• Welcome to The Bushcraft Forum

    You are currently viewing the site as a guest and some content may not be available to you.

    Registration is quick and easy and will give you full access to the site and allow you to ask questions or make comments and join in on the conversation. If you would like to join then please Register

Knife law, plain and simple

I agree about the Swiss Army Knife, I usually need a knife at some point during the day...the SAK is there when you need it. I also recommend small pocket knives like the range of Taylor's eye witness farmers knives, they are not lock knives but have a very positive Spring action and are made of fantastic steel with jigged bone handles.

While I'm on my own property or one of my permissions I carry some fairly scary stuff but in public I make a concerted effort to be legal.

Those articles are both very informative but the issue that I have with the 1988 criminal justice act is that the term "lawful reason" is incredibly subjective. What may seem like a perfectly reasonable and logical reason to be in possession of a fixed blade or 3 inch plus knife to one person may not seem reasonable to another person. Because of this I tend to err on the side of caution, if a task can be achieved with a small folding knife there is no real reason in law to be in possession of a larger knife, fixed blade or lock knife.
 
Last edited:
I agree about the Swiss Army Knife, I usually need a knife at some point during the day...the SAK is there when you need it. I also recommend small pocket knives like the range of Taylor's eye witness farmers knives, they are not lock knives but have a very positive Spring action and are made of fantastic steel with jiggled bone handles.

While I'm on my own property or one of my permissions I carry some fairly scary stuff but in public I make a concerted effort to be legal.

Those articles are both very informative but the issue that I have with the 1988 criminal justice act is that the term "lawful reason" is incredibly subjective. What may seem like a perfectly reasonable and logical reason to be in possession of a fixed blade or 3 inch plus knife to one person may not seem reasonable to another person. Because of this I tend to err on the side of caution, if a task can be achieved with a small folding knife there is no real reason in law to be in possession of a larger knife, fixed blade or lock knife.

I'd say the Act was serving its purpose then to be honest.

We live in the world as it is, knife crime is a bit of a 'thing' at the moment so why feed it if you don't need to. I'm assuming most of us aren't feeling the need to carry non legal blades as 'EDC' so when we do we have a reason. Not a dig at you Ystranc, talking generally.
 
Understood Bam, and I think you're absolutely right, the legislation is fulfilling its purpose.
I just wish it was a little better worded to do away with the subjective nature of what is a lawful reason to be in possession of an otherwise illegal kind of knife. When a person is taken to court and is being judged by a jury of their peers the demographic of the jury can make a huge difference to the outcome of a trial.
 
Understood Bam, and I think you're absolutely right, the legislation is fulfilling its purpose.
I just wish it was a little better worded to do away with the subjective nature of what is a lawful reason to be in possession of an otherwise illegal kind of knife. When a person is taken to court and is being judged by a jury of their peers the demographic of the jury can make a huge difference to the outcome of a trial.

While the 'wooliness' can work against you, it can also work for you. If it was black and white then it would potentially prohibit you from taking a knife if it was for 'just in case' but could potentially be useful. There are a load of examples so no point in flagging up specifics, if you can 'justify' why you have it then you should be good, if not the police officer who lifts you then down the line, assuming the officer was having a bad day. The flip side is the officer having a bad day and lifting you for having it. Each to their own but if I thought I could justify it then I wouldn't be taking a caution, I'd take the charge expecting it to either be dropped or if going to court be able to justify it.

Is it a perfect system ? No but I doubt you could have a perfect system. As someone who goes to the woods or hills fairly often (and could use this place as 'evidence') I'll take my chances, I'm unlikely to get pulled over though, outside of the woods/hills you'll not see me brandishing anything bigger than a SAK.

Whatever the demographic of the jury, I feel that as a middle aged dude with a history of being in the sticks that I would get a fair crack of the whip.
 
Back
Top