How do your "brass" knuckles your selling skirt the law?

[demopeng]

I had a long argument with a co-worker who said that my (SOG) assisted opening knife was prohibited because I could open it with little to no effort. I brought him the criminal code which stated otherwise. Loopholes!

Assisted knives are not a "loophole" man.
It still has to be opened by touching the blade (thumb stud).
Alternatively, there are plenty of other assisted knives that utilize a flipper (which still means you need to touch the blade to deploy the knife).

Just because something is not explicitly banned, it does not mean it is "loophole".

[Helka]

Maybe the use of Loophole was incorrect but I believe that by reading the definition of Prohibited Weapon "they" worked around the definition to make this knife lawful. Spring is in the blade not handle and starts manually and finishes mechanically.

"Prohibited Weapon-(a) a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife"

[merlin1]

Maybe the use of Loophole was incorrect but I believe that by reading the definition of Prohibited Weapon "they" worked around the definition to make this knife lawful. Spring is in the blade not handle and starts manually and finishes mechanically.

"Prohibited Weapon-(a) a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife"

A harmless addition to a knife to make it more user friendly and somehow it’s vilinized by the righteous.What a joke

[truemask]

Let's postulate that all the aforementioned utility reasons don't exist, there still remains one incredibly valid reason: wilderness protection.

Incredibly valid??? What? That has got to be the worst reason. I might believe a meat tenderize used around the house.

But what you gonna get into a boxing match with a bear? a big tree branch or stick would work better against any animal.

[King0265]

Brass knuckles gun knife. Your argument is invalid

[hbean]

How about a meat tenderizer?

[VinnyQC]

How about a meat tenderizer?

That thing, my friend, is a prohibited device in this country.

15 The device known as “Brass Knuckles” and any similar device consisting of a band of metal with one or more finger holes designed to fit over the fingers of the hand.

On a side note, regarding the legality of brass knuckles:
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publicati...-eng.html#a4x2

Brass knuckles

40. The device known as brass knuckles and any similar device consisting of a band of metal with one or more finger holes designed to fit over the fingers of the hand. Generally, the outer edges of the brass knuckle will be undulated in order to deliver the kinetic force of a punch through a smaller and harder contact area. Brass knuckles can be made of any type of metal. Typically, but not exclusively, brass knuckles are made with four finger holes, though there are many variations. An example of such a variation would be "half knuckles", that is, a band of metal with only two finger holes.

41. Brass knuckles can be combined with other weapons such as knives. These 'brass knuckles knives' consist of two parts: a knife blade, and brass knuckles integrated into the handle. The blade part does not generally possess characteristics that would make it fall under the definition of prohibited weapon. Rather, it is the brass knuckles handle that will usually determine the knife's classification as a prohibited weapon. In order for the knife to be prohibited, the brass knuckles part of the knife must meet the definition of "brass knuckles" in the regulations. Therefore, to classify a 'brass knuckles knife' as prohibited:
(a) the handle must be a weapon; and
(b) that weapon must meet the definition of brass knuckles. It is not sufficient for the blade portion of the knife to be designed as a weapon.

Exception: The following goods generally do not meet the definition of prohibited weapon, and thus do not fall under tariff item 9898.00.00. Their misuse may nonetheless be punishable under other laws:
(a) plastic knuckles do not fall within the definition of "brass knuckle";
(b) D-guard knives (knives with a hand-guard in the form of a "D").

Again, don't expect the laws to make any sense. Pretty everything that has been pictured as a weapon in an old Chinese kung-fu movie is a prohibited weapon. Nunchaku, blowgun, shuriken, etc...

[mark222]

That thing, my friend, is a prohibited device in this country.



On a side note, regarding the legality of brass knuckles:
http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publicati...-eng.html#a4x2


Again, don't expect the laws to make any sense. Pretty everything that has been pictured as a weapon in an old Chinese kung-fu movie is a prohibited weapon. Nunchaku, blowgun, shuriken, etc...

Blowguns are prohibited now?!!? How am I ever gonna bag that 45 lb anteater like the guy on the back of the comic books?

EDIT: I guess I could always use plastic brass knuckles!

[Bugout]

Even if made of plastic I don't see a point in owning these.

If you were to be searched by police (or police saw you with them) carrying these, they are clearly a weapon.

And as per Canadian Criminal code, possessing or carrying a concealed weapon is illegal.

But as for say a knife there may be a utility purpose behind carrying a knife, used for cutting various objects, or a rescue tool trapped by a seatbelt etc etc. Utility purposes allow you to carry a knife legally. Self defense is not one.

But as for these there is no utility purpose. They can't be used as a tool in anyway, they are clearly for use a weapon.

Enjoy your new criminal record if your caught with these.

I modeled up a set of these to 3D print, and added two small hooks that allow you to carry those soon to be prohibited plastic grocery bags without hurting my dainty hands.

[btabin]

Incredibly valid??? What? That has got to be the worst reason. I might believe a meat tenderize used around the house.

But what you gonna get into a boxing match with a bear? a big tree branch or stick would work better against any animal.

Not everyone carries a firearm in the bush. Not everyone carries a stun baton. Not everyone carries a bear-banger. Not everyone carries a stick. Et cetera, et cetera. It's lightweight, easy to carry, and a solid punch to the snout with it is a great deterrent to all but the most aggressive predators.

Any of the aforementioned can easily be dropped during the encounter and then what? At least these knuckles have a better chance of staying in your hand. I know when I go into the bush I carry mine as a backup.

The fact is, it's all about intent. If you intend to use it for wilderness protection, that is exactly what it is. If you intend to use it as a meat tenderizer, that is exactly what it is. If you intend to use it as a weapon against someone, well then that is exactly what it is.

It's a good thing your interpretation of the law isn't the one judges will follow. Why can't you just accept that they are 100% legal? Like others have stated in this thread, screaming foul over a perfectly legal object doesn't do us any favours.