Texas Knife Laws - New Info

[glbedd53]

Sorry if I missed something, but how does this apply to carrying my K-Bar in the console of my truck? Not so much as a weapon as an emergency tool.

[tacticool]

Sorry if I missed something, but how does this apply to carrying my K-Bar in the console of my truck? Not so much as a weapon as an emergency tool.

That depends on the cop. The law for MPA seems clear.

[Bullwhip]

...nope...what you've pictured is a "dagger"...two sharp edges...prohibited...fixed blades in Texas are not all illegal, just one in a prohibited blade type...used to carry an Uncle Henry in a sheath under my shirt in a front jeans pocket attached to the belt...comfy and fast...not illegal...under 5.5" and not a forbidden type...it makes me weary how complicated Texas has the knife laws...but they're here...in La. the blade had to be 5.5" or less and nothing else forbidden but switchblades...much simpler...we just gotta find out who's stumpin' the new knife laws in Austin and support them...we could get it cleaned up next session...

...it's always easier to over-regulate the THING...instead of punishing the actions of the PERSON who picked it up...politician's credo...

Yes your probably right! fixed blades in texas is not all illegal!

Fixed blades not illegal, except....

(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;
(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;
(D) bowie knife;
(E) sword; or
(F) spear.

[koolaid]

Fixed blades not illegal, except....

(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;
(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;
(D) bowie knife;
(E) sword; or
(F) spear.

It has always seemed weird to me that our knife laws explicitly fail to remember the Alamo.

[bizarrenormality]

Fixed blades not illegal, except....

(6) "Illegal knife" means a:
(A) knife with a blade over five and one-half inches;
(B) hand instrument designed to cut or stab another by being thrown;
(C) dagger, including but not limited to a dirk, stiletto, and poniard;
(D) bowie knife;
(E) sword; or
(F) spear.

It has always seemed weird to me that our knife laws explicitly fail to remember the Alamo.

You have to remember the Texas laws against carrying a handgun or large knife were created by carpetbaggers. They were specifically designed to disarm the type of men who fought in the First Texas War of Independence and the Second Texas War of Independence 25-30 years later.

[Jumping Frog]

You have to remember the Texas laws against carrying a handgun or large knife were created by carpetbaggers. They were specifically designed to disarm the type of men who fought in the First Texas War of Independence and the Second Texas War of Independence 25-30 years later.

Hmmmn, really? Interesting.

Well, Texas is once again unique because in every other post-Civil War Southern State, weapons control laws were enacted to keep the newly-freed slaves from acquiring arms.

Spend a little time googling "racist roots of gun control".

[bizarrenormality]

States could easily have prohibited Negros from bearing arms arms the same way they prohibited them from voting, until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified.

[Jumping Frog]

States could easily have prohibited Negros from bearing arms arms the same way they prohibited them from voting, until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified.

But that isn't what happened. Read your history.

[bizarrenormality]

States could easily have prohibited Negros from bearing arms arms the same way they prohibited them from voting, until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified.

But that isn't what happened. Read your history.

That isn't what happened because Negros weren't the only ones they wanted to disarm.

[Bullwhip]

You have to remember the Texas laws against carrying a handgun or large knife were created by carpetbaggers. They were specifically designed to disarm the type of men who fought in the First Texas War of Independence and the Second Texas War of Independence 25-30 years later.

Hmmmn, really? Interesting.

Well, Texas is once again unique because in every other post-Civil War Southern State, weapons control laws were enacted to keep the newly-freed slaves from acquiring arms.

Spend a little time googling "racist roots of gun control".

We all know about the racist roots of gun control but slave labor was never a big thing in Texas, so freed slaves weren't either.

Carpetbaggers running TX worried a lot more about white/black/brown folks who thought they should be free.

[koolaid]

We all know about the racist roots of gun control but slave labor was never a big thing in Texas, so freed slaves weren't either.

