“First step: man is charged with unlawful use of a weapon and concealment of a weapon by police. Second step: Lawyer argues that it’s protected by the second amendment as a weapon. Third step: Judge decides that knife isn’t really a weapon so it isn’t protected by the second amendment. Fourth step: Thus the conviction that the man was carrying a concealed weapon is upheld.” (Captain’s Journal)
I have been combing through the interwebs trying to find something that wasn’t related to the Paris jihadi or the Israeli stab-resistant vest failure, both of which we have already covered. We have also been covering the recent Washington Supreme Court decision which ruled a kitchen knife is not a weapon.
However, the blog CaptainsJournal had a piece summarizing the case, and the above quote struck me. How can you convict a man of a weapons violation for carrying something that you ruled is not a weapon for purposes of a second amendment defense? Logic…I do not think that word means what you think it does.