Revisiting this discussion today to address your other point, Hso.
Remember that there are levels of expertise for sound reasons and the officer has a practical, but limited knowledge of the law compared to the attorney who spent a lot more time studying it before spending years interpreting and applying it.
First, I'll say that I respect your and Conwict's knowledge about this and other issues. I generally get good, sound advice from both of you.
When getting advice from people, I always - well, at least since my 30's - listen to it, weigh it, reflect on it, ask for clarifications if needed, then use both logic and intuition to make my decision. (I'm both a student and teacher of critical thinking skills, so I'm pretty good at doing that.)
But I gotta say that in this case, under my circumstances, I'm not buying your argument. In some cases, in different states, for sure, yes. But here, no.
I'm well aware that a DA may well - neigh, undoubtedly does - understand the subtle nuances of a law - knife or other - better than a police officer, even an experienced one. There are potentially little ... loop holes, or bight holes, or knots in the law that a cop may nor understand but that a DA could use to bring charges if s/he wished. Granted.
But even so, even if I'd gotten an opinion from a DA first, I'd still want to get an opinion from the officer on the ground so that I can see - experience - his response, his words, his body language.
If the officer I spoke with yesterday had frowned and said, "Well, that's kind of borderline in terms of length, and some officers may stop you for it", then it'd be different. He didn't. His opinion was instant, unhesitating, and unequivocal. He spoke with authority and confident conviction, again with his duty officer within earshot. (I had been waiting for ten minutes to speak with the duty officer who had been engaged in another conversation, when the other officer walked up.)
And that means a lot in this state, home of Stephen King (I now understand where he gets ideas for some of his characters and story lines after living here for two years). In this city, we have a mix of 'yahoo' meets inner city Boston; it's a volatile mix. The cops here have to be sharp to deal with it. Every one I've spoken to or heard speaking demonstrates good intelligence.
Importantly, given the number of fixed blades that I've seen carried openly in those two years, especially during hunting season, in several communities (including the pit that is the second largest city in ME), the cops have to know the knife laws well. There's just no way around it.
Also, I'm not convinced that a DA would offer a different answer than an officer in response to a person that s/he doesn't know with no lawyer credentials, even if they know of a potential loophole. And since a DA is a lawyer, then they could write a response worded in a way that doesn't cover the loop hole and you're still screwed.
(Q: How do you know when a lawyer is lying? A: He's got his mouth open. Point of story: I don't trust lawyers any more than I trust cops, and in general, less, especially if they are elected or appointed public officials.)
Still, I'll play. I'm going to do a little experiment.
I'll contact the DA, and ask his/her* opinion. (*I have no clue.)
Second, I'm going to pose the question about officer knowledgeability of knife laws to a local police officer that I don't know directly, but know of through a friend who has a similar interest in knives (not on this forum). In fact, I think I may have a link to more officers (including a statie) via friends and acquaintances. I'm curious to know what they say. I'm going to describe my experience and this conversation (sans any reference whatsoever to names; I'm not even going to mention it's happening on an online forum, just a question that came up among friends in casual conversation).
If I'm successful in gathering some data, I'll post it to a new thread for discussion rather than take this one further OT. (Kicking myself for even bringing this up, let alone in this thread.)
Nem
