Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 76 to 90 of 90

Thread: Banning martial arts weapons

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Starting to wonder what will be left to regulate...

    ...soon to be a free for all in North Dakota?

    “Dangerous weapons” bill would exclude nunchaku, swords from state regulation in some settings
    LOCAL NEWS
    by: Maddie Biertempfel

    Posted: Mar 31, 2021 / 05:37 PM CDT / Updated: Mar 31, 2021 / 05:37 PM CDT

    Two words in a proposed bill are taking heat from state law enforcement leaders, who say they put police in greater danger on the job. The words “dangerous weapons” were added to a bill alongside firearms to describe what the government cannot restrict during an emergency — but what exactly are they?

    State law says dangerous weapons include throwing stars, nunchaku, swords, daggers, bludgeons and several other weapons. They would be added to the list of what the state could not regulate, along with guns, when not at a public gathering, which is defined as a sporting event, school, church or public building.

    Fargo’s police chief testified that the bill puts police at risk during other gatherings, like protests or marches, where any number of weapons could be legally carried.

    “Some individuals are not committed to peaceful protest, but to riotous criminal behavior with utter disregard for the safety of others. They often use peaceful protest as camouflage for their true intentions. There is no need to further arm these individuals by allowing them to carry a variety of dangerous weapons,” Fargo Chief of Police David Zibolski said.

    The bill initially passed the House 83-11, and the Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet voted on it.
    threads
    http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...l-arts-weapons
    Nunchaku-legalized!
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  2. #77
    Its not only bad for your business but also for the Ojibwe and Chippewa Indians (who have spear forms too).

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    House Bill 308

    Opinion: 308 — The 1974 House Bill That Saved Maryland From Everybody Kung Fu Fighting
    By Guest Commentary -October 19, 2021

    Wikipedia Commons photo.
    By Roberto E. Alejandro

    The writer has a Ph.D. in religion and theology and practices law in Maryland, but this is what happens when he also has free time.

    In 1974, the Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill 308, which banned the concealed or open carrying of nunchakus (colloquially known as “nunchucks”). House Bill 308 initiated Maryland’s successful war against martial arts-based violence and remains an important lesson in the ways policy can effectively curb threats to public safety.

    Just the year prior, in 1973, Warner Bros. had irresponsibly released the film “Enter the Dragon,” which introduced dangerous new ideas into the American criminal landscape. The movie stars Bruce Lee and finds him entering a secretive martial arts tournament in order to investigate the tournament’s organizer for drug ties.

    With its generally too real depictions of martial arts combat, “Enter the Dragon” taught American audiences dangerous new combat and weapons techniques that would soon debut on urban battlegrounds across the country. Of particular concern, the film taught audiences across the country how nunchakus could be used safely and effectively in the commission of violence.

    By 1974, everybody was kung fu fighting. See Carl Douglas’ “Kung Fu Fighting” (1974). Mastery had come quickly, with lightning-fast kicks and expert timing being used by criminals to frighten a defenseless citizenry. See id. No town was spared. Maryland was in crisis.

    But as the 1974 legislative session of the Maryland General Assembly drew near, Maryland lawmakers’ hands were to some extent tied. Maryland law treated the question of expertly timed kicks as assaults. See Apple v. State, 190 Md. 661 at 664-65. The Maryland Constitution’s Declaration of Rights guarantees to citizens the English Common Law of 1776, and the common law treated assaults as misdemeanors. See Md. Const. Decl. of Rights at Art. 5; and also Hobbs v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary, 223 Md. 651 at 653 (1960).

    As Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, long ago explained, “The common law declares that no arrest can lawfully be made for any misdemeanor [including assault] unless it is committed in the presence of the arresting officer or until a warrant has been issued by a magistrate.” See Brown v. State, 207 Md. 282 at 285–86 (1955). This meant that law enforcement officers responding to reports of martial arts-based violence could not make arrests in most instances, no matter how many witness accounts or corroborating signs of nunchaku use.

    The Maryland Declaration of Rights was having the unintended consequences of insulating martial arts-wielding assailants from prosecution. But with everybody kung fu fighting, inaction simply was not an option. Enter House Bill 308, which represents the first appearance of the term “nunchaku” in Maryland law.

