Indiana Law and carrying a folding knife (Spyderco Para 2) - Recent Situation

[Roadie]

There are no state laws that govern pocket knives that clip in your pocket and there are no blade length laws. Basically, the only knife laws in Indiana are automatic (switch blades) and throwing stars are illegal. That being said, if you were on private property you have to obey their requests/rules or they can ask you to leave.

Ah, I miss the good ole days when I could buy Switchblades, Stars and Balisongs at the Mall...when I was 13..

 

[CRHK88]

Thanks for the info everyone.

their property, their rules. sounds like the LEO was trying to save you some hassle.

That's how it came across which is why I just told him thanks for the warning, pocketed it and moved on. Even if I could have pushed the issue, it really wasn't worth my time or effort. It would have sucked to have it confiscated. Even if there was an avenue to get it back, it would have been a major hassle and would have involved me wasting time and fuel to drive 30-45 minutes to pick it up. It was just easier to say thanks officer and go get in line for some blueberry donuts.

No state laws on knife length or knife carry. Some towns have local ordinances regarding blade length though. It sounds like this was more of a "private property" situation than a legal situation though.

Would that mean that they could confiscate it? I was always under the impression that state law ultimately trumps local ordinance and private property rules. So, if they asked me for it, I could say no because under state law I should be allowed to carry it, and at most they could ask me to leave? That was more of a question, not a statement. I am just not sure how the law applies especially when there is state law vs local ordnances, private property rules, etc. I wouldn't think they could confiscate it since state law does allow it and I didn't see anything posted about restricting knives. But, again, it really wasn't worth it to find out.

All that being said I also had my Sig P232 on me, it was concealed and I do have a permit. So, just to add to the confusion, could they have technically confiscated my pistol as well if there were private property rules restricting firearms even though state law allows it?

 

[Vince49]

Sounds like 89% of the people I know.

Everybody I know, except Mom! (She's not that big)

 

[Ted]

Sounds like 89% of the people I know.

Just 89%?

 

[tradertator]

From my understanding, a local ordinance cannot trump the states constitution, but can add to it. For example, in Indiana you can smoke in a vehicle with a child present. Here in Monroe county however, you can be cited with a civil infraction by local law enforcement due to the counties ordinance in place. Same would go for burn bans, parking infractions, etc...... I would dare say you would have been denied entry into the event rather than having your property seized.

 

[cubby]

Just 89%?

i prefer my ladies to differ from that description.

 

[Knife Lady]

IF a city ordinance was not allowed to take preference over state then why have them? My thoughts are YES a city ordinace does take place over state and Yes they can confiscate your knife if they so desire and want to be aholes about it. I think the LEO was nice about it and you did the right thing by listening to him.
I know there are many ciites in Indiana who have their own blade length law and you had better mind it or yes your knife can be taken away and be hit with a fine so therefore it over rides the state law.

 

[NathanJefferson]

So, there is a preemptive state law stating that a locality cannot have stricter gun or gun accessory laws than the state. and that they can't prohibit you from carrying on public or gov property that isn't already prohibited unless they follow a strict guideline (LEO at all public entrances, with metal detectors, searching all bags). But looks like anyone can prevent you from carrying a knife...

Hmm, maybe we need to clarify that knives fall under 2A also....

 

[Ted]

Hmm, maybe we need to clarify that knives fall under 2A also....

They do.

Its the right to keep and bear arms....not just firearms.

 

[malern28us]

Thanks for the info everyone.



That's how it came across which is why I just told him thanks for the warning, pocketed it and moved on. Even if I could have pushed the issue, it really wasn't worth my time or effort. It would have sucked to have it confiscated. Even if there was an avenue to get it back, it would have been a major hassle and would have involved me wasting time and fuel to drive 30-45 minutes to pick it up. It was just easier to say thanks officer and go get in line for some blueberry donuts.

Would that mean that they could confiscate it? I was always under the impression that state law ultimately trumps local ordinance and private property rules. So, if they asked me for it, I could say no because under state law I should be allowed to carry it, and at most they could ask me to leave? That was more of a question, not a statement. I am just not sure how the law applies especially when there is state law vs local ordnances, private property rules, etc. I wouldn't think they could confiscate it since state law does allow it and I didn't see anything posted about restricting knives. But, again, it really wasn't worth it to find out.

All that being said I also had my Sig P232 on me, it was concealed and I do have a permit. So, just to add to the confusion, could they have technically confiscated my pistol as well if there were private property rules restricting firearms even though state law allows it?

