De-criminalize the carrying of ALL knives whose purpose is peaceful

People carrying everyday knives — yes, even big ones — should not be seen as criminals.

You might have just bought a set of foot-long kitchen knives to carry home. Or you might have been invited to a Christmas party and are taking good quality one to lend to the host because the ones he owns are dysfunctional.

Yes, I know there is a clause allowing people to carry such knives provided they have "good reason".

But this exactly where it breaks down. The boundaries are vague and open to abuse by police bent on harrassing members of the public.

And there is scant evidence that this law actually reduces knife crime.

If there really are politicians who respect liberty and are not afraid of the tabloids they will begin by abolishing this law. 

Why is this idea important?

People carrying everyday knives — yes, even big ones — should not be seen as criminals.

You might have just bought a set of foot-long kitchen knives to carry home. Or you might have been invited to a Christmas party and are taking good quality one to lend to the host because the ones he owns are dysfunctional.

Yes, I know there is a clause allowing people to carry such knives provided they have "good reason".

But this exactly where it breaks down. The boundaries are vague and open to abuse by police bent on harrassing members of the public.

And there is scant evidence that this law actually reduces knife crime.

If there really are politicians who respect liberty and are not afraid of the tabloids they will begin by abolishing this law. 

Redefine ‘gravity knives’ so that ordinary locking penknives are not included in the definition.

Gravity knives are a class of military knife where the blade drops out of the handle and were banned by the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act (1959). However, recently HMRC in Mount Pleasant have recently been treating ordinary locking penknives with smooth opening action as gravity knives and seizing them – ignoring the fact that these same knives are often sold openly in high street shops. This has meant that ordinary law-abiding people cannot buy from cheaper, foreign traders. I would remove the ban on gravity knives as they are simply irrelevant to knife crime.

Why is this idea important?

Gravity knives are a class of military knife where the blade drops out of the handle and were banned by the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act (1959). However, recently HMRC in Mount Pleasant have recently been treating ordinary locking penknives with smooth opening action as gravity knives and seizing them – ignoring the fact that these same knives are often sold openly in high street shops. This has meant that ordinary law-abiding people cannot buy from cheaper, foreign traders. I would remove the ban on gravity knives as they are simply irrelevant to knife crime.

Repeal Harris vs DPP (1993) and allow the carry of locking, folding penknives without a specific reason

Since 1993 it has been illegal to carry a safe locking, folding penknife due to a highly unjust piece of case law. This causes confusion amongst the general public and prevents ordinary, law-abiding people from carrying a safe, everyday tool. I would repeal Harris vs DPP 1993 and amend section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act (1988) to specifically allow both locking and non-locking folding penknives with a blade that has a cutting edge not exceeding 3-inches in length.

Why is this idea important?

Since 1993 it has been illegal to carry a safe locking, folding penknife due to a highly unjust piece of case law. This causes confusion amongst the general public and prevents ordinary, law-abiding people from carrying a safe, everyday tool. I would repeal Harris vs DPP 1993 and amend section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act (1988) to specifically allow both locking and non-locking folding penknives with a blade that has a cutting edge not exceeding 3-inches in length.

De-criminalize Swiss army knives

I remember the media headlines about knife crime in certain areas of London and the subsequent ban but it never occurred to me that the little Swiss army knife in my pocket can be considered an illegal weapon. The little pen knife, about three inches long, used to such tasks as peeling an orange or sharpening a toothpick. In other words I was not aware that I became a criminal because I did not remove my pen knife from my pocket when the said law was introduced. I was rudely (quite literally) informed of that fact when I attempted to enter the Houses of Parliament  with a group of journalists carrying a concealed weapon in my pocket. I was told expressis verbis that I would be arrested unless I voluntarily give up the said concealed weapon.

I am not the only person to whom it did not occur that a Swiss army knife can be considered an illegal weapon. This is an anecdotal evidence only but I know a number of people who still carry one. My late mother carried one in her handbag all her life.

A knife is first and foremost a tool, the most universal and ubiquitous tool known to man. I can understand a ban on knives that are made to be weapons and are intended to be used as such but a blanket ban to carry a knife could criminalize almost anybody. Even a kitchen knife has to be carried from a shop to a kitchen which means that almost everybody has committed a crime. And what about outdoor camping? Anyone attempting to walk the Pennine Way is a criminal because it is impossible to camp in the wild without a knife.
 

