UK bans Japanese swords.

[fearn]

Hi Katana,

Thanks for those stats. I read the american ones and cringed. Axes are considered "knives" for those stats, knives are knives unless they are "martial arts weapons" (or is that for nunchaku?), and oddly enough, the stats for "assault with/without a weapon" is lower than that "with" a weapon, suggesting that the number on the bar graph is either a mean or median. In other words: yuck!

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jim, I know you did write, as did many other people in other countries.
The reason you have not been contacted again is because the review is not yet complete. The Department has the obligation to respond to all those who wrote to them in either support of or opposition to the proposal to legislate against swords.I have spoken with the officer who has carried out most of the review of this legislation, and I specifically asked if those people who are residents of other countries and who wrote in opposition to this proposed legislation, would be contacted. I was assured that all who wrote would be contacted. I will be monitoring this matter, and if necessary I will take whatever action I am able to take to try to ensure that all those who wrote do receive the report.

Spiral, from my perspective the definition you have quoted:-

“a curved, single edged sword (sometimes known as a “samurai sword”)”.

is a very good definition.

Effectively it says:- " a samurai sword is something that is recognised as a samurai sword"

Yes, it lends itself to ill informed interpretation by officers in the field, but when it gets into court the prosecutor will have to demonstrate that there is a widely held view that the sword in question is something that would be referred to as a "samurai sword". With a couple of expert witnesses this would be very easy to defend, should the sword in question not be a "samurai sword".

In fact, this definition parrallels Sir Richard Burton's definition.He wrote a chapter in trying to define a sword, but it all boils down to :- "well, you'll recognise a sword when you see one".

The fact of the matter is that politicians need to count votes to hold on to their jobs. If the wider community sees a threat in swords, the pollies need to do something to convince voters that they should stay in their job.

After the black operation that was the Port Arthur Massacre, our most highly respected prime minister, John Howard (who has just lost his seat---there is a God) had legislation ready within three days to ban specific types of weaponry. This was the effective beginning of increasingly restrictive laws against all types of weaponry in Australia. All across Australia concerned citizens demonstrated against these proposed laws. In Sydney there was a public rally that was attended by over 70,000 people ( this was reported in the media as something like 5,000 people). Enormous numbers of people protested against these laws. The governments of Australia took no notice of these protests and the laws were introduced.

Why did they take no notice?

Because even with the massive number of people protesting against the legislation, there were more people in the community in favour of it.

Public opinion had been manipulated in a way that did not allow any argument against the introduction of these laws.

Now, there was one good thing that did result from the goverment's extreme actions.
Firearms ownership in Australia had been politicised.
A pro-firearms political party was formed in New South Wales, and we currently have two senators in office.
At the recent federal election we ran a candidate for the first time. He was not elected, but provided we maintain our committment to our ideals, I believe that eventually we will also have a senator at the federal level.
When something is politicised, the only effective way to deal with it is by political means.
Look at the NRA.

Ranting and raving about the injustice of any legislation that affects us adversely does nothing except to direct our energies into thin air. I am extremely angry about the anti-weapon legislation that my country and my state has been saddled with, but I do not preach to the converted about it. I sit down and try to construct calmly logical arguments that will assist in softening the legislation when it is introduced---and believe me:- it always will be introduced.

What we need to do is to provide the politicians with ways in which they can have their laws, calm the community, but not affect us too heavily.

This can only be done by calm, logical argument and by going through recognised channels.

In the real world of professional criminals the weapons of choice are now, as they have always been, of two basic types:- the effective, purpose built tool designed to terminate life, for example, firearms of various types, and secondly,various everyday objects that can be used, disposed of, and have a low probability of being linked to the crime, for example, a length of pipe wrapped in newspaper.

Tools such as "samurai swords" are used by either unbalanced individuals, or by people who set out to frighten , rather than to kill. These two types of people will continue to use exactly the same tactics, even if all swords were to magically evaporate into thin air overnight.

Is there anything more frightening than somebody with a cup full of petrol and a cigarette lighter?

[spiral]

Great points Jim but sadley in England educated reasoned & inteligent logic & deduction doesnt win in courts.

Today in england for instance All folding lock blades are illegal in public, even if the blade is just 1 inch long [unless on religious etc, grounds.] due to a law introduced to ban non folding knives outside of ones own house. They police arrested a man for having a lock knife & charged him with having a fixed blade. The jury agreed & so in English law that creates a precedence which then becomes the interpritation of the law. So know thats how the law is inforced.

The currant interpritation "“a curved, single edged sword (sometimes known as a “samurai sword”)”. if used will be usualy inforced blindly, That said untill there is a final definition its hard to truly know what it will effect.

Spiral

[A. G. Maisey]

Did you mean "Alan", Spiral?

You are of course correct:- logic does not win in court; what wins in court is a damned good lawyer.

That's what courts are about. The defense of a person by a professional defender.