Nothing like giving up any rights to eat some fried dough

 

[CRHK88]

From my understanding, a local ordinance cannot trump the states constitution, but can add to it. For example, in Indiana you can smoke in a vehicle with a child present. Here in Monroe county however, you can be cited with a civil infraction by local law enforcement due to the counties ordinance in place. Same would go for burn bans, parking infractions, etc...... I would dare say you would have been denied entry into the event rather than having your property seized.

That's what I figured.

Nothing like giving up any rights to eat some fried dough

But they are soooo good. Actually if he didn't just ask me to pocket it, I would have politely pushed the issue. He was actually pretty nice about it. I weighed the pros and cons of the whole thing and didn't think it was worth making a big deal out of it. I was still carrying my knife, and he let me in, so I don't think my rights were really given up. He just asked me to conceal it.

So, there is a preemptive state law stating that a locality cannot have stricter gun or gun accessory laws than the state. and that they can't prohibit you from carrying on public or gov property that isn't already prohibited unless they follow a strict guideline (LEO at all public entrances, with metal detectors, searching all bags). But looks like anyone can prevent you from carrying a knife...

Hmm, maybe we need to clarify that knives fall under 2A also....

Good point.

IF a city ordinance was not allowed to take preference over state then why have them? My thoughts are YES a city ordinace does take place over state and Yes they can confiscate your knife if they so desire and want to be aholes about it. I think the LEO was nice about it and you did the right thing by listening to him.
I know there are many ciites in Indiana who have their own blade length law and you had better mind it or yes your knife can be taken away and be hit with a fine so therefore it over rides the state law.

Interesting. I thought that the whole point was that state law trumps all, even in some cases extending beyond federal law, unless they infringe on federally granted constitutional rights. I assumed that the same extension existed for state vs city/local ordinance. In that they could pass local laws as they see fit provided that they don't infringe on any rights granted by the state.

Then I read on the South Bend Police Blog site, since most knives are not governed by the state, "and as with any knife or edged weapon, does have deadly potential. if a situation is deemed the manner or circumstances are such that it is determined to be a danger to public safety you could face weapon confiscation or arrest."

So I guess, it was best to play it safe. It looks like it is a subjective thing and a deciding factor is if the LEO determined that me carrying a clip knife could be a danger to public safety. All in all it's pretty confusing.

 

[jsharmon7]

In my opinion, no state laws are being trumped. The law regarding local regulation of firearms is only in respect to firearms, not knives. Also, the state law is silent on knife length so there is no state law to trump. I think it's silly to have knife length ordinances, but I also think laws against switchblades are silly too.

 

[tradertator]

Interesting. I thought that the whole point was that state law trumps all, even in some cases extending beyond federal law, unless they infringe on federally granted constitutional rights. I assumed that the same extension existed for state vs city/local ordinance. In that they could pass local laws as they see fit provided that they don't infringe on any rights granted by the state.

Federal law is king. The state can add to, but not take away from federal. Good example would be the recent legalization of marijuana in some states. States are legalizing it, but federal law still prohibits it. Technically, the fed can override ones state issued marijuana card and charge them because it is in breach of federal law.

 

[szorn]

Hello all,

The reason I am posting is because of a recent situation. I was walking into the Blueberry Festival in Plymouth yesterday when a Sheriff walked up to me pointing towards my pocket. I actually had no idea what he was pointing at so I looked through my pockets. He said no, the knife. I had a Spyderco Paramilitary 2 clipped to the inside of my pocket. He said, "could you please pocket that?" I asked "my knife?", he said "yes, if you don't they will confiscate it in the park." I appreciated that he warned me first so I didn't lose it, especially since it wasn't cheap. But I was surprised that he said they would confiscate it. I didn't question him, or challenge in anyway. I just thanked him, pocketed it and went about my business.

Now, being very new to knives I am wondering, is there a law pertaining to clip pocket knives? It is actually just your basic folder, nothing special. The blade is actually less than 3.5". It's not like I was carrying a Rambo style survival knife.

Any info would be appreciated. I have asked numerous people already and no one knew about any law that would prohibit me from carrying a folding pocket knife of its size.

I do appreciate law enforcement and what they do, so I am not making any statements about them. I just want to make sure that I don't break any laws even unintentionally.

No, there is no law preventing the carry of a folder, regardless of length.

The issue was with the festival itself. Apparently they have had issues in the past and decided to ask participants not to bring knives into the park. They didn't "confiscate" the knives. They politely asked if they could hold on to them while the patrons enjoyed the activities. The knives were returned when the patrons left the park.