Why is this idea important?

I remember the media headlines about knife crime in certain areas of London and the subsequent ban but it never occurred to me that the little Swiss army knife in my pocket can be considered an illegal weapon. The little pen knife, about three inches long, used to such tasks as peeling an orange or sharpening a toothpick. In other words I was not aware that I became a criminal because I did not remove my pen knife from my pocket when the said law was introduced. I was rudely (quite literally) informed of that fact when I attempted to enter the Houses of Parliament  with a group of journalists carrying a concealed weapon in my pocket. I was told expressis verbis that I would be arrested unless I voluntarily give up the said concealed weapon.

I am not the only person to whom it did not occur that a Swiss army knife can be considered an illegal weapon. This is an anecdotal evidence only but I know a number of people who still carry one. My late mother carried one in her handbag all her life.

A knife is first and foremost a tool, the most universal and ubiquitous tool known to man. I can understand a ban on knives that are made to be weapons and are intended to be used as such but a blanket ban to carry a knife could criminalize almost anybody. Even a kitchen knife has to be carried from a shop to a kitchen which means that almost everybody has committed a crime. And what about outdoor camping? Anyone attempting to walk the Pennine Way is a criminal because it is impossible to camp in the wild without a knife.
 

Repeal laws preventing the public defending themselves and others

Members of the public have a common law duty and right not only to defend themselves and others, to prevent loss or damage to property and to arrest offenders, but also to prevent a breach of the peace.

However, laws such as Section 1 of the "Prevention of Crime Act 1953", which make it an offence to be in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, prevent us from having the necessary tools to protect ourselves and others. These defensive tools, such as batons and irritant sprays, should be permitted for persons with no violent crime convictions and carrying them to protect oneself and others should be a "reasonable excuse". However the police will not accept this, so this law (and any other related ones) should be repealed and replaced with one that allows law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and others against criminals.

These defensive tools are only what the police are allowed to carry to protect themselves, but members of the public are expected to walk around defenseless and in no position to assist their fellow citizens. The police do their best but obviously they can't be everywhere at once and much of the time all they can do is catch the offender after he's disposed of the rent money or wages he's stolen from the victim, or left them with life-threatening and changing injuries, if not brain-damaged or dead. If the public were allowed to carry defensive weapons, they would have a chance at repelling such assaults and other people would be more inclined to come to their assistance. On too many occasions the police have refused or been unable to come to the assistance of someone in time and it is unacceptable that in such situations the innocent person under attack by armed criminals is rendered defenseless by the state.

I'm not suggesting people should be allowed to carry knives and guns and I'm open to the idea of having some sort of training program (perhaps run by some of the soon to be made redundant police officers) leading to a license before a person is allowed to carry defensive items, although the principle should be that all adults have the right to own and carry such items, unless banned by reason of a violent crime history or serious mental health problems.

This would in no way jeopardize the state, as it will still have trained firearms officers and the army to defend itself against insurrection, but will give citizens a chance to stand up to thugs and defend themselves and others, rather than having to scurry about with their their heads down, hoping that a thug doesn't decide to single them out, and then hope that the police might turn up in time to prevent them being left permanently disfigured, brain-damaged or dead.

There are too many cases of citizens being persecuted by the authorities for defending themselves: for example, Kenneth Blight, 51, who stabbed a 19-year old who was threatening him with an axe in his garden, was given a two-year suspended sentence but the Attorney General sought to have the sentence increased. Instead the court halved the sentence, although Mr Blight did spend 4.5 months on remand.

And Omari Roberts, 23, who stabbed a 17-year old burglar who rushed him in his mother's home, who spent 7 months on remand before the CPS decided to charge him with murder and wounding with intent, based on the allegations of the other, 14-year old, burglar. Mr Roberts then spent another six months on remand, so imprisoned for 13 months in total, before the CPS dropped the case because the 14-year old confessed he'd lied that he'd been
chased down the street.

And James Killen, 18, who stabbed a 46 year-old man who was stabbing his mother (who subsequently died from her injuries) in their home, arrested on suspicion of murder. Thankfully he was not charged, but why should citizens who use quite legal and obviously necessary force, in this case after seeing his mother being subjected to a brutal and horrific attack, be subjected to the additional and quite intolerable stress of being arrested and treated as a criminal.

