Legal use for concealed weapon?

[Owen Sparks]

Something came up in the Non-Firearms Forum that I would like post here.

We were talking about the legality of possessing tire thumpers (practically identical to a billy club) in your vehicle. Some people have been arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon for having one of these under the seat. There was also a case where concealed weapon charges were dropped because this item has a “peaceful use”:

Evidence was insufficient to support finding that a tire thumper found in defendant's car was a "weapon" proscribed by Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(1) (Cum. Supp. 2003) and therefore defendant's conviction of unlawful use of a weapon was reversed. The tire thumper had a peaceful use and State did not establish defendant's intent to use it in combat.

First of all, the defendant did not “use” the weapon. It was simply under his seat.

But suppose that he did intend to use it as a weapon? As long as he used it only in self-defense it would still be a perfectly legal act wouldn’t it? Injuring or even killing someone can be legal and excusable under certain circumstances right? So how can having a weapon capable of inflicting bodily injury be a crime when there is a legitimate, moral and legal time to inflict bodily injury?

 

[CoRoMo]

...how can having a weapon capable of inflicting bodily injury be a crime...

When there is a law against it, it is a crime. I'd only imagine a state law though.

Your post reminds me of back in my high school days. Us guys would keep a baseball bat in the car/truck, but we always told each other, "Keep a ball and a glove in there too, so that you don't get arrested for having the bat by itself, if you get stopped by the cops". It was accepted that LE looked at a lone bat as an illegal weapon, but if you have a glove and ball in there too, your just on the way to/from practice.

 

[Sam1911]

States regulate the tools of self-defense in many ways which seem at odds with the demonstrable need to have them on hand at times.

As a good example of strange, illogical disparities similar to this, there are plenty of states where it is illegal to carry certain kinds of knives, but where that state does allow the carrying of firearms. Or where a knife of one shape is illegal to carry but a larger knife of a different shape/configuration is legal. Where is the logical public safety argument in that?

Vis-a-vis an affirmative defense of "self-defense," there are many instances where the need to USE a deadly weapon -- as demonstrated by a successful legal argument of self defense in a violent encounter -- was considered sufficient to excuse the fact that possession of that weapon under those circumstances was illegal. If the defendant was found to be carrying that weapon, he/she could have been prosecuted and jailed, but since they were attacked and used that weapon to save their lives, their guilt in breaking that law (like the law against homicide or assault) is excused.

'Course, that's not much to hang your hat on.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Having a weapon is not like having kiddie porn or the date rape drug, there is a legitimate use for it.

 

[glistam]

Man I could go on for pages about this kind of issue.

Many laws on mere possession or mere carry of certain weapons are illogical. Period. They're based on politicians and voters emotional reactions and what potentially sounds like a good idea on paper, but makes little sense on further consideration. There are places in the US where possession of a switchblade is illegal, but a handgun can be carried concealed without permit.

What makes it even more foolish is that weapon laws in general seem to miss the point. They blame the object and act as if it either causes the crime all by itself or is simply inclined to unlawful usage by it's mere presence. They don't realize that in the US, 5.87% of all the murders in the nation are carried out with nothing but the perp's bare hands and feet. In the UK where gun and knife carry is illegal, it's 30%. (Source: FBI and The Home Office).

I go into this a lot more in my essay located in my signature (though it is primarily about how to work with such laws, rather than ranting about dumb they are.)

 

[F-111 John]

Arizona hates Ninjas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8K9oqhaXTo

 

[brickeyee]

As long as he used it only in self-defense it would still be a perfectly legal act wouldn’t it?

Um, no.

If there is case law that defines it as a weapon you can be prosecuted.

The police and DA are going to make a judgment about pursuing the case.

Statute law is NOT the only law.

Virginia has all sorts of laws that prohibit the mere possession of certain items, and other laws that only prohibit them if they are concealed, or off your property.

Virginia has this burred in the brandishing law

in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another

It applies to real guns, or anything that even looks like a real gun.

If you point a real looking plastic model gun at someone you can be charged with brandishing.
If the gun is just in your hand and someone feels fear you can be charged.

The case law is that in a holster is NOT brandishing, no matter how much fear some idiot claims.