I told the officer that I completely understood and didn't mind letting them hold on to it until I left. On a side note, I also had a neck knife on that they didn't ask for. In any case, it wasn't a problem just stopping to pick my knife up on the way out.

Steve

 

[Hotdoger]

Nothing like giving up any rights to eat some fried dough

Or when you have to show YOUR ID when YOU buy a firearm?

 

[CRHK88]

No, there is no law preventing the carry of a folder, regardless of length.

The issue was with the festival itself. Apparently they have had issues in the past and decided to ask participants not to bring knives into the park. They didn't "confiscate" the knives. They politely asked if they could hold on to them while the patrons enjoyed the activities. The knives were returned when the patrons left the park.

I told the officer that I completely understood and didn't mind letting them hold on to it until I left. On a side note, I also had a neck knife on that they didn't ask for. In any case, it wasn't a problem just stopping to pick my knife up on the way out.

Steve

Interesting. Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. Was there anything posted?

 

[Eternal Vigilance]

So, there is a preemptive state law stating that a locality cannot have stricter gun or gun accessory laws than the state. and that they can't prohibit you from carrying on public or gov property that isn't already prohibited unless they follow a strict guideline (LEO at all public entrances, with metal detectors, searching all bags). But looks like anyone can prevent you from carrying a knife...

Hmm, maybe we need to clarify that knives fall under 2A also....

You are on to something here. Arizona is the only state in the nation (to the best of my knowledge) that has preempted local knife laws with statewide legislation. I believe this occurred in 2011. Personally I think this is a wonderful idea, and apparently the principle of this appeals to Indiana legislators, otherwise they would not have passed legislation preempting local regulation of firearms. Now they just need to exercise some common sense and extend this to the much more common tool--the knife.

However, in the absence of such preemption local ordinances would still be in effect. Thus, as knifelady was pointing out local ordinances would seem to have potency and authority over us knife carriers.

 

[Eternal Vigilance]

Interesting. I thought that the whole point was that state law trumps all, even in some cases extending beyond federal law, unless they infringe on federally granted constitutional rights.

Two thoughts with no flaming intended.

1) The days of the primacy of the State died in 1865. I cannot think of a better example of this than the Supreme Court ruling on the AZ immigration law which went so far as to cause a dissenting justice to lament that there is now no reason to refer to the States as "Sovereign" States. Granted there are exceptions, and in certain cases you are no doubt right that state law would be held as the correct standard of law, but it would not be because state law trumps federal law. In matter of concurrent jurisdiction, federal law would probably be held to be the standard because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. (See Article 6, paragraph 2).

2) It sound like you might have made a vague reference to the concept of Federalism (my interpretation may be a stretch, but bear with me). In plain and honest English (practically a foreign language to lawyers and politicians) Federalism means that political power is divided between the States and the Federal government. According to the 10th Amendment and an honest reading of Article I section 8 (the Congressional empowerment section), this means the States should have a large share (if not the largest share) of that power. Thus, State law should be preeminent in certain spheres (those not included in Article I, section 8 or those areas which are elsewhere specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution). So, having rambled on let me say that I agree with the sentiment of your statement but this sentiment is not an accurate description of modern law.

 

[CRHK88]

Two thoughts with no flaming intended.

1) The days of the primacy of the State died in 1865. I cannot think of a better example of this than the Supreme Court ruling on the AZ immigration law which went so far as to cause a dissenting justice to lament that there is now no reason to refer to the States as "Sovereign" States. Granted there are exceptions, and in certain cases you are no doubt right that state law would be held as the correct standard of law, but it would not be because state law trumps federal law. In matter of concurrent jurisdiction, federal law would probably be held to be the standard because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. (See Article 6, paragraph 2).

2) It sound like you might have made a vague reference to the concept of Federalism (my interpretation may be a stretch, but bear with me). In plain and honest English (practically a foreign language to lawyers and politicians) Federalism means that political power is divided between the States and the Federal government. According to the 10th Amendment and an honest reading of Article I section 8 (the Congressional empowerment section), this means the States should have a large share (if not the largest share) of that power. Thus, State law should be preeminent in certain spheres (those not included in Article I, section 8 or those areas which are elsewhere specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution). So, having rambled on let me say that I agree with the sentiment of your statement but this sentiment is not an accurate description of modern law.

My post could have been clearer. I was not making the statement that state trumps federal law. I was just always under the impression that state law always trumps local laws. That was the "all" I was referring to. I wasn't sure of its reach though when I referred to that it may trump federal law in some cases. Thanks for the clarification though.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I was just always under the impression that state law always trumps local laws.

If the General Assembly writes the law so it does, then yes.