When it comes to criminal offenses, definitions matter. In cases involving prohibited weapons, the definition of “dangerous” is particularly important – and complex. Where do we draw the line between a “dangerous” blade and a knife that functions more like an everyday tool? The statute provides the following impossibly complex and ambiguous definition:
- . . . stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches, or a slung shot, blowgun, blackjack, metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or any armband, made with leather which has metallic spikes, points or studs or any similar device made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends . . . (and it goes on)
Putting blades aside, can we really say that a bike lock or wrench is less “dangerous” than a switchblade? In the hands of a sufficiently enraged person, virtually any solid object can be dangerous. A recent prohibited weapons case in Massachusetts focused on switchblades – and whether they meet the constitutional definition of a “dangerous weapon.”
Massachusetts Ends Restriction on Carrying a Switchblade
In 2020, Boston police broke up a quarrel between a boyfriend and girlfriend. When questioned alone, the girlfriend claimed that her boyfriend had taken her phone – refusing to give it back. Witnesses also said they saw the boyfriend push her up against a wall. The police proceeded to arrest the boyfriend – and they searched him. During this search, they found a knife with a spring-assisted mechanism – also known as a “switchblade.” Note that there was no evidence that he used the switchblade against his girlfriend.
The defendant faced two charges: Assault and battery on a household member and carrying a dangerous weapon. During his subsequent trial, the defendant admitted that the knife met the definition of a switchblade – but he argued that he had the right to carry it based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Specifically, he claimed that the switchblade met the definition of an “arm,” and he had the right to “bear” this arm under the Second Amendment.
Although this argument was initially dismissed, the defendant appealed – and had his domestic assault and battery charge dropped in the meantime. Eventually, the appellate court considered whether a Massachusetts resident should have the constitutional right to carry a switchblade for self-defense.
First, the court determined that the trial court was incorrect when it said that the Second Amendment only defines “arms” as firearms. Next, they referred to the Heller decision in 2008, which supported the Second Amendment and rejected States’ attempts to limit this constitutional right. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that a handgun ban in DC was unconstitutional – and that weapons do not need to be “disabled” when stored at home for self-defense.
The court also found that knives were “ubiquitous” among early American settlers for self-defense – concluding that the Founding Fathers almost certainly included blades in the catch-all phrase “arms.” Finally, the court went through and categorically dismissed all of the various contentions made against switchblades – concluding that “nothing about the physical qualities of switchblades suggests they are inherently dangerous.” In fact, the Commonwealth noted that switchblades are particularly suited for self-defense because the user can use their other hand to call for help with a cell phone.
The defendant’s dangerous weapon conviction was reversed, and this ruling now makes switchblades legal to carry in Massachusetts.
Can a Boston Defense Lawyer Help With My Weapons Charges?
If you have been accused of carrying a prohibited or dangerous weapon, a defense attorney in Boston may be able to help. During a consultation with one of these individuals, you can discuss your unique priorities and concerns in more detail. Online research only provides broad, vague guidance – and a lawyer can take your defense strategy to the next level. Reach out to Edward R. Molari today to get started.