Despite only legally being allowed to use the same reasonable force as the public, police officers who kill suspects, whether accidentally or by design, even when lethal-force was quite unwarranted, are rarely subjected to the stress of being arrested and treated as the criminal and locked up for over a year, but are merely questioned after being allowed to confer and compare notes with colleagues. If this is sufficient to ascertain the truth, then it should be the same procedure used for citizens where there is reason to believe that they are the victim and were merely defending themselves or others.

If citizens were permitted to own defensive items, they may have been able to use them in some of the above cases, rather than having no choice but to reach for the nearest kitchen knife to defend themselves against an attacker who they have to assume is willing to kill them and thus they have to stop them before they have a chance to do so, only to be persecuted for using a lethal option, when the less-than-lethal options available to the police are denied them.

Why is this idea important?

Members of the public have a common law duty and right not only to defend themselves and others, to prevent loss or damage to property and to arrest offenders, but also to prevent a breach of the peace.

However, laws such as Section 1 of the "Prevention of Crime Act 1953", which make it an offence to be in possession of an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, prevent us from having the necessary tools to protect ourselves and others. These defensive tools, such as batons and irritant sprays, should be permitted for persons with no violent crime convictions and carrying them to protect oneself and others should be a "reasonable excuse". However the police will not accept this, so this law (and any other related ones) should be repealed and replaced with one that allows law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and others against criminals.

These defensive tools are only what the police are allowed to carry to protect themselves, but members of the public are expected to walk around defenseless and in no position to assist their fellow citizens. The police do their best but obviously they can't be everywhere at once and much of the time all they can do is catch the offender after he's disposed of the rent money or wages he's stolen from the victim, or left them with life-threatening and changing injuries, if not brain-damaged or dead. If the public were allowed to carry defensive weapons, they would have a chance at repelling such assaults and other people would be more inclined to come to their assistance. On too many occasions the police have refused or been unable to come to the assistance of someone in time and it is unacceptable that in such situations the innocent person under attack by armed criminals is rendered defenseless by the state.

I'm not suggesting people should be allowed to carry knives and guns and I'm open to the idea of having some sort of training program (perhaps run by some of the soon to be made redundant police officers) leading to a license before a person is allowed to carry defensive items, although the principle should be that all adults have the right to own and carry such items, unless banned by reason of a violent crime history or serious mental health problems.

This would in no way jeopardize the state, as it will still have trained firearms officers and the army to defend itself against insurrection, but will give citizens a chance to stand up to thugs and defend themselves and others, rather than having to scurry about with their their heads down, hoping that a thug doesn't decide to single them out, and then hope that the police might turn up in time to prevent them being left permanently disfigured, brain-damaged or dead.

There are too many cases of citizens being persecuted by the authorities for defending themselves: for example, Kenneth Blight, 51, who stabbed a 19-year old who was threatening him with an axe in his garden, was given a two-year suspended sentence but the Attorney General sought to have the sentence increased. Instead the court halved the sentence, although Mr Blight did spend 4.5 months on remand.

And Omari Roberts, 23, who stabbed a 17-year old burglar who rushed him in his mother's home, who spent 7 months on remand before the CPS decided to charge him with murder and wounding with intent, based on the allegations of the other, 14-year old, burglar. Mr Roberts then spent another six months on remand, so imprisoned for 13 months in total, before the CPS dropped the case because the 14-year old confessed he'd lied that he'd been
chased down the street.

And James Killen, 18, who stabbed a 46 year-old man who was stabbing his mother (who subsequently died from her injuries) in their home, arrested on suspicion of murder. Thankfully he was not charged, but why should citizens who use quite legal and obviously necessary force, in this case after seeing his mother being subjected to a brutal and horrific attack, be subjected to the additional and quite intolerable stress of being arrested and treated as a criminal.

Despite only legally being allowed to use the same reasonable force as the public, police officers who kill suspects, whether accidentally or by design, even when lethal-force was quite unwarranted, are rarely subjected to the stress of being arrested and treated as the criminal and locked up for over a year, but are merely questioned after being allowed to confer and compare notes with colleagues. If this is sufficient to ascertain the truth, then it should be the same procedure used for citizens where there is reason to believe that they are the victim and were merely defending themselves or others.

