Quote from: Grant Lamontagne on July 16, 2010, 03:38:15 PMQuote from: Styerman on July 15, 2010, 09:30:56 PMThat letter is an opinion by Customs , it's held up so far . Canuckastan is mainly a case/common law jurisdiction , a Judge can trump their ace .Not to mention an order in council ( how many prohib's including the Balisong were prohibited ) .Chris Yes and no. The purpose of the letter is so that the trail starts and ends with the nosy bastar... uh I mean Customs agent looking into my package. He initially thinks "Oh contraband- I get to make my quota this week!" then looks for more stuff, finds/reads the letter and his balloon fizzles faster than arousal at a KD Lang concert. No report, no seizure, no reason to bother a judge.However, you are right that a blanket decision from a judge can change that at any time, but that pretty well goes for just about anything.As for why one type of knife is illegal while others aren't, it's all based on public perception. Gang members in 50's movies had balisongs and switchblades, so they are the kinds of things bad people have. So, anyone who has one is a bad person, meaning it should be illegal to have bad people. Stupid logic, but it's based on public opinion, and allows politicians to pretend they are doing something, when in fact, they really aren't doing anything, but they get re-elected anyway for taking a hard stance against criminals.Be careful what you say about outlawing everything- some jackass is likely to try that at some point.... Look at the British ban on kitchen knives with points for example. Since kitchen knives were used as weapons in the majority of domestic disturbances, a law was passed banning kitchen knives with tips, because no one would dare try to slash someone if they wanted to kill them....DefNo such law Def. You can now buy kitchen knives without points, apparently, but I've not seen any in the shops.
Quote from: Styerman on July 15, 2010, 09:30:56 PMThat letter is an opinion by Customs , it's held up so far . Canuckastan is mainly a case/common law jurisdiction , a Judge can trump their ace .Not to mention an order in council ( how many prohib's including the Balisong were prohibited ) .Chris Yes and no. The purpose of the letter is so that the trail starts and ends with the nosy bastar... uh I mean Customs agent looking into my package. He initially thinks "Oh contraband- I get to make my quota this week!" then looks for more stuff, finds/reads the letter and his balloon fizzles faster than arousal at a KD Lang concert. No report, no seizure, no reason to bother a judge.However, you are right that a blanket decision from a judge can change that at any time, but that pretty well goes for just about anything.As for why one type of knife is illegal while others aren't, it's all based on public perception. Gang members in 50's movies had balisongs and switchblades, so they are the kinds of things bad people have. So, anyone who has one is a bad person, meaning it should be illegal to have bad people. Stupid logic, but it's based on public opinion, and allows politicians to pretend they are doing something, when in fact, they really aren't doing anything, but they get re-elected anyway for taking a hard stance against criminals.Be careful what you say about outlawing everything- some jackass is likely to try that at some point.... Look at the British ban on kitchen knives with points for example. Since kitchen knives were used as weapons in the majority of domestic disturbances, a law was passed banning kitchen knives with tips, because no one would dare try to slash someone if they wanted to kill them....Def
That letter is an opinion by Customs , it's held up so far . Canuckastan is mainly a case/common law jurisdiction , a Judge can trump their ace .Not to mention an order in council ( how many prohib's including the Balisong were prohibited ) .Chris
Sawman is absolutely right. It's all about perception, which is why I find Canadian law a little odd. It lists specific items like automatic knives and balisongs as weapons, but then classifies anything else in the world as a weapon when used as such. So, for example, a fireplace shovel isn't a weapon unless it's used as one to threaten or injure another person. Why not just leave the blanket definition there and leave inanimate objects alone?Def
Quote from: Grant Lamontagne on July 16, 2010, 10:54:22 PMSawman is absolutely right. It's all about perception, which is why I find Canadian law a little odd. It lists specific items like automatic knives and balisongs as weapons, but then classifies anything else in the world as a weapon when used as such. So, for example, a fireplace shovel isn't a weapon unless it's used as one to threaten or injure another person. Why not just leave the blanket definition there and leave inanimate objects alone?DefTrying to make sense of what politician do is bad for your health.