Carpetbaggers running TX worried a lot more about white/black/brown folks who thought they should be free.

Shortly before the Civil War started, something like 30% of the state population was made up of slaves, and that was before the advancing Union army started leading slave owners from neighboring states to bring them into Texas.

[Heartland Patriot]

We all know about the racist roots of gun control but slave labor was never a big thing in Texas, so freed slaves weren't either.

Carpetbaggers running TX worried a lot more about white/black/brown folks who thought they should be free.

Shortly before the Civil War started, something like 30% of the state population was made up of slaves, and that was before the advancing Union army started leading slave owners from neighboring states to bring them into Texas.

I'm curious to see some sort of census data or something to back up that 30% figure. Not saying in the least that there weren't slaves in Texas, but I'm just curious as to the source for that figure. Do you have a link so I can go read up on it? I'm always willing to learn something new. Most of my old-time Texas history knowledge comes out of J. Frank Dobie books, I must admit.

[srothstein]

Shortly before the Civil War started, something like 30% of the state population was made up of slaves, and that was before the advancing Union army started leading slave owners from neighboring states to bring them into Texas.

I'm curious to see some sort of census data or something to back up that 30% figure.

The Texas State Historical Association says that in 1850 Texas had 154,000 whites and 58,000 slaves, according to the US Census. It mentions that the 1860 Census had the population up to 600,000 but doesn't break down the race/free/slave status.

The US Census Bureau says 420,000 whites, 355 free black, 182,000 slaves, and 403 Indians. 30% slave is pretty close but I think the 403 Indians is probably a severe under count (using today's terminology).

EDIT: I have to admit not believing the 30% figure either and looking it up out of curiosity. I knew we had slaves enough to make Juneteenth a holiday, but I thought it was much lower than that also.

[Beiruty]

This has been discussed a couple other times, but why not one more?

Geronimo45 has the better of the argument here; RPB and Speedsix are misreading/misinterpreting the exemption in 46.15(b). (I am not sure 'exemption' is the right term, but it's what I am gonna go with for now):

Sec 46.15(b)(6) defines the conditions that must be met in order for an exemption to 46.02 to apply. In order to qualify for the exemption, you must have a concealed handgun license AND be carrying a concealed handgun of the same category authorized by your license. No, it does not mention knives or clubs or whatnot, but that is irrelevent -- the purpose of this section is to define the conditions under which the exemption applies: CHL + concealed handgun. It does not define what you may or may not carry -- you have to go see 46.02 to determine that.

Now, if you meet the conditions by having a CHL and concealed handgun, what are you exempt from? You are exempt from the prohibitions of 46.02, in its entirety. This is not qualified in any way -- it doesn't limit the exemption to handguns only -- it just says 46.02. This includes "handgun, illegal knife, or club." "Illegal knife" and "club" are of course defined just as Geronimo45 pointed out. And unfortunately this does not include switchblades.

This has not been thrashed out in court, AFAIK, so you decide for yourself, but it looks pretty clear to me, and many others on this board. A search on "knives unlawful carry" will bring up some more threads.

As far as San Antonio goes, last I look I believe they try to ban lockblades with a blade shorter than 5.5 inches. State law makes defines an illegal knife as one with a blade more than 5.5 inches. So it would appear to me that a person with a CHL and a concealed handgun could carry a lockblade knife with a blade over 5.5 inches and not run afoul of San Antonio ordinance or state law.

Or anyone could carry a lockblade with a blade EXACTLY 5.5. inches in San Antonio.

If the lawmakers and DPS trust you with handgun, then it is not that crazy to trust you with 8" blade and. Your strong hand is grabbing that pistol, your adversary is trying to disarm you. You are fighting hard to safe keep and control your firearm. Your left hand (weak) has to reach for that "illegal knife for a non-CHLer" and get it to do some work. Then, you control your firearm and do some more damage. Do you need to carry that 8" blade?