What is considered to be a "Dangerous Weapon"?

[Subjection1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WI

In Wisconsin, a bill was signed into law by the governor that apparently removes all restrictions on owning and carrying a knife. However, they left one legal restriction in place that seems to indicate that the law can be redefined at any time. Here's what I found:

"AB 142 removes all restrictions on switchblades (automatic) knives and concealed carry of all knives from Wisconsin statutes with the single exception that a person who is prohibited under state law from possessing a firearm may also not go armed with a concealed knife that is a “dangerous weapon.”

Dangerous Weapon? Wouldn't that mean that any knife, regardless of type or length, is dangerous if it happens to be sharp? Being sharp makes it dangerous, according to the definition of "dangerous" which is, "able or likely to cause physical injury". Isn't such a restriction just a backdoor way of saying that all knives can be considered illegal if a cop or judge decides to do so?

After hearing that all restrictions on knives have been repealed, I thought of getting something that could be utilized for defense without the expense and legal loopholes that exist with our state's CCW permit for firearms, not to mention that a knife would be far easier to carry than a firearm during warmer weather conditions. But I'd like to get it clear about the new legal standard about carrying one first.

 

[Zigner]

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2001/statutes/statutes/939/I/22

939.22 Words and phrases defined
...
(10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.


ETA: If I use my steak knife to cut my steak, it's not a "dangerous weapon." If I use my steak knife to cut the guy standing next to me because I didn't like the color of his belt, it is a "dangerous weapon".

ETA Again: If I have my steak knife concealed in my bag as I carry it from the car to my house so that I can use it to cut my steak during dinner, it's not a "dangerous weapon." If I can my steak knife concealed in my bag as I carry it from the car to my house because I intend to stab the guy that's been messing around with my wife, it is a "dangerous weapon."

 

[Subjection1]

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2001/statutes/statutes/939/I/22

939.22 Words and phrases defined
...
(10) "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.


ETA: If I use my steak knife to cut my steak, it's not a "dangerous weapon." If I use my steak knife to cut the guy standing next to me because I didn't like the color of his belt, it is a "dangerous weapon".

ETA Again: If I have my steak knife concealed in my bag as I carry it from the car to my house so that I can use it to cut my steak during dinner, it's not a "dangerous weapon." If I can my steak knife concealed in my bag as I carry it from the car to my house because I intend to stab the guy that's been messing around with my wife, it is a "dangerous weapon."

Ok, then using your second definition, what if I have a knife that is clearly designed as a defensive knife and I'm carrying it with the intention of using it if I were attacked by someone? One that I was thinking of is the Cold Steel branded one.

Clearly, it's designed as a defensive knife. If I were searched by the police and it was found that I had this one, and the police asked me why I have it and I said, "For defense if needed", would it qualify as "dangerous" if it's use was specifically for defensive use? I suppose I could name some other use for it if asked, but if it's designed for defense, it would be hard to say that it's just a knife for the purpose of having a knife for utilitarian purposes.

 

[Zigner]

Ok, then using your second definition, what if I have a knife that is clearly designed as a defensive knife and I'm carrying it with the intention of using it if I were attacked by someone? One that I was thinking of is the Cold Steel branded one .

Clearly, it's designed as a defensive knife. If I were searched by the police and it was found that I had this one, and the police asked me why I have it and I said, "For defense if needed", would it qualify as "dangerous" if it's use was specifically for defensive use? I suppose I could name some other use for it if asked, but if it's designed for defense, it would be hard to say that it's just a knife for the purpose of having a knife for utilitarian purposes.

What do you expect a knife to do if you had to use it for self defense? You'd expect it to injure or kill the other party. Your knife (no matter what it's marketed as) would be a "dangerous weapon."

 

[Subjection1]

What do you expect a knife to do if you had to use it for self defense? You'd expect it to injure or kill the other party. Your knife (no matter what it's marketed as) would be a "dangerous weapon."

Then wouldn't that mean that it's still illegal to carry a knife for defensive purposes, even though the law says, ""AB 142 removes all restrictions on switchblades (automatic) knives and concealed carry of all knives from Wisconsin statutes"? It seems contradictory, which is why I'm confused about this. If what you're saying is correct, then all knives would be illegal for carrying concealed even though the common understanding is that the new law removes all restrictions (unless you're already not permitted to own a firearm).

BTW, here's a link to the actual text of the law, which is confusing in itself: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab142 but interpretations I've read about it all say that it removes ALL restrictions on the possession and concealed carry of any knife. But if this were true, it doesn't seem reasonable that a knife carried for defensive purposes would still be banned, especially if it wasn't used in the commission of a crime. Many people carry knives for defensive purposes. I just want to get this confusion cleared up so I don't run afoul of the law.