    The nunchaku was clearly at the forefront of legislators’ concerns since, according to the Session Laws of 1974, available from the Archives of Maryland Online, House Bill 308 was introduced, “For the purpose of Baking it unlawful to wear or carry, concealed or openly, a nunchaku, defining the term, providing penalties, and relettering subsections.” Emphasis in the original. Usually, legislatures are content to restrict themselves to simply making laws. When they venture to bake a law, they really mean business.

    With the bake underway, the Maryland General Assembly carefully defined the object of its concern, legislating that:

    THE TERM “NUNCHAKU” MEANS ANY DEVICE OR PRODUCT CONSISTING OF TWO 12 TO 15 INCH LONG HARD OAK STICKS JOINED BY A CHAIN OR LEATHER STRAP, USED AS A DEFENSIVE WEAPON IN THE ORIENTAL MARTIAL ARTS AND CAPABLE OF INFLICTING DEATH WHEN PROPERLY USED, OR ANY SIMILAR OR SIMULATED DEVICE OF WHATEVER MATERIAL CONSTRUCTED.

    House Bill 308 (1974) (emphasis in original). House Bill 308 then added nunchakus to the list of traditional, old-timey gangster movie weapons that the Maryland General Assembly had already seen fit to protect the public from:

    Every person who shall wear or carry any dirk knife, bowie knife, switchblade knife, sandclub, metal knuckles, razor, NUNCHAKU or any other dangerous or deadly weapon of any kind, whatsoever (penknives without switchblade and handguns, excepted) concealed upon or about his person, and every person who shall wear or carry any such weapon openly with the intent or purpose of injuring any person in any unlawful manner, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

    Id. (emphasis in original). Law enforcement finally had the public safety tool it needed to effectively end the crush of “Enter the Dragon”-inspired street violence oppressing Maryland; and the text of the law, clearly demonstrates the General Assembly’s preoccupation with the detrimental effects of Bruce Lee-based media.

    While there remains some debate among scholars, “oriental martial arts” is generally considered a legislative term of art for “that Bruce Lee movie that came out last year.” House Bill 308’s description of a nunchaku is clearly a legislative aide’s best guess as to what Bruce Lee is holding in the scene from “Enter the Dragon” where he aces everyone with a nunchaku (“it was about a foot long, maybe oak …”). Lastly, the General Assembly’s specific focus on the potential harm nunchakus can cause “when properly used” aptly demonstrates that, but for Bruce Lee’s expert demonstration of how a weapon that is clearly most dangerous to the user can be used to harm others, House Bill 308 would never have been necessary.

    House Bill 308’s effect on martial arts street violence was not immediate, however. The threat of martial arts-based violence continued, and the law would eventually be updated.

    In 1985, the same year that would see the release of the film “American Ninja,” House Bill 89 added the star knife (colloquially known as a “ninja star”) to the list of banned weapons Marylanders could no longer carry.

    House Bill 89 defined a star knife as, “A DEVICE USED AS A THROWING WEAPON, CONSISTING OF SEVERAL SHARP OR POINTED BLADES ARRAYED AS RADIALLY DISPOSED ARMS ABOUT A CENTRAL DISK.” Emphasis in original. It is highly likely that the General Assembly’s quick action on the threat of ninja weapons such as star knives in 1985, which it managed to pass and implement prior to the release of American Ninja in August of that year, prevented a martial arts arms race that would have seen Maryland’s streets flooded with nunchakus, throwing stars, psais, katana swords, bo staffs and anything else the Ninja Turtles use to fight the Foot Clan.

    Since 1985, Maryland has seen a stark reduction in martial arts-based violence.

    Today, it is exceedingly rare for a Maryland citizen to find themselves staring down the barrel of a hard oak stick or on the receiving end of a star knife. Today’s crime and court reports document a dearth of ninja activity or other martial arts-based street violence.

    While some advocates argue that House Bill 308 and its progeny have had a disproportionate effect on Maryland’s ninja population, anecdotal evidence suggests strongly that Maryland residents remain among the most satisfied Americans with the level of ninja and other martial arts-based violence in their communities, with the issue rarely arising in political campaigns or legislative debates.