The example you give of a lock blade knife being considered to be a fixed blade knife seems to me to be possibly correct. However, it would depend upon the circumstances, the wording of the charge, and upon the defence. If it were open it would be a fixed blade knife; if it were closed it would be a knife capable of becoming a fixed blade knife. I believe any competent barrister could defend possession of a closed knife that upon opening was capable of becoming a fixed blade knife.

In New South Wales, we have similar, and perhaps even more draconian legislation in respect of knives.However, in our case there is a clause that provides an inbuilt defense. If you are in possession of a knife in a public place, and have a legal reason to be in possession of that knife, you are permitted to have the knife.Written into the Act, a legal reason, or excuse, is that you may be in possession of the knife for the preparation and consumption of food.

In respect of the sword definition, yes, you can expect it to be badly enforced. Police are not experts in edged weaponry. Their job is to enforce the law as they see it. It is up to the courts to establish how that law should be interpreted.

So, when somebody with a defensible case does get charged, everybody in the country with a stake in this matter needs to give him financial support so that he can hire the best solicitor and barrister available. Then you have the opportunity to establish the precedents upon your own terms.

[spiral]

Sorry Alan, Yes indeed I did mean Alan not Jim! Sorry Jim to.

My error.

Yes I can You clearly understand the principles of English law, so I expect you can see my worrys over a possible definition of" “a curved, single edged sword (sometimes known as a “samurai sword”)”.

After all a genuine 1909 German artillary sabre fits that definition, after all (sometimes known as a “samurai sword”)”. is not a definative. whearas “a curved, single edged sword" clearly is. Sadley judges usualy prefer & enforce the letter of the law not the spirit knowadays.

The currant English exceptions in knife law are, used at work, an article of faith or one national dress. all other reasons offered are up to police & then jurys to decide, whether to accept or not. {Which usualy also depends on age, wealth, appearance, proffesional education etc.etc}

Certanly not a problem if you lawyer charges £1000 an hour, not so good if he charges £200 or less or God elp one if he is a £20 an hour trainee provided by the courts if one is poor.

I agree it would be excelent if there was a supporting group of knife & sword collecters users etc.

Sadley so far to date the main Uk knife /sword forums seem to shy away from confrontation & true support.


I certanly await the final wording of the law, but already today shops with all local replica swords {Both junk Chinese katana & not so bad replica cavalry swords are offering scores of them cheaply if one will by 50 or so at a time.]

But the final defintion is what counts. They havent yet said when it will be published.

Spiral

[Montino Bourbon]

I wrote this letter to a newspaper that had an article about knives being too easy to buy:

To ‘letters’ at SB independent

Re “Knives a-plenty” by Mike Oak

Mike Oak decries the ease with which knives can be bought, leading to a high murder rate- I would like to point out that in Elizabethan England, one of the most violent times and places in history, most murders were done with... a cudgel! yes, folks, that’s a tree branch, sometimes known as “Piece of wood”, also the most used weapon in the Rwanda genocide.

Given the amount of tree trimming going on in Santa Barbara, these lethal weapons can be found almost anywhere, often for free! I suggest that all tree trimming be halted immediately while a commission can be formed (and paid) to study the problem.

As for taking away our knives, if “Mike Oak” (surely a pseudonym) wants my 8 inch Wusthof chef’s knife, not to mention my immaculate Yokosuka sushi knife, he’ll have to pry my cold, dead fingers from around it.

Sincerely,

Montino Bourbon Del Monte

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, I do have an understanding of the principles of British law, simply because our own laws in Australia descend from those of England, and my living for many years has depended to a degree on having some understanding of Australian legislation.

Spiral, you have cause to be concerned over the enforcement of this legislation, however, once it gets into court it is an entirely different scenario. I urge you to have faith in your judiciary, and in the way in which the legal system functions.

You yourself have identified your biggest problem:- the fact that interested parties would prefer to keep their heads down and not get involved. If you are not prepared to fight for what you want, believe me, somebody will want to take it away from you.

I am certain that there would be one or more national bodies in the UK that would be concerned about this matter. When the legislation is drafted I assume there will once again be a consultative period prior to the legislation being tabled and eventually passed into law. Possibly it might be a good idea to seek legal opinion on the implications of the legislation prior to it being passed into law. If there are objectionable clauses or definitions that could make the legislation unworkable or difficult to enforce, then these things should be brought to the attention of the relevant government minister.

If it does become law and still contains objectionable or unworkable sections, then ideally your interested bodies would chose a candidate to test the law and provide excellent legal support for him.If this line is followed then the precedent can be established in favour of the interested parties.

It is a fact of life that the law favours the wealthy. There is nothing we can do about this. However, many little people can combine resources and provide the necessary support for one of their number to present a convincing argument to establish a favourable interpretation of whatever form the laws may eventually take.

We can only survive these things if we act together. Act alone and we are almost certain to fail.