 

[Zigner]

Then wouldn't that mean that it's still illegal to carry a knife for defensive purposes, even though the law says, ""AB 142 removes all restrictions on switchblades (automatic) knives and concealed carry of all knives from Wisconsin statutes"? It seems contradictory, which is why I'm confused about this. If what you're saying is correct, then all knives would be illegal for carrying concealed even though the common understanding is that the new law removes all restrictions (unless you're already not permitted to own a firearm).

BTW, here's a link to the actual text of the law, which is confusing in itself: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab142 but interpretations I've read about it all say that it removes ALL restrictions on the possession and concealed carry of any knife. But if this were true, it doesn't seem reasonable that a knife carried for defensive purposes would still be banned, especially if it wasn't used in the commission of a crime. Many people carry knives for defensive purposes. I just want to get this confusion cleared up so I don't run afoul of the law.

I don't know why you think "AB 142 removes all restrictions on switchblades (automatic) knives and concealed carry of all knives from Wisconsin statutes".

EDIT:
Disregard my above statement. What I don't understand is why you think it's confusing. The simple fact of the matter is that if you're restricted from (edit: owning/possessing) a firearm, you're also restricted from carrying a knife that is considered a dangerous weapon.

PS: Your link above links to an old version of the bill that has nothing to do with your question.

 

[xylene]

clearly a defensive weapon?

Um, that a double edged boot knife, a dirk in many states.

This law is brand new and there is not sufficient case law on the issues you raise.

You don't want to be the test case, you just don't

Consider to go with a more conservatively styled lockback or liner lock folding knife with a blade no longer than the width of your palm.

(an no fixed blade, no assisted openers, no swithblades, no balisongs, nothing that looks mean - and you know what I mean)

 

[Zigner]

I'm creating a new post to restate what I said above:

The simple fact of the matter is that if you're restricted from owning/possessing a firearm, you're also restricted from concealed carrying of a knife that is considered a dangerous weapon.

 

[Subjection1]

I don't know why you think "AB 142 removes all restrictions on switchblades (automatic) knives and concealed carry of all knives from Wisconsin statutes".

EDIT:
Disregard my above statement. What I don't understand is why you think it's confusing. The simple fact of the matter is that if you're restricted from (edit: owning/possessing) a firearm, you're also restricted from carrying a knife that is considered a dangerous weapon.

PS: Your link above links to an old version of the bill that has nothing to do with your question.

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying. So if I'm not restricted from owning or carrying a firearm, then I'm not restricted from carrying a knife, and the "dangerous weapon" part only applies to those who are restricted. Hmmmm. I guess it wouldn't apply to me then, although it begs the question for those who are restricted of how one knife would be considered dangerous while another one wouldn't. If both are sharp and capable of cutting, then both are dangerous.

 

[Zigner]

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying. So if I'm not restricted from owning or carrying a firearm, then I'm not restricted from carrying a knife, and the "dangerous weapon" part only applies to those who are restricted. Hmmmm. I guess it wouldn't apply to me then, although it begs the question for those who are restricted of how one knife would be considered dangerous while another one wouldn't. If both are sharp and capable of cutting, then both are dangerous.

I gave you the legal definition of "dangerous weapon" and I gave you examples. At this point, we're diving deep in to the realm of "hypothetical".

 

[quincy]

Ok, I think I understand what you're saying. So if I'm not restricted from owning or carrying a firearm, then I'm not restricted from carrying a knife, and the "dangerous weapon" part only applies to those who are restricted. Hmmmm. I guess it wouldn't apply to me then, although it begs the question for those who are restricted of how one knife would be considered dangerous while another one wouldn't. If both are sharp and capable of cutting, then both are dangerous.

The law (at least as it stood in January) does not really provide an exact definition of "dangerous weapon," and it could be judged too vague as worded if it were to be challenged. Essentially, though, and as worded, anyone can carry any knife in Wisconsin if they are not prohibited from possessing a firearm and any knife also could be considered a dangerous weapon.

Whether a weapon is a dangerous weapon is often left for a court to determine and will be based on the use and the intent of the person charged. For example, I know of one case in Michigan where someone was charged and convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and the dangerous weapon was a foot.

Zigner provided this earlier but following is a link to Wisconsin Chapter 939. Under 939.22, words and phrases defined, the definition of "dangerous weapon" includes ".. any device or instrumentality which in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm."

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/I/22

 

[Subjection1]

The law (at least as it stood in January) does not really provide an exact definition of "dangerous weapon," and it could be judged too vague as worded if it were to be challenged. Essentially, though, and as worded, anyone can carry any knife in Wisconsin if they are not prohibited from possessing a firearm and any knife also could be considered a dangerous weapon.

Whether a weapon is a dangerous weapon is often left for a court to determine and will be based on the use and the intent of the person charged. For example, I know of one case in Michigan where someone was charged and convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon and the dangerous weapon was a foot.