    As such, House Bill 308 serves as an important reminder that law can yet be marshaled to improve the lives of regular folk.
    threads
    Banning-martial-arts-weapons
    Nunchaku-legalized!
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Throwing Stars legal in Indiana

    Throwing stars are now legal in Indiana, delighting mall ninjas everywhere
    DAVID PESCOVITZ 4:06 PM MON FEB 6, 2023

    image: Zysko Sergii/Shutterstock
    Axe throwing bars has become quite popular! After all, what's not love about crowds of people throwing heavy sharp objects while drinking alcohol? For those who prefer a more "exotic" variation on the theme, apparently some of the axe throwing pubs are also offering throwing stars! An elegant weapon for a more civilized age, Japanese throwing stars, aka shuriken, are actually illegal in many part of the US, including California, New York, and, for the moment, Indiana. However, if the Hoosier State's Senate Bill 77 passes, throwing stars will become legal for recreational use there.

    Senate Bill 77 "actually came from a constituent who owns a putt-putt golf course called Ninja Golf," says [State Sen. Linda] Rogers. "Nearly everyone that I spoke with said, 'Hey, look, if we can throw axes, we can certainly throw throwing stars.'" […]

    The bill already passed the Indiana Senate by a 48 to 1 margin. Next it goes to the State House.

    From WGN9:

    "It's a double-edged sword," said Richard Deschain, co-owner of Ragnarok Axe Throwing LLC in Indianapolis. He said throwing star blades can get bent and hooked over, increasing someone's odds of getting cut.

    "I would say the easiest way for that to have any kind of solution is to require a layered Kevlar glove to be worn when they're throwing any other object like a throwing star," he said.
    Banning-martial-arts-weapons
    Throwing-Stars
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Interesting article that was recently forwarded to me.

    Through a Chinese American Lens

    A sample of weaponry seized in New York Chinatown during the conflict between Hip Sing and On Leong Tongs, c. 1922. Photographer unknown (from the collection of the NYPD).
    Disarming Chinese America: The Exclusionary Politics of Gun Control

    “The gun is mythic in the American imagination… . The gun in America is unique because it has defined, and will continue to define, membership and belonging in the polity.” – Prof. Pratheepan Gulaesekaram
    The widespread use of guns in Chinese Americans communities has been lost to historical memory, and almost a half-century has passed since San Francisco Chinatown’s last mass shooting. However, in the wake of a flood of news stories about the victimization by Chinese in California and elsewhere in the US – whether by hate or criminal predators – Chinese Americans have begun asking why relatively few in their communities bear arms for the protection of persons and property. Although the acquisition of personal firearms by Asian Americans has increased, particularly in this decade of Asian hate and criminal victimization, popular consciousness generally does not associate Chinese American communities with heavy firearms usage.
    Ironically, the lack of firearms in California’s Chinese communities can be traced to century-old legislation aimed at directly suppressing the Chinese community’s ownership of guns and, in a larger sense, the deepening the notion of exclusion and, specifically, Chinese exclusion, from the right to bear firearms in America.
    California’s Gun Law of 1923 contained two major provisions: (1) the requirement of a permit to carry a concealed handgun anywhere in California (and that statute is the direct ancestor of California’s current concealed weapon permit law); and (2) the prohibition of non-citizens from possessing concealable firearms. The handgun ban by non-citizens was upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case In re Ramirez (1924) 193 C. 633.
    A July 15, 1923, a San Francisco Chronicle article supported the racial dimension of the legislative intent, and at whom the legislation was directed:

    As the Chronicle reported, then-Governor Richardson had approved of the Gun Law largely on the recommendation of R. T. McKissick, president of the Sacramento Rifle and Revolver Club. Although McKissick acknowledged that banning resident aliens from owning handguns might pose a constitutional problem, McKissick indicated that ”it would have a ‘salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent.’”
    By invoking the specter of tong violence, the proponents of the law had invoked seven decades’ worth of fears by the white population of armed Chinese in California and throughout the American West.
    The field of historical archaeology may lead to the revision of the stereotypical view of early Chinese communities as meek and victims, usually of white racist violence. The stereotype, however, has always been undermined by contemporary accounts of violent gunplay by Chinese in the gold fields and other frontier towns. Continuing excavations of old Chinese settlements by the Southern Oregon University have uncovered firearms and related accoutrements and provided evidence of Chinese use of guns to defend themselves.
    However, the relatively small, legal firearms culture in the Chinese community can be attributed to the ascendancy and use by the “hatchet boys” or 斧頭仔 (canto: “fu tau jai”) of pistols, among other concealable weaponry, for advancing tong interests and conflict resolution.


