It is not legal for a CHL to carry a switchblade because they are prohibited weapons under PC 46.05, so the CHL exemption does not cover them at all.HotLeadSolutions wrote:Is this post going to be completely ignored? Why would they have included CHL holders (carrying a gun and license...) in the same list with judges, officers and the such if they didnt mean it? Does someone have a good arguement as to why it is not legal for a chl holder to carry a pistol (of proper type) a license and a...switchblade? (choosing the most evil knife known to man)
But, the debate about illegal knives continues. They include spears, throwing knives, swords, and any blade over 5.5 inches. To tell the truth, I am not sure if they are legal or not. I know, in my heart and without any proof, that it was not the intent of the legislature to allow them to be carried. But I also know, from my training, that the intent of the legislature is only supposed to be considered when the plain language of the statute is unclear. To me, the plain language is pretty clear, but I would never advise someone to trust my interpretation of a law like that.
Heartland Patriot has a sort of point about the interpretation of laws by overzealous people. One of the things I was taught, and taught to other officers, was that there are places that the interpretation of the law is very debatable. And when the law is subject to varying interpretations, I always interpret it in the most favorable way to me. That may not always be the most favorable way to you. I did point out to trainees that one of the greatest flaws, and greatest strengths, of Texas laws is that they are designed to be enforced with lots of common sense applied. If you do not stretch the interpretation but stick with something that can easily be seen as valid, you generally do not have problems. You will have problems with the court if you try to bend and stretch the law way out of what is reasonable.
This point of law is clearly a reasonable interpretation in either direction. An officer who is anti-weapon may make a reasonable argument when he arrests you. You may make a reasonable argument in court. If you win in court, it makes things better for the next guy, who can use your case to help prove his. Of course, even a win in court means you already spent some time in jail. If you win, the officer is not really out anything. He might even be considered as coming out ahead if he gets the overtime pay for appearing in court. He would not get in trouble for a reasonable interpretation.
And you do stand a risk of losing in court, which could be a significant loss. The officer does not really gain anything except the overtime pay again. Do you want to take that risk?
And this is why I advise people to be much more cautious about interpreting the law. You need to be aware of what you are risking when you make those kind of decisions. Know what the chances are, know what you are risking, know what you are willing to risk, and then make your decision on your own.