If citizens were permitted to own defensive items, they may have been able to use them in some of the above cases, rather than having no choice but to reach for the nearest kitchen knife to defend themselves against an attacker who they have to assume is willing to kill them and thus they have to stop them before they have a chance to do so, only to be persecuted for using a lethal option, when the less-than-lethal options available to the police are denied them.

Simplify and clarify the laws on carrying knives

At the moment the laws on the carrying of knives are hopelessly confused and complex. Because of hasty ill thought out legislation many people are unwittingly breaking the law by, for instance, carrying a life with a lock blade whilst walking in the country. Most good quality penknives these days have lock blades but for some reason carrying one can be illegal. If the law were simplified making it for instance "unlawful to carry a knife in a situation which may lead to a breach of the peace" then it could be left to the common sense of the Police and Courts to differentiate between those engaging in peaceful pursuits and those carrying knives in city centres or similar.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment the laws on the carrying of knives are hopelessly confused and complex. Because of hasty ill thought out legislation many people are unwittingly breaking the law by, for instance, carrying a life with a lock blade whilst walking in the country. Most good quality penknives these days have lock blades but for some reason carrying one can be illegal. If the law were simplified making it for instance "unlawful to carry a knife in a situation which may lead to a breach of the peace" then it could be left to the common sense of the Police and Courts to differentiate between those engaging in peaceful pursuits and those carrying knives in city centres or similar.

Stop police searching & fining chefs, carpenters etc under s139 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA) and/or Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 and other knife related laws.

Obviously knife crime is a problem but I have heard report of the police stopping chefs, carpenters & electricians – and I believe at least one of these people was fined – under the regulations forbidding people from carrying knives in a public place.

Clearly there is no common sense to this at all, any more than there is common sense in the police stopping photographers & tourists under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

The Home Secretary had the good sense today to try to stop the police being so stupid about photography and the Terrorism Act.  Could she also take a look at the absurd way the various knife laws are applied by some police forces.

Those acts/laws might include:  The Violent Crimes Reduction Act 2008, The Knives Act 1997, the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and the Tackling Gangs Action Programme.

Why is this idea important?

Obviously knife crime is a problem but I have heard report of the police stopping chefs, carpenters & electricians – and I believe at least one of these people was fined – under the regulations forbidding people from carrying knives in a public place.

Clearly there is no common sense to this at all, any more than there is common sense in the police stopping photographers & tourists under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

The Home Secretary had the good sense today to try to stop the police being so stupid about photography and the Terrorism Act.  Could she also take a look at the absurd way the various knife laws are applied by some police forces.

Those acts/laws might include:  The Violent Crimes Reduction Act 2008, The Knives Act 1997, the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and the Tackling Gangs Action Programme.

Legalise Balisongs/Butterfly Knives.

Butterfly knives became illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, import and lend under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. I personally feel this is a pointless piece of legislation, butterfly knives, whilst they may look quite frightening, are no more dangerous than any other knife legally availiable in this country, and banning them has had no impact on violent crime whatsoever.

I propose that the 1988 Criminal Justice Act be ammended, allowing all those over 18 to once again be allowed to buy, sell and possess Butterfly Knives legally, in the United Kingdom.

Why is this idea important?

Butterfly knives became illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, import and lend under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. I personally feel this is a pointless piece of legislation, butterfly knives, whilst they may look quite frightening, are no more dangerous than any other knife legally availiable in this country, and banning them has had no impact on violent crime whatsoever.

I propose that the 1988 Criminal Justice Act be ammended, allowing all those over 18 to once again be allowed to buy, sell and possess Butterfly Knives legally, in the United Kingdom.

Put Lock Knives on the Same Standing as Folding Knives

The current situation where a penknife with a locking blade is illegal whereas a folding knife isn't is ludicrous.  Folding penknives are dangerous and result in far too many injuries.  THe law should be changes to allow a person to also carry a penknife with a locking blade of no more than 3 inches, the same requirement as the folding penknife.

The current law criminalises innocent people like myself who garden, fish and do woodcraft activities with their sons who have routinely carried a locking penknife since their early teens, in my case for over 30 years.

I doubt the restriction has made a single knife-wielding thug change their weapon of choice to a folding knife with a blade under 3 inches.

Why is this idea important?

