How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
villagevoice.com
How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
1–10 of 168 posts
Re: How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
#2Needs a (2014) on it. Looks like not much has changed in the mean time and the bill to sort this out was vetoed at the beginning of this year. https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/officials-advocates...
Re: How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
#3It's the Village Voice, which is a pretty bad source, but I've read most of the article anyway, expecting a definition of 'gravity knife' at some point and now given up.
Re: How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
#4It's the Village Voice, which is a pretty bad source, but I've read most of the article anyway, expecting a definition of 'gravity knife' at some point and now given up.
Switchblade that opens one handed by gravity or flick of wrist instead of a spring.
Re: How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
#5It's the Village Voice, which is a pretty bad source, but I've read most of the article anyway, expecting a definition of 'gravity knife' at some point and now given up.
This is a deeply-researched, well-written exposé on a troubling, ongoing injustice.
But you're giving up after two paragraphs, badmouthing the publication, and the author, because they don't start with the glossary?
FWIW, "gravity knifes" are defined when the article turns to the legal situation. In making readers wait a bit, the article may actually be trying to recreate the thoughts of these people caught up in the law: "WTF is a gravity knife?"
But, wow, it must suck to be a good journalist these days with these sorts of readers.
Re: How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
#6tl;dr: racial profiling and quotas. It's just an exploitable law (if using a dubiously-stretched interpretation) which is a handy pretext for arbitrarily arresting people.
The title is essentially wrong, in that it's not the law itself that has landed people in jail, it's the police wilfully mis-enforcing it.
Re: How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
#7It's the Village Voice, which is a pretty bad source, but I've read most of the article anyway, expecting a definition of 'gravity knife' at some point and now given up.
As defined by New York, basically any modern folding knife. If you can open it one-handed, it’s a “gravity knife”.
I went to NY last year. I could have been prosecuted under this law.
Re: How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
#8It's the Village Voice, which is a pretty bad source, but I've read most of the article anyway, expecting a definition of 'gravity knife' at some point and now given up.
Switchblade that opens one handed by gravity or flick of wrist instead of a spring.
I believe that any knife that can be opened one handed would qualify, no?
This would be a "gravity knife": https://www.amazon.com/Victorinox-Swiss-Trekker-Pocket-Knife...
For context, I carried one of these throughout college for random boxes, cutting wires, etc.
Re: How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
#9It's the Village Voice, which is a pretty bad source, but I've read most of the article anyway, expecting a definition of 'gravity knife' at some point and now given up.
Switchblade that opens one handed by gravity or flick of wrist instead of a spring.
It's not a switchblade. That's like calling a handgun a 'rifle with a shorter barrel'. There is a distinction between a switchblade (which opens at the operation of a switch or button), a gravity knife (which opens as you described),and a spring assisted knife (which has a spring but not one strong enough to open the blade on its own).
It's dangerous to mix and match words when describing an item that could or could not get you in a heap of trouble for carrying and or possessing in your particular jurisdiction.
Re: How a ’50s-Era New York Knife Law Has Landed Thousands in Jail
#10tl;dr: racial profiling and quotas. It's just an exploitable law (if using a dubiously-stretched interpretation) which is a handy pretext for arbitrarily arresting people. The title is essentially wrong, in that it's not the law itself that has landed people in jail, it's the police wilfully mis-enforcing it.
The law itself still needs fixing though, as it's open to such willful misinterpretations.