Zigner provided this earlier but following is a link to Wisconsin Chapter 939. Under 939.22, words and phrases defined, the definition of "dangerous weapon" includes ".. any device or instrumentality which in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm."

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/I/22

I clicked your link and I see what you mean about the definition being vague. "“Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm."

I hate to say it, but this actually raises more questions. Since concealed carry of a firearm is now legal with a permit, I'm surprised they use the term, "dangerous weapon" in a way that includes firearms. Obviously, a firearm is carried for defense, which means it is "designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm". They also mention "electric weapon", even though stun guns have now been legalized, which is another device designed and intended as a defensive item. Wouldn't a knife that's designed for defense just a firearm or stun gun is, be viewed the same way?

 

[Subjection1]

I gave you the legal definition of "dangerous weapon" and I gave you examples. At this point, we're diving deep in to the realm of "hypothetical".

That's true, but I'd rather ask in advance rather than while I'm sitting in jail.
They say ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's why I'm trying to become informed before doing anything else.

EDIT: I think I have my answer now! I was posting my question on another forum and someone showed me this:

941.23  Carrying concealed weapon.
(1) In this section:
(ag) “Carry" has the meaning given in s. 175.60 (1) (ag).
(ap) Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (10), “dangerous weapon" does not include a knife.
(ar) “Destructive device" has the meaning given in 18 USC 921 (a) (4).
(b) “Firearm silencer" has the meaning given in s. 941.298 (1).

Notice the section I bolded in the middle. Seems pretty clear cut (no pun intended)!

 

[quincy]

I clicked your link and I see what you mean about the definition being vague. "“Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm."

I hate to say it, but this actually raises more questions. Since concealed carry of a firearm is now legal with a permit, I'm surprised they use the term, "dangerous weapon" in a way that includes firearms. Obviously, a firearm is carried for defense, which means it is "designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm". They also mention "electric weapon", even though stun guns have now been legalized, which is another device designed and intended as a defensive item. Wouldn't a knife that's designed for defense just a firearm or stun gun is, be viewed the same way?

In any incident, you potentially could be charged with USE of a dangerous weapon if someone is harmed (or killed), regardless of the weapon used (including a knife). Although your knife is legal to carry, you must use it with caution. A defense if charged with use of a dangerous weapon would be that the knife was carried legally, used only in self defense, and was not carried with the INTENT to harm someone.

Intent is often a difficult element for a prosecutor to prove.

A prosecutor would need to show you carried the knife with the sole purpose of cutting (harming) a person. This can be easier to show if you sought out a specific person and engaged him in a fight. It is harder to show if a random individual approaches you and a fight ensues.

Here is a link to the concealed carry law: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/III/23

The law is saying that it is legal (for most) to CARRY a knife for proper purposes and you cannot be charged with carrying a dangerous weapon - but it is not legal to USE a knife for nefarious purposes. You could be charged with, for example, assault with a dangerous weapon, even if the weapon used is a legal-to-carry knife.

 

[Subjection1]

In any incident, you potentially could be charged with use of a dangerous weapon if someone is harmed (or killed), regardless of the weapon (including a knife). Although your weapon is legal to carry, your defense would be that you used the weapon in self defense and did not carry the weapon with the INTENT to harm someone.

Intent is often a difficult element for a prosecutor to prove.

You can go back to Zigner's example of carrying a knife to cut a steak or carrying a knife to cut a person. But for the actions of another, you would have used your knife to cut a steak. A prosecutor would need to show you carried the knife instead with the sole purpose of cutting (harming) a person.

The latter can be easier to show if you sought out a specific person and engaged him in a fight. The latter is harder to show if a random individual approaches you and engages you in a fight.

The law is saying that it is legal (for most) to carry a weapon for proper purposes but it is not legal to carry one for nefarious purposes.

I understand. If a self-defense situation came up, I'd have to deal with that when the time comes. No way to predict what the circumstances would be for that. But for now, I probably could carry it for the next 10 years and have more of a chance of being "caught" with it by police than for me to have to take it out and use it to save my life. But to be honest, there was an incident at least 5 years ago when I had walked to a nearby public park. I was on the far side when another guy showed up with a pitbull that wasn't on a leash. When the dog saw me on the other side of the park, he came running at me at what was probably his top speed. Being unarmed, all I could do was stand still and hope for the best. The dog ran up to me and sniffed me quick and then ran back to its owner on the other side of the park. The owner never even called the dog back to him or did anything to keep the dog away from me. I don't want to be helpless like that again. Personally, I'd rather carry a gun, and I could even get a permit to do that, but I'd be committing a felony as soon as I crossed my property line because I live within 1,000 feet of a school. It seems that I have less chance of running afoul of the law if I carry a knife without a permit rather than carrying a gun with a permit.