Could Ohio make their Knife carry laws any more confusing?

[MossRoad]

So if you carried a fairly large ball bearing in your pocket, that would be a deadly weapon. If you carried a good sized rock in your pocket, that would be a deadly weapon. If you carried a tightly rolled up newspaper in your back pocket, that would be a deadly weapon. Would the passing of some rather odiferous gas be construed as being "deadly"

Point is, darn near anything is capable of inflicting death and could be adapted for use as a weapon and carried for that purpose by someone..

Weapon laws are stupid, They are created by morons. There should be no Weapon laws of any kind. You should be allowed to carry whatever you want to carry. When you use it to injure or kill someone unlawfully (murder). Then you should be dealt with harshly by the law. If you injure or kill someone lawfully, (self defense), then you should not be in jeopardy.

So it shall be written, so it shall be done...

So let it be written, so let it be done....

We used to mock one of our bosses as soon as he left the room after giving us stern instructions....

A guy I worked with would jump up and yell, So let it be written and we'd all jump to attention and yell back, So let it be done. :laughing:

So Let It Be Written - YouTube

 

[2ndhalf]

Found this... state by state:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USKnife.pdf

Looks pretty good. Wish it had Ohio.

 

[dickfoster]

As used in sections 2923.11 to 2923.24 of the Revised Code:

(A) "Deadly weapon" means any instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.

2923.12 Carrying concealed weapons.

(A) No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on the person's person or concealed ready at hand, any of the following:

(1) A deadly weapon other than a handgun;

Seems to me that the definition is very broad, but is probably crafted to be very broad. If the device is obviously designed as a weapon and is capable of inflicting death, then it is included...or if it is modified to be a weapon, or used or carried as a weapon, then it is included. As I said the definition is fairly broad, but the question is...is the definition unconstitutionally vague? I doubt it...however, the circumstances will make a lot of difference.

I would venture to say that your "ghost knife" very clearly fits the definition because it is described as a self defense weapon...but what do I know. Consult your attorney if you have any doubts.

An Illegal law under the 2nd amendment and the supreme court would likely rule as much. Maybe the people who write and pass these laws, all who have sworn an oath, by law and the constitution which is the supreme law of the land, to uphold the constitution should give it a read someday. Unless and until the 2nd amendment has been amended according to Article V, then ALL weapons laws in this country whether federal, state local or otherwise are by definition illegal and unlawful. To my knowledge no part of the Bill of Rights has ever been amended. The politicians dare not go there because it's like grabbing the third rail firmly with both hands and committing instant political suicide. Instead they keep trying to slither around it with vague language and BS court rulings trying to muddy the water but the 2nd amendment is concise and very clear in it's meaning. It even explains its purpose and why it's there in clear easy to understand language.