-09, 516 A.2d 1047. When Kelly armed herself, the danger was in no way immediate. Had Kelly seized the weapon spontaneously and used it to defend herself against a life-threatening attack, then, she would not have possessed the weapon for a manifestly inappropriate purpose. As it stands, however, even Kelly acknowledged at trial that she knew she was not supposed to carry a razor but took it with her in anticipation of a confrontation with Boone. Thus, the record fully supports the jury's finding that Kelly possessed the weapon under manifestly inappropriate circumstances. Her anticipatory self-defense does not excuse the possession.

 

Previous cases have said:

 

Possession of a machete on a fishing vessel may be absolutely fine, but on the street, probably not so much.

 

Possession of a steak knife at the dinner table is ok, but "is sinister when concealed in a car with a BB gun."

 

So, the courts have said it's all circumstantial and depends on whether the judge and/or jury think that, under the circumstances, possession of the "weapon" is "manifestly appropriate."

[BRaptor 68]

I also wanted to add that these cases show EXACTLY why you cannot speak to the police.

 

In all actuality, I propose that the only difference between the two cases (the one where the guy with the folding knife got off and the one where the domestic violence victim was convicted) is the poor girl TOLD THE POLICE that she armed herself with a box cutter for self-defense.

 

Although defendant correctly argues that the circumstances surrounding the possession of an instrument must be considered in determining whether the possession is appropriate [under 2C:39-5], defendant clearly admitted to possessing the carpet cutter as a weapon, not as a work-related instrument.

 

I'd give two-to-one odds that the box-cutter case comes out differently if that girl says nothing to the police or the while on the stand and the state is left with a similar scenario of "the mere presence of a box cutter in her pocket," which she happens to be able to arm herself with when attacked is not enough for a conviction under the statute, because we cannot say that possession of the object at the time was "manifestly inappropriate."

 

As some final painful words from the court, here are some quotes:

 

Because prior attempts to gain the assistance of police had proven ineffective, she did not notify the police. Because Boone lived only a few blocks away, Kelly believed that she could not avoid encountering him.

 

Thus, the police were not responsive to her calls for help.

 

We recognize that some will consider our position unreasonable and argue that Kelly, in the face of Boone's past behavior, recent threats, and inability of the police to stop Boone from abusing her, acted reasonably in arming herself with the razor for protection. Nonetheless, that is precisely the behavior section 5d was designed to discourage. Undoubtedly Kelly found herself in a particularly difficult situation, but the answer is not to arm oneself and fight violence with violence. The answer lies in making law enforcement more responsive so that the embattled person does not face the Draconian choice of bearing arms or withstanding the onslaught of abuse.

 

State v. Kelly, 118 N.J. 370 (1990)

 

Yes, the NJ Supreme Court comes as close as ever to admitting that they are being completely unreasonable. So, as a solution to their unreasonableness, they not only posit that we should demand something that is now and always was impractical (demand that the police be "more responsive"), but their solution is also completely impossible (US Supreme Court has now said the police is are under no obligation to respond/protect you when you call for help).

 

Ain't that a kick in the balls/ovaries?