    “Highbinders’ Retreat” undated photo taken in San Francisco. Photographer unknown (from the Cooper Chow collection at the Chinese Historical Society of America).
    The early gun control laws in California reflected the white community’s desire for safety from, and control over, the use of lethal force by nonwhites in their midst on the urban frontier. San Francisco enacted a gun control measure as early as 1847 to reduce violence. Coincident with the rise of anti-Chinese sentiment, the city singled out the Chinese as a focal point of violence for the balance of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th century, particularly Chinatown’s fighting tongs.
    In 1879, California first enacted legislation to prohibit non-citizens from bearing arms. The law was fueled in major part by white perceptions of the Chinese as violent and unassimilable and thousands of lurid newspaper reports about tong violence.

    “The Highbinders’ Favorite Weapons,” Harper’s Weekly of February 13, 1886 (Vo. XXX, No. 1521) from the collection of the Bancroft Library.
    For example, the Daily Alta California published on January 18, 1887, an article titled: “A Bold Highbinder,” which detailed the removal of a girl from a “Chinese den” and her attempted recapture. One of the Chinese men attempting to take the child “slipped and fell on the pavement, at the same time drawing a revolver.” The man, Wong Bing Lin, was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. When searched, the police found a knife. “He also wore a coat of mail made out of compressed paper pulp, which could turn a bullet.”

    Coat of chainmail used by highbinders. Photographer unknown (from the collection of the Bancroft Library)
    Increased gun violence by tong soldiers induced the city of San Francisco to enact local legislation to ban concealed weapons in 1890. As reported by the Daily Alta on February 5, 1890, Chief of Police Patrick Crowley recommended that shooting galleries be removed, “in the Chinese quarter, where nearly every Chinaman is the owner of a pistol and is handy in its use.”

    San Francisco police photo of weapons seized from Chinese “highbinders” c. 1900. Photographer unknown.
    Violence by Chinese began to slacken, particularly in the aftermath of the federal Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, its extension by the Geary Act of 1892, and the disruption of the 1906 earthquake and fire. Chinese rarely committed homicides against non-Chinese, as the violence usually occurred between Chinese by competing organized criminal organizations.
    continued next post
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Continued from previous post


    “The Yellow Terror In All His Glory” (1899) depicted an anti-colonial Qing Dynasty Chinese man standing over a fallen white woman, who represents the Western world. The cartoon made explicit the white community’s fears of innocent white women killed by gunplay in the Chinese community.
    With the decreased perceived threat from Chinatown, the discourse shifted to include firearms themselves and the ease in which they could be acquired. However, in 1912, San Francisco saw a string a murders of young white women, killed by young men with easy access to firearms.

    “Peace Meeting in Chinatown, San Francisco, Feb. 1921, bet. the Hip Sings and Ping Koongs”. Photographer unknown (from the Jesse B. Cook collection of the Bancroft Library). The photo shows police officials mediating treaty talks between the warring Hip Sing (協勝堂) and Bing Kung (秉公堂) tongs.
    Although San Francisco police and merchant associations repeatedly mediated “peace treaties,” between fighting tongs, the ceasefires inevitably broke down.


    The San Francisco Call, March 13, 1913, reports on gunplay as part of a statewide conflict between the Suey Sing (萃勝堂) and Bing Kung tongs. The Suey Sing Tong traced its establishment to San Francisco in 1867 when merchants formed a fighting arm to protect their property interests.
    Homicide rates in the Chinese community began to spike in the second decade of the 20th century.