 

[Bravo Sierra]

We were talking about the legality of possessing tire thumpers (practically identical to a billy club) in your vehicle. Some people have been arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon for having one of these under the seat. There was also a case where concealed weapon charges were dropped because this item has a “peaceful use”

In a car, the easy inference is that a tire billy kept under a seat is a concealed weapon. For a commercial rig, the use is obvious. You might be able to say the baseball bat found in a trunk goes with the ball and glove found next to it, but don't try that argument when there is a foot of snow on the ground.

It largely comes down to the facts of the situation, the legal definition of prohibited weapons, and the prosecutor in the jurisdiction where the case is filed. In my experience, this low-level sort of offense is not prosecuted without a larger offense, such as a drug crime or domestic violence incident where the billy was used.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Weapons laws presuppose guilt based on the POTENTIAL for a criminal act before the fact. In other words, you guilty because of what you MIGHT do in the future. Some say that carrying a weapon demonstrates a premeditated intent to use it. The kicker is that HOW you use it is not always a crime.

 

[GEM]

In TX, there was a law against carrying clubs. Gang bangers started to carry baseball bats, small ones in fact. See, it's for sport. However, the police would determine if you were on the way from a game or going to one. If not - busted.

A tire tool would reasonably be carried in the trunk. Under your seat - likely a weapon.

 

[SleazyRider]

I've pondered this question many times, so thanks for bringing it up. I keep a 16-inch length of scrap 500 MCM wire in the driver's door pocket of my truck. It's there not for use as a weapon, but for smacking mud off my boots after returning to my truck after a days work. Nothing works better to remove the mud from the deep treads of my work boots than a few sharp raps with that piece of wire before stepping into the truck.
I imagine it could be easily construed as a weapon; indeed, it resembles a large billy club and could be easily used to deliver a serious thumping. But I keep it handy only for removing mud. Seriously.
Do I risk running afoul of the law?

 

[25cschaefer]

As long as he used it only in self-defense it would still be a perfectly legal act would’t it?

An illegal weapon is illegal, if you only used a hand grenade for self defense it is still illegal.

It is funny what is considered a weapon as well, I have not found any rules against it but I met a guy who was on probation and was pulled over for speeding. As part of his probation, he could not have a weapon. The LEO found a pipe in his bed that had tape wrapped around one end and arrested him for possession of a weapon. Pipe-OK, pipe with tape-bad.

 

[littlebluevette]

I would think that if a Class A truck driver had a tire billy under his seat that the police might look at it a little bit differently than an illegal Mexican with two pounds of herion under his seat.

 

[Strykervet]

I keep a baseball bat in the truck. It is the most technologically advanced club as far as I'm concerned. Why I keep it there, I don't really know. If I could reach it, I could reach my pistol faster.

Here, any concealed weapon is illegal. Blades over 3", gravity knives, auto knives, and most all other knives are illegal to carry. A .500 Smith? No, that is okay to carry concealed or open. Nevermind the fact it can penetrate a whole crowd of people. The 3.25" blade I have on my pocket knife, now that is a problem. Don't get me wrong, I subscribe to carry, but I also subscribe to sensibility.

The laws can only get more ridiculous from here on out. We don't get rid of old ones or bad ones, we only add more. Every year new politicians get elected wanting to pass laws to establish their "legacy" or whatever, and for over 200 years we have added laws regularly. Alabama has over 50,000 pages of them in their constitution alone. There are even laws that state you can be charged with violating a law here if there is a law anywhere in the world against what you are doing. This would include the stupid religious laws elsewhere. Now I can't recall which law this was or where it was, I heard it from a law professor though, so I assume he knows what he is talking about. He had a cop there too, the cop said the same thing, that they can arrest you for just about anything, and that you should never ever talk to a cop.

There are just too many to keep up with. Too many to remember, too many to care about. I just try to do the right thing and mind my own business. I brush up on the important stuff and disregard the rest.

You always hear "we are a nation of laws". What you don't hear is that we are also a nation of criminals because we have so many laws. Just know you are violating a law somewhere all of the time, and with all of the "constructive possession" and "conspiracy" garbage, things can be made up when you aren't.

The game is rigged and not in your favor exactly.

 

[Zoogster]

In California carrying a large number of objects intended for use as a weapon makes them illegal weapons. The definition of many of these weapons is different than the dictionary definition of the same terms, and is often far more inclusive.
Saying a use of many normal everyday blunt objects might be for self-defense is admission of carrying such an item as a weapon, making the action illegal.