The current situation where a penknife with a locking blade is illegal whereas a folding knife isn't is ludicrous.  Folding penknives are dangerous and result in far too many injuries.  THe law should be changes to allow a person to also carry a penknife with a locking blade of no more than 3 inches, the same requirement as the folding penknife.

The current law criminalises innocent people like myself who garden, fish and do woodcraft activities with their sons who have routinely carried a locking penknife since their early teens, in my case for over 30 years.

I doubt the restriction has made a single knife-wielding thug change their weapon of choice to a folding knife with a blade under 3 inches.

Repeal case law and allow the everyday carry of sub 3-inch locking folding penknives

Allow the everyday carry of sub 3-inch locking folding penknives, as per s139 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1988. Repeal the nonsensical and confusing case law (Harris v DPP [1993]) that bans the carry of a safe hand tool.

Why is this idea important?

Allow the everyday carry of sub 3-inch locking folding penknives, as per s139 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1988. Repeal the nonsensical and confusing case law (Harris v DPP [1993]) that bans the carry of a safe hand tool.

Switchblades and gravity knives

Due to tabloid paper hysteria and sinister portrails in 1950s hollywood movies, several highly functional tools were banned from sale and import.

Switchblades (flick knives) are folding knives simply designed to be opened with one hand at  the push of a button, leaving the other free. Historically these knives were marketed for fisherman working on rough seas, or ladies so as not to break a finger nail when opening a manual folding knife.

Gravity knives were notoriously designed for parachuters to be able to quickly cut themselves free and avoid dangers associated with landing on a fixed blade knife. These were placed in the same Act.

 

Repeal the following:

The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988

Why is this idea important?

Due to tabloid paper hysteria and sinister portrails in 1950s hollywood movies, several highly functional tools were banned from sale and import.

Switchblades (flick knives) are folding knives simply designed to be opened with one hand at  the push of a button, leaving the other free. Historically these knives were marketed for fisherman working on rough seas, or ladies so as not to break a finger nail when opening a manual folding knife.

Gravity knives were notoriously designed for parachuters to be able to quickly cut themselves free and avoid dangers associated with landing on a fixed blade knife. These were placed in the same Act.

 

Repeal the following:

The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988

REPEAL LAW OUT LAWING SAMURAI SWORDS

SILLY TYPICAL LABOUR PARTY KNEE JERK LAW BANNED SELL OR IMPORT OF SAMURAI SWORDS. CURVED BLADES OVER A CERTAIN SIZE (CAN'T REMEMBER EXACT SIZE) BANNED BUT HIS DID NOT  INCLUDE RAPIERS, CLAYMORES, AND NUMEROUS OTHER TYPES OF THIS SIZE. SO WHAT DO MANUFACTURES DO? YES THEY NOW MAKE SAMURAI SWORDS STRAIGHT BLADED.  WHAT DID DICKENS SAY ABOUT THE LAW????? COME ON YOU NEW GUYS IN OFFICE SHOW SOME SENSE REPEAL THIS SILLY LAW AND LET SERIOUS COLLECTORS BUY AND IMPORT PROPER SHAPED CURVED SAMURAI SWORDS. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO USE A SWORD TO KILL SOMEONE ARE YOU PROTECTING THE PUBLIC BY MAKING THEM BUY A STRAIGHT BLADED ONE?

Why is this idea important?

SILLY TYPICAL LABOUR PARTY KNEE JERK LAW BANNED SELL OR IMPORT OF SAMURAI SWORDS. CURVED BLADES OVER A CERTAIN SIZE (CAN'T REMEMBER EXACT SIZE) BANNED BUT HIS DID NOT  INCLUDE RAPIERS, CLAYMORES, AND NUMEROUS OTHER TYPES OF THIS SIZE. SO WHAT DO MANUFACTURES DO? YES THEY NOW MAKE SAMURAI SWORDS STRAIGHT BLADED.  WHAT DID DICKENS SAY ABOUT THE LAW????? COME ON YOU NEW GUYS IN OFFICE SHOW SOME SENSE REPEAL THIS SILLY LAW AND LET SERIOUS COLLECTORS BUY AND IMPORT PROPER SHAPED CURVED SAMURAI SWORDS. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO USE A SWORD TO KILL SOMEONE ARE YOU PROTECTING THE PUBLIC BY MAKING THEM BUY A STRAIGHT BLADED ONE?