    Chinese and white homicide rates compared (1860-1930). Chart by historian and Deputy Chief Kevin Mullen (ret.).
    “Race continued to play a role in the discourse of gun control in California, as judicious men worked to disarm non-whites they viewed as threatening,” according to Josselyn Green (a.k.a. Huerta) in her monograph “ Control of Violence, Control of Fear: The Progression of Gun Control in San Francisco, 1847-1923″ (Spring 2015 Master’s thesis). “In 1923, the California State Legislature passed a second gun control bill … Most notably the new statutes stated, ‘no unnaturalized foreign born person … shall own or have in his possession or under his custody or control any pistol, firearm capable of being concealed on the person.’ Because the Chinese Exclusion Act had been extended permanently in 1902, thus denying Chinese Americans citizenship. California’s 1923 gun control law effectively disarmed the entire Chinese community.“
    The denial of the Chinese community’s access to concealable firearms would remain in effect for a half-century until it was declared unconstitutional by a California Court of Appeals in People v. Rappard (1972).
    As for the wider conflict between the criminal tongs, conditions began to change during the 1920′s. Crime historian Paul Drexler wrote as follows:
    “The overthrow of the Manchu dynasty reduced the flow of tong members from China. As a result, Chinatown was becoming a more middle-class area. Community leaders realized they could make more money from legitimate commerce than from vice and became more supportive of The City’s government. Additionally, the Chinatown Squad, under the leadership of Sgt. Jack Manion, changed tactics and used community policing to win the trust of the Chinatown population.”
    If the way of the gun represents a badge of a community’s membership, and even its rights, in American society, then the denial of the Chinese American community’s access to firearms a century ago was emblematic of its exclusion. Law professor Pratheepan Gulaesekaram has written about the gun as a badge of membership in the American polity as follows:
    “Access to, and use of, firearms has helped define ideas of membership in America. The gun played a vital role in the genesis tales of the Republic itself. It was a bullet fired into a British officer by a militia man in Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, that is credited with igniting the war for independence; it was the gun that helped tame the wilderness and battle American Indians in stories of the expanding nineteenth-century frontier; and firearms were credited with shoring up the struggle for political and racial equality during Reconstruction after the Civil War. In all of these manifestations—as a tool of resistance to tyranny, an instrument of imperialism, a method of survival and self-protection, and a pathway to political inclusion—the gun facilitated formation of, and inclusion in, the American polity.
    “Concomitantly, however, the gun has also demarcated the borders of exclusion as well. …”
    (Gulaesekaram, P., “Guns and Membership in the American Polity,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, vol. 21 (December 2012).
    San Francisco Chinatown would not see a return to pervasive gunplay by any segment of its community until the 1970’s, but that is a story for another day.
    Thought I'd share it here.
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  7. #82
    Greetings,

    This "THING" about gun violence on S.F. Chinatown is nothing more than an attempt to throw the Chinese American community up against the wall during the gentrifying process. First was the neutralization of Shrimp Boy and now this. The eagles circling in the sky looking to swoop down upon the Tongs has nothing to do with making things safer, it has much more to do with the real estate they have. The tongs should take it upon themselves to unite against those who are using anything to take their possessions from them. And this will continue to happen wherever Tongs have real estate holdings that are considered attractive to developers. NYC Chinatown is not called "Chinatown" by the new generation (by those who know). They call it "Koreatown".

    Open your eyes, brothers. You are getting screwed, straight up and raw.


    mickey
    Last edited by mickey; 02-23-2023 at 01:09 PM.

  8. #83
    More,

    I remember posting, at KFM forums, the need to get away from the word "weapon" when it comes to what we use. The term "training tools", or "apparatus work" or "training equipment" is much better. I am open to other suggestions. But to call what we train with "weapons" is inviting trouble from a cultural preservation perspective. If we do not take the initiative to define what we use, it will be defined for us, and at great cultural cost. The question is: WHEN WILL YOU ALL LISTEN AND BE RESPONSIBLE??

    I can see it now: an Asian man walks into a mall and shoots up 145 people with an automatic weapon that was made in the USA. The response: Ban all Asian martial arts "weapons".

    My blood still runs hot.

    mickey
    Last edited by mickey; 02-23-2023 at 07:46 PM.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    It's tough to change language intentionally, mickey

    I hear what you're saying but you must have totalitarian control (like PRC) to change language.

    Or it can be business driven. Because 'weapon' is a forbidden word the the worldwide SEO (it'll even get you banned at some vendor sites like Amazon), MartialArtSmart changed the term to 'Martial Arms'.
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by GeneChing View Post
    I hear what you're saying but you must have totalitarian control (like PRC) to change language.