In California that tire checker would be an illegal felony 'billy' as defined by law if carried as a weapon. Carried as a tire checker it would be legal because it has a use other than as a weapon.
If someone stopped said they had it to "check tires, to knock off ice, and in case I had to defend myself", that last part would instantly become admission to carrying it as a weapon and result in a felony charge.
The same goes for most other blunt objects.
Self defense is legal, but planning for self defense by having a suitable blunt weapon is not. Just happening to stumble on a regular everyday item not intended to be used in self defense beforehand is legal, but if you plan for it you committed a felony.
Being a clueless person that manages to survive in spite of your lack of foresight is legal, but planning for various scenarios is a crime.

To give another example of the law:
In California carrying a sword specifically as a weapon is legal, as long as it is carried openly.
Practice swords which are often blunt sticks on the other hand carried for defense would be a felony, becoming a 'billy'.
You can chop the robber in half, or stab right through them, but if you plan to smack them with a stick you are a felon.


You thought the law made sense?

 

[Owen Sparks]

If someone stopped said they had it to "check tires, to knock off ice, and in case I had to defend myself", that last part would instantly become admission to carrying it as a weapon and result in a felony charge.

The reason this makes no sense is because self defense is NOT illegal, even in California.

 

[Toforo]

In MO - you need a CCW to conceal carry a bullwhip and those kung-fu flying stars "concealed" and on your person.....

.....but in my car - in THIS state where having one or several LEGAL guns LOADED in and around the passenger compartment is legal -

- my "billy" is a tool to knock the ice or mud off my vehicle and tires; no more, no less.

anything can be used as a weapon at any given point - including things in my first-aid kit, car/vehicle tool-box, the "tire-iron" that came WITH the car from the factory, etc, etc, etc......

.....heck, the car ITSELF "can be" a weapon (and treated accordingly i.e. vehicular manslaughter, etc)

Here, in this state, I think one word can sum it up - "intent"

 

[Sam1911]

Weapons laws presuppose guilt based on the POTENTIAL for a criminal act before the fact.

Not really, or at least not always. Weapons possession laws are simply "malum prohibitum" laws. That means "wrong because it is prohibited." The law creates the crime. They don't have to presuppose guilt or predisposition to some greater offense. The law says "don't have this." If you have that thing, you are guilty.

They exist in the (vain, we believe) hope that restricting someone's access to something diminishes his ability to act in an unacceptable way.

Laws against violence (and lots of other things) are "malum in se" laws or "wrong in fact." These are laws that codify offenses and harms against people. Many malum prohibitum laws are, or at least were originally, linked tangentially to some greater malum in se offense that society wished to try to discourage by making the conditions that enabled that act illegal in themselves. There are obvious holes in that logic you could parallel park a Peterbilt in, but that's how it is.

Breaking a malum prohibitum law doesn't really hinge on anything except the fact of possession (or whatever the issue at hand might be).

 

[razorback2003]

In Tennessee, it is against the law to carry a firearm, club, or knife over 4 inches with 'intent to go armed'.

I would keep such things as a baseball bat or tire knocker in my vehicle here as a tool, not as a weapon.

 

[Jeff H]

Arizona hates Ninjas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8K9oqhaXTo

ROFL

I was recently reading the kentucky laws and not only do they specifically allow stars and nunchaku (sp), but they also specifically allow weapons of mass destruction. I'm thinking Federal law may trump this, but it is interesting.

Anything goes in Kentucky as long as you have the permit.

 

[we are not amused]

Some years ago,in the City of Eldorado, I was waiting to speak to the Municipal Judge, to see about getting a ticket dismissed. The person in front of me, then talking to the Judge, was a young Junior College student from Oklahoma. He had been stopped for a broken taillight, and the city cop searched his car. He found a set of nun-chucks still mounted on it's original cardboard backing, shrink wrapped in plastic, in a brown paper bag in the rear passenger seat. He promptly arrested the student for a "concealed weapon".
The student was almost in tears, pleading with the Judge. Claiming he had bought them in a convenience store as wall decoration for his dorm room. (this was at the height of the "Kung Fu" movie craze)
The Judge appeared unmoved, telling the boy he had better get a good lawyer.
I never learned the outcome of the case, but came away convinced that bad cops and Judges are as big a bane to society as any mugger or armed robber.