Don’t prohibit everyone from carrying a knife

I feel like a criminal whenever I go to my allotment with a knife for cutting off the tops of carrots or leeks or rhubarb. I've stopped taking a knife in my rucksack when I go out for the day and have food that needs cutting up.

Why is this idea important?

I feel like a criminal whenever I go to my allotment with a knife for cutting off the tops of carrots or leeks or rhubarb. I've stopped taking a knife in my rucksack when I go out for the day and have food that needs cutting up.

Reduce the impact of Knife Laws

Reduce the enforcement of Knife Laws so that innocent people are not hounded for carrying knives and going about their ordinary business or lives.  The laws have resulted in hardly any convictions or imprisonments of criminals but many innocent people have been hounded by the police and courts.

Why is this idea important?

Reduce the enforcement of Knife Laws so that innocent people are not hounded for carrying knives and going about their ordinary business or lives.  The laws have resulted in hardly any convictions or imprisonments of criminals but many innocent people have been hounded by the police and courts.

De-criminalise carrying of knives, but…

A four-year sentence for carrying a knife is ridiculous; no judge could recommend that and the kids know it. But there should be a penalty for threatening someone with a knife, even if no knife is visible.

Why is this idea important?

A four-year sentence for carrying a knife is ridiculous; no judge could recommend that and the kids know it. But there should be a penalty for threatening someone with a knife, even if no knife is visible.

change law of carrying knives

carrying a knife should not be an offence. under sikh traditions carrying a kirpan (small knife) is an article of faith. in scottish traditions a knife (the sgian dubh) is carried in a holster attached to a kilt for traditional & celebratory reasons. that said why should anyone elses carrying for lawful reasons be any different. if a chef carries a knife to the restaurant to cook are they a criminal: no, if a gardener carries a knife for gardening purposes are they a criminal agagin:no. carrying a knife should not be illegal, only attempting to use knife for crime should be illegal.

Why is this idea important?

carrying a knife should not be an offence. under sikh traditions carrying a kirpan (small knife) is an article of faith. in scottish traditions a knife (the sgian dubh) is carried in a holster attached to a kilt for traditional & celebratory reasons. that said why should anyone elses carrying for lawful reasons be any different. if a chef carries a knife to the restaurant to cook are they a criminal: no, if a gardener carries a knife for gardening purposes are they a criminal agagin:no. carrying a knife should not be illegal, only attempting to use knife for crime should be illegal.

Prevention of Crime Act 1988 Section 139 change ‘good reason’, to ‘reasonable excuse’ and explicitly allow lock knives

It is, in my view, wrong that, while a 2.5 inch folding penknife is legal, it is illegal if the knife has a safety lock.  Parliament explicitly wrote this law to allow people to carry folding knives of a particular length.  However they(you) did not explicitly consider folding knives with a safety lock and this was left up to judicial interpretation.  

The interpretation given was that folding knives with a safety lock were indistinguishable from fixed blade knives.  Take another look.

 

Why is this idea important?

It is, in my view, wrong that, while a 2.5 inch folding penknife is legal, it is illegal if the knife has a safety lock.  Parliament explicitly wrote this law to allow people to carry folding knives of a particular length.  However they(you) did not explicitly consider folding knives with a safety lock and this was left up to judicial interpretation.  

The interpretation given was that folding knives with a safety lock were indistinguishable from fixed blade knives.  Take another look.

 

Repeal the samurai sword ban

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons)(Amendment) Order 2008

This law made the import, sale and hire of any sword with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or over in length, unless antique or made in a traditional manner.  This was a knee-jerk response to the attack on Nigel Jones, MP, and the media coverage of the use of such weapons in other attacks.

The amendment to the law was unnecessary.  The perpetrators of these crimes could already be tried under existing laws for possession of an offensive weapon, assault, murder, etc.  The perpetrators of these crimes could have used an alternative weapon, had this ban already been in place.

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons)(Amendment) Order 2008

This law made the import, sale and hire of any sword with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or over in length, unless antique or made in a traditional manner.  This was a knee-jerk response to the attack on Nigel Jones, MP, and the media coverage of the use of such weapons in other attacks.

The amendment to the law was unnecessary.  The perpetrators of these crimes could already be tried under existing laws for possession of an offensive weapon, assault, murder, etc.  The perpetrators of these crimes could have used an alternative weapon, had this ban already been in place.