    Or it can be business driven. Because 'weapon' is a forbidden word the the worldwide SEO (it'll even get you banned at some vendor sites like Amazon), changed the term to 'Martial Arms'.
    Yeah, 'weapons' are also forbidden in the Universities. Wushu is never going to get in curriculum unless more benign weapons become prevalent. There is too massive oversupply of personal injury lawyers in America. Their adds have even taken over the display on my radio that used to tell me what songs were playing! The Nerf company has been missing a great opportunity to make their brandname become generic like Kleenex. Nerf-sword, Nerf-saber, Nerf-spear, Nerf-daggers and so forth...

  11. #86
    Greetings,

    "more benign weapons"??? This is the problem. What we have would fall into the category of benign. We do not have weapons. If this keeps up, we will be doing sword forms with branches and wire hangers.


    mickey

  12. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by mickey View Post
    Greetings,

    "more benign weapons"??? This is the problem. What we have would fall into the category of benign. We do not have weapons. If this keeps up, we will be doing sword forms with branches and wire hangers.


    mickey
    Hey Mickey, they don't even allow wooden weapons on campus. They must have heard of that Samurai master that could defeat anyone with his wooden sword!

    BTW There's a remix of that song about you that's gone viral with all the kpoppers on TikTok, haha

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Legalize it

    Move over axe-throwing ranges. Indiana just made throwing stars legal.
    Sebastian Cahill


    Two throwing stars embedded in a piece of wood. Prostydio/Getty Images

    A bill signed into law in April made throwing stars legal in Indiana again.

    State Senator Linda Rogers said throwing stars are "like any other knife."

    Rogers suggested the previous ban was due to fears about the stars that rose in the 1980s.

    A recent Indiana bill just legalized throwing stars — the thin, star-shaped knives popularized in 70s and 80s ninja movies.

    In an interview with Insider, State Senator Linda Rogers, who authored the bill, said the issue came up when owners of a mini-golf business in her district, Ninja Golf, reached out and expressed interest in adding a throwing stars range to their other amenities.

    Ninja Golf, a "Japanese garden-style" course, includes a 27-holes of miniature golf, a nature walking path, a kabuki theater, and a karaoke lounge.

    Rogers said the business referenced the growing popularity of axe-throwing ranges when they spoke with her, and likened them to their idea of using throwing stars.

    "There's no reason that these throwing stars should be illegal," Rogers said.

    SB 77 amends Indiana's codes to include throwing stars in their definition of "knives," which are legal in many cases, but still prevents the throwing stars and other weapons from being taken to or used on school campuses.

    Previously, possession, manufacturing, or selling of a throwing star was completely banned and a Class C misdemeanor, which could hold a punishment of 60 days in jail or fines up to $500, according to Indiana law.

    Authored by Rogers and fellow State Senator Liz Brown, the bill was sponsored and supported by multiple senators and representatives in Indiana's General Assembly. The bill passed through the state House and Senate almost unanimously and was signed into law by the governor on April 20. It took effect July 1.

    In order to meet qualifications to have a throwing star range, as Ninja Golf planned, businesses have to take a number of steps, which may include liability insurance and having experts in throwing stars on site, Rogers said.

    In speaking to the state's previous ban on throwing stars, Rogers said her colleagues brought up a number of reasons throwing stars were less lethal than other weapons that have protections under the Constitution.

    Rogers suggested the law originally reacted to fears fostered in the 1980s. A story from 1984 by the New York Times interviewed police and families who called the throwing star a "lethal weapon" and part of a dangerous fad.

    "This law was maybe a reaction to this panic, and maybe the eighties when we saw them in TV a lot, or in the movies — I think people got a little nervous," Rogers said. "I think since that time people have recognized they're simply like any other knife."
    Shuriken
    Banning-martial-arts-weapons
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Maybe I should re-title this thread 'Unbanning martial arts weapons'

    August 9, 2023
    KNIVES OUT
    How This Knife Could Upend Restrictions on Weapons All Across the Nation

    A federal appeals court ruling could have a massive impact on the future of gun safety in America.


    HEUSER/ULLSTEIN BILD/GETTY IMAGES
    A Hawaii law created an absolute ban on butterfly knives like this one, but a recent court ruling could overturn that restriction—along with many others.

    The Second Amendment is arguably the most interesting area of American constitutional law right now. Courts and judges have already spent more than two centuries defining the scope of what counts as free speech under the First Amendment and probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. But they did not spend much time on defining what the individual right to bear arms protects. How could they have? The Supreme Court only established it within the last 15 years.