Thank God most cops and Judges are sane and well intentioned!

I later asked a lawyer I was consulting with on a different issue, about the case, and what constituted a "concealed weapon" under the law. To condense a 15 minute response to a few words, "anything a law officer wants, can be considered a concealed weapon, if in any way it could be used injure or threaten any one, in the officers opinion." According to the lawyer, virtually any object could be considered a "concealed weapon", even if it was in plain sight, if the arresting officer can claim not to have seen it when walking up to the car.

Since I use the area under the seat of my pickup as a catch all for all sorts tools, from hammers, wrenches, pry bars, corn knives and occasionally an axe, it is probably a good thing I now have a concealed carry license.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Weapons possession laws are simply "malum prohibitum" laws. That means "wrong because it is prohibited." The law creates the crime. They don't have to presuppose guilt or predisposition to some greater offense. The law says "don't have this." If you have that thing, you are guilty.

"The law creates the crime"

This sort of thing creates contempt for the law.

Marcus Aralias said: “The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable.”

This is sort of like walking across the street. It is only "wrong" if a car is coming. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with walking across the street. Even though stepping out in front of an oncoming car carry’s the death penalty. If you get away with it nothing happens. There is an old saying "it is not against the law if you don't get caught"

Laws should be limited to restricting actions that harm other people or their property, not in maintaining the states monopoly on the use of defensive force.

Self-defense is not a crime.

In my state there is no law against having weapons in your vehicle because it is concidered as an extention of your home. Anything that is legal to possess in your home, tire knocker, pistol, shotgun or AR15 is legal to have in your car.

 

[Sam1911]

This sort of thing creates contempt for the law.

No argument from me there!

Laws should be limited to restricting actions that harm other people or their property, not in maintaining the states monopoly on the use of defensive force.

Yes, and they do -- or try to. But there are also many other laws which seek to further stack the deck against the possibility of committing actions that harm other people, etc. Or that create a social nusiance or cost that "society" has, or did, more or less agree that they did not want around.

Look up "malum prohibitum" and you'll find lists of perhaps hundreds of actions or conditions which are wrong merely because a law was written to make them illegal -- with the intent that, by extension, this would discourage something that was actually harmful, and already against the law, from happening to or being perpetrated upon someone.

Self-defense is not a crime.

Aaaargh. See, here's a problem. "Self-defense" is a PLEA. Any aggressive, violent action violates the law, i.e.: IS a crime. But ones which are successfully demonstrated or argued to have been necessary to prevent an even greater, unjust violent action may be excused. So the defensive shooter admits violating the law (committing the crime of assault or brandishing, or homicide, depending on how bad things got) and then argues his/her case as to why that was necessary and the punishment for that crime should be set aside.

In my state there is no law against having weapons in your vehicle because it is concidered as an extention of your home. Anything that is legal to possess in your home, tire knocker, pistol, shotgun or AR15 is legal to have in your car.

But what if it wasn't considered such? Why should there be a law against you having a thing wherever you wish to? Having something harms no-one.

 

[PedalBiker]

In Ann Arbor Michigan I remember a case where a guy was arrested for having a knife on the dashboard of the car - plainly visible to the arresting officer and the world at large. The charge was carrying a concealed weapon.

A friend of mine was a traffic engineer for the city of Troy Michigan. He attended a seminar where an Ann Arbor traffic engineer was speaking. His summary of the entire presentation was that Ann Arbor engineers used behavior models to maximize revenue by maximizing the breaking of laws (parking laws). It was quite enlightening and, in fact, the techniques he described were exactly the model I had observed while I was a student at U of M.

An area would be "ignored" until the illegal parking area was observed to be full. Then everyone there would get a ticket until the number of people parking there were too few to meet the revenue targets. This pattern would be repeated as needed to maximize revenue.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Things should not be crimes. Only ACTIONS harm others.

There was a time when being black was a crime if you were in the "wrong" part of town especially after dark. The law presuposed that Black people were up to no good even though most were not. Weapon laws are no different in that they presuppose guilt based on potential for crime rather than actions that harm others.

Malum prohibitum removes the burden of proof from the accuser and places it on the accused.