    One of the many big questions in this brave new world is deceptively complicated: What exactly counts as “arms” that someone can bear under the Second Amendment? (Please, no jokes about ursine limbs.) On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals came one step closer to answering that question in Teter v. Lopez. The case involved a challenge to Hawaii’s absolute ban on possessing butterfly knives, a type of small knife with a bifurcated handle that folds upward to cover the blade when sheathed. As the court noted, an experienced user can quickly unfold it with one hand if the need arises.

    Nearly all Second Amendment cases involve firearms. But the three-judge panel ruled that the same logic that protects guns under the individual right to bear arms applies to other types of weapons. “Because the possession of butterfly knives is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and because Hawaii has not demonstrated that its ban on butterfly knives is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of regulating arms, we conclude that section 134-53(a) violates Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights,” Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the court.

    That an absolute ban on a certain type of knife has been judged unconstitutional might seem like a small matter at first glance. But Monday’s ruling could directly affect a wide swath of gun and weapon regulations in the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which covers most of the Western United States and roughly one-fifth of the national population. Its reasoning, if adopted by other courts, could also make it much more difficult for state and federal lawmakers to restrict access to certain types of weapons.

    The case comes from a lawsuit filed by two men, Andrew Teter and James Grell, who live in Hawaii and want to purchase butterfly knives for self-defense. Barring their path is a state law that makes it a misdemeanor offense whenever someone “knowingly manufactures, sells, transfers, possesses, or transports” a butterfly knife in Hawaii. Teter and Grell attested that they owned butterfly knives before moving to Hawaii and had to dispose of them to comply with state law. They now seek the ability to own them again.

    A federal district court initially ruled against the two men and held that the Second Amendment does not protect butterfly knives. They appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit, which stayed the case pending the Supreme Court’s then-imminent ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen last summer. The high court’s eventual ruling in Bruen last June laid out a new history-and-tradition test for weighing restrictions on the individual right to bear arms. In general, it required courts to determine whether there was a historical analogue for a challenged restriction and strike it down if none could be found.

    “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. “The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s unqualified command.”

    This test, as I’ve noted before, has had a dizzying array of outcomes in the lower courts. The Supreme Court is set to review one of those rulings this fall in United States v. Rahimi, where the justices will consider whether gun possession bans for people under certain types of domestic violence restraining orders violate the Second Amendment. A federal district court in Texas concluded that they were unconstitutional earlier this year, noting that early American lawmakers imposed no such restrictions in the founding era—a period when women generally had few legal or civil rights.
    continued next post
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Fremont, CA, U.S.A.
    Posts
    47,947

    Continued from previous

    One notable limitation on the Bruen test, at least at first glance, is that it hitherto only applied to “firearms.” The Ninth Circuit panel, however, concluded that language was no impediment to the knife challenge. “Although Bruen discussed ‘firearm regulation[s],’ that was because the arm at issue in that case was a firearm,” Bea wrote. “We see no reason why the framework would vary by type of ‘arm.’” Those types of weapons, the court noted, can also be used for self-defense.

    Hawaii pointed to another potential defense for its ban: District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 Supreme Court case that established an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment. In that decision, the high court suggested that some types of categorical weapon bans remained presumptively constitutional. The Heller justices specifically declined to overturn United States v. Miller, a 1939 case that upheld a federal law banning certain types of guns commonly associated with criminal activity, such as sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic rifles.

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Heller. “Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

    The panel, however, sidestepped Hawaii’s invocation of Heller. First, it denied a motion by the state to remand the case back to the lower court so it could build a factual record for the Bruen test, which did not exist when the district court upheld the law. Then the panel concluded that Hawaii should have already built that record when it defended the ban in the district court since Heller already existed at that point, even though the Bruen test did not. Accordingly, Bea wrote, the state had “failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether butterfly knives are dangerous and unusual.”

    From there, the panel declared that there was “no genuine issue of material fact as to whether butterfly knives are commonly owned for lawful purposes.” It cited some testimony during the lower-court trial that butterfly knives can be used in self-defense and that the knives’ use is part of a martial arts style that originated in the Philippines. While Hawaii cited what the panel described as “some conclusory statements in the legislative history” that butterfly knives were associated with criminal activity, Bea wrote that the court gave “little weight” to those findings. “Common sense tells us that all portable arms are associated with criminals to some extent, and the cited conclusory statements simply provide no basis for concluding that these instruments are not commonly owned for lawful purposes,” he concluded.

    Nor did the panel find any of Hawaii’s purported historical analogues to be convincing. The closest match, the judges said, was an 1837 Georgia law that declared no one shall “keep, or have about or on their person or elsewhere … Bowie, or any other kind of knives.” They reasoned that it was “not apparent to us that ‘other kind[s] of knives’ would have been understood to include pocketknives.” Nor did laws banning the possession and/or carry of more eclectic stabbing implements like Arkansas toothpicks, Bowie knives, daggers, dirks, or the like persuade them because, they concluded, a butterfly knife “is clearly more analogous to an ordinary pocketknife.”

    Nor did the claimed emergence of novel societal problems that were unforeseen by the founding generation persuade the panel to uphold the law. In our August issue, I wrote about how Bruen was part of a growing trend where the Supreme Court and its rulings squelch policymaking innovation by lawmakers. If I wrote that article again today, I would undoubtedly include a portion of Monday’s ruling in Teter where the panel knocked down Hawaiian lawmakers’ rationale for the ban by dialing up the degree of specificity.

    “Here, the 1999 Hawaii Legislature addressed the perceived social problem of an ‘increasing trend in minors and gang members armed with knives and daggers,’ who preferred butterfly knives ‘as they are easy to conceal and are more intimidating when brandished,’” Bea wrote. “But the problem of people using easily concealable, foldable knives in violent crimes predates 1999 by hundreds of years.”

    While the court only addressed Hawaii’s butterfly knife ban, its interpretation of the Second Amendment and its application of the Bruen test could apply to a variety of other statutes. The panel concluded that bladed weapons fell within the scope of the Second Amendment by citing Malachy Postlethwayt’s Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce. Published in 1774, that dictionary defines “arms” to include “fascines, halberds, javelins, pikes, and swords,” according to the panel.

    Under that framework, a wide variety of knife-related laws could conceivably be challenged. Hawaii’s own statutes have a similar ban on switchblade knives that could run afoul under this interpretation of the Second Amendment. California, which is also in the Ninth Circuit, bans the possession of an even wider assortment of bladed weapons, including dirks, daggers, ballistic knives, belt buckle knives, lipstick case knives, cane swords, and more. If the Second Amendment is not limited to firearms, Monday’s ruling also calls into question state-level bans on weapons like truncheons, saps, billy clubs, nunchucks, and the like.

    The panel’s sidestepping of Heller and Miller’s restriction on “dangerous and unusual weapons,” coupled with its stark dismissal of legislative conclusions about what qualifies as one, could potentially affect some bans on specific types of firearms. Monday’s ruling does not directly affect restrictions on these types of guns; the decision itself is limited to Hawaii’s butterfly knife ban. But its narrower approach to deciding what counts as a “dangerous and unusual” weapon could call into question state-level bans on assault rifles and other type-specific restrictions. While the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, other federal laws still restrict the possession of fully automatic rifles manufactured after 1986.

    All of this depends on whether the panel’s ruling stands on review. Like other federal appeals courts, the Ninth Circuit has a mechanism to review panel decisions through a super-panel of sorts, which includes a random assortment of its sitting judges. Democratic appointees on the Ninth Circuit have a narrow majority in its 29 seats at the moment, but the court’s sizable bloc of Republican appointees has frequently signaled an interest in aggressively enforcing the Bruen test on gun laws in its jurisdiction.

    Either way, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will have to decide at some point what weapons count as “arms” under the Second Amendment, as well as which ones are “dangerous and unusual” in a post-Bruen world. In Rahimi, the upcoming domestic violence case, we’ll get a look at whether the justices want to clarify or refine the history-and-tradition test now that they’ve seen it in practice. How the court rules in that case will shape how it addresses Monday’s ruling in Teter and the rest of the Second Amendment’s yet-to-be-explored frontier.

    Matt Ford @fordm
    Matt Ford is a staff writer at The New Republic.
    Banning-martial-arts-weapons
    Videos-of-butterfly-knife-(balisong)-techniques
    Gene Ching
    Publisher www.KungFuMagazine.com
    Author of Shaolin Trips
    Support our forum by getting your gear at MartialArtSmart

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •