Blade Length limits for Knife Carry in the U.S.-PART I
One of THR's members has a book and webpage about knife laws in the 50 states and most major cities. I haven't looked at it thoroughly, but at first glance it seems very promising and more authoritative than the effort on this page
If nothing else, this page should make it very clear that state knife carry laws are a disaster.
This is only a summary, and glosses over various particulars that may be important to you. This is not legal advice. Some of this information could be flat-out wrong. If there are case cites for a State, chances are that the other information for that state is fairly accurate.
Bernard Levine's site has collected statutes for all the States, but the occasional caselaw quotes lack citations.
Carl Donath has a state knife law summary similar to this one, and perhaps less confusing.
Status: Case law for States through CT, plus FL, TX, and a few others, has been thoroughly investigated. Longer notes indicate more case law, but does not mean the law is any clearer.
Send corrections, updates, and case cites to rkba-tfl @ soze . net -- don't forget to mention which State your information relates to.
________________________________________
Local Ordinances (only scattered cities are included)
Brief summary of [Practical] Blade Length limits for Knife Carry in the U.S.
State open / cncl -folder- -fixed- dagger auto bali univ notes
FED both 2" s no no no no n/a
AL (BL)
cncl yes <"long"* <"long"* yes yes 13A-11-50; * caselaw calls long single-edged knives bowie knives, which are banned for concealed carry; see Smelley v State 472 So.2d 715 (1985). Butcher knives are bowies via Brewer v State 113 Ala. 106 (1897); see also Haynes v State 6 S.W.2d 319.
open yes yes yes yes yes
AK (BL)
cncl yes* no no no no 11.61.200-240; * statute bans switchblades and gravity knives completely, and it bans concealed carry of anything but an "ordinary pocketknife". Balisongs are not gravity knives: State v. Strange.
open yes yes yes no yes
AZ (BL)
cncl yes*? no no no ?* 13-3102; * "pocket knife" only; no useful caselaw. Statute is constitutional: Dano v Collins 802 P.2d 1021 (1990).
open yes yes yes yes yes
AR (BL)
cncl 3.5" s 3.5" s 3.5" s 3.5" s 3.5" s 5-73-120,121; travelling exception; sec. 120 bans carry of anything with intent to use as a weapon. A three-justice dissent in Garcia v State 969 S.W.2d 591 (1998) makes a good argument against the constitutionality of the 3.5" limit, with a good U.S. Supreme Court quote toward the end of the dissent. Sec. 120 was enacted after 121, and they overlap; 121 probably should have been repealed, and 121 is probably unconstitutional. Also, Nesdahl v State 890 S.W.2d 596 (1995) and Smith v State 411 S.W.2d 510 (1967).
open 3.5" s 3.5" s 3.5" s 3.5" s 3.5" s
CA (BL)
cncl yes no no no no* see 626.10 12020(a), 653k;See Jim March's Excellent CA knife law summary and the CA county ordinances in the "local ordinances" link just above this table. For instance, L.A. bans open carry of 3"+ knives (with vague "lawful recreation" exception); Oakland bans 3"+ knives completely. A much despised case, People ex rel. Mautner v Quattrone 211 Cal.App.3d 1389 (1989), held that butterfly knives are covered by CA's switchblade prohibition. People v Rosalio S. 41 Cal Rptr.2d 534 deals with a leatherman and the 2.5" school limit, finding the leatherman illegal because blades are legally measured from tip to handle, not just along the sharpened edge.
open yes yes no no no*
CO (BL)
cncl 3.5" s 3.5" s 3.5" s no no 18-12-101..105; open carry of anything may be legal, but expect to be hassled particularly in Denver. There is a hunting/fishing exception. Knives <3.5" are illegal to carry concealed with intent to use as a weapon, but otherwise are okay: A.P.E. v People 20 P.3d 1179 (2001). The knife in that case is not described, but presumably it is a balisong that was ruled to be a gravity knife at trial, mentioned in People v Pickett, 571 P.2d 1078 (1977). People v Gross 830 P.2d 933 (1992) is sometimes cited in reference to CO knife laws, but it's really a stretch to connect that to typical enforcement of sec. 102.
open yes yes yes no no
CT (BL)
cncl 3.4"* cl / 4" s ? 1.5" s 1.5" s no 53-206; * vague caselaw. Highly dubious. <3" or a non-tactical folder is safer. 3.5" knife used in self defense may be prosecutable: State v Holloway, 528 A.2d 1176 (1987), despite State v Harris 258 A.2d 319 (1968) which held that without obvious intent, the 4" limit was strict and could not be lowered by a finding that the knife was a dangerous weapon. CT is truly a land of sheep: in State v Sealy 546 A.2d 271 (1988), a knife with a 4.5" blade is described as a butcher knife.
open 3.4"* cl / 4" s ? 1.5" s 1.5" s no
DE (BL)
cncl 3" s no no no no 11.222,11.1442,11.1446; 1446 bans switchblades (anything using a spring or gravity)
open yes yes yes no no?
D.C. (BL)
cncl 3" s 3" s 3" s no 3" s 22-4514,22-3204; 4.5" folder is illegal: Scott v. United States, 243 A.2d 54 (1968). Technically, by law knives with blades longer than three inches are illegal only with intent to use unlawfully, but as in many states, the burden of proof is typically reversed when dealing with larger knives.
open 3" s 3" s 3" s no 3" s
FL (BL)
cncl 4"* cl no no no no 790.001,01; * It seems dangerous to rely on this. L.B. v State 700 So.2d 370 (1997) suggests that a closed folder of 3.75" is okay, due in part to an identical AG opinion from 1951 (stating knives up to 4" are common pocketknives). However, that "common pocketknife" exception is only for the definition of "weapon". "Concealed weapon" in 790.001 has no "common pocketknife" exception as the "weapon" statute does; this distinction is presented in Baldwin v State, 857 So. 2d 249 (2003). State v. Ortiz, 504 So. 2d 39: a 4" folder may be a concealed weapon because determination of "common pocketknife" is a jury question. Folding knives must be carried closed: Walls v State 730 So. 2d 294 (1999), Porter v State 798 So.2d 855 (2001). A tactical knife may not be a "common pocketknife": J.D.L.R. v State 701 So. 2d 626 (1997). There is plenty of other interesting caselaw: 504 So. 2d 39 (1987); Nystrom 777 So. 2d 1013; State v. A.D.H., 429 So. 2d 1316 (1983); Simmons v. State, 780 So. 2d 263 (2001); Garcia v State, 789 So. 2d 1059 (2001). For legal status of icepicks and razors, see State v. Tremblay, 642 So. 2d 64 (1994) and Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321 (1989)
open yes yes yes yes yes
GA (BL)
cncl ? no no no ? 16-11-126,127,127.1; The statutes prohibit carrying any offensive/defensive weapon concealed. It is also illegal to carry any such knife to a public gathering. In short, don't ever claim self defense as a reason for carrying a concealed knife. Carry laws at schools or at school events are much more strict (no dirks, bowies, switchblades, or knives with blades over 2"). Violation of those school restrictions (127.1) is a felony.
open yes yes yes yes yes
HI (BL)
cncl yes* yes* no no no 134-51,52,53; Those sections ban dirk/dagger/deadly weapons, switchblades (spring/gravity), and balisong/butterfly knives, respectively. * must not be principally designed as a weapon.
open yes yes yes no no
ID (BL)
cncl no 18-3302; Dirks and bowie knives are illegal except in the wilderness. So are "other deadly or dangerous weapon", whatever that's supposed to mean.
open no
IA (BL)
cncl 5" s 5" s no no no 702.7 (def.), 724.4; Balisongs are "dangerous weapons" and are illegal to carry concealed: In Re. F.A.B. (2004). It's likely that daggers and autos would also be "dangerous weapons". (Note: entry fixed 2004-03-13)
open yes yes yes yes yes
IL (BL)
cncl yes yes yes no According to statute, a crime involving most knife carry only occurs if there is intent to use the knife unlawfully. Like several other state, though, in liberal areas like Chicago it's likely that unlawful intent would be presumed.
open yes yes yes no
IN (BL)
cncl yes yes yes no yes IC 35-47-5-2
open yes yes yes no yes
KS (BL)
cncl 4" s no no no no
open 4" s no no no no
KY (BL)
cncl SAK?* cl no no no no 500.080, 527.020; * Stout v Commonwealth 33 S.W.3d 531 (2000) held that a 3" locking folder is deadly weapon. Also see Mason v Commonwealth 396 S.W.2d 797 (1965), Montgomery v Commonwealth 346 S.W.2d 479 (1961), Williams v Commonwealth 304 Ky. 359 / 200 S.W.2d 926
open yes yes yes yes yes no
LA (BL)
cncl <4"* cl no no no * State v. Ordon suggests that a 4" knife is illegal;
open yes? yes yes no
ME (BL)
cncl yes yes yes no yes
open yes yes yes no yes
MA (BL)
cncl yes yes no 1.5"? s yes 269-10(b)... a typical lawyer-turned-legislator-crafted 232-word sentence fragment. I have no idea what it means, and I haven't found any illuminating caselaw.
open yes yes no 1.5"? s yes
MD (BL)
cncl yes ?* no no no GCR 4-101; * technically "yes" unless it's intended as a weapon, but probably no. Again, this is a situation where intent is required by the statute, but ends up being presumed unless the defendent can prove otherwise. Anderson v State broadly discusses the statute and some D.C. caselaw on the subject.
open yes yes yes yes yes
MI (BL)
cncl yes yes no no yes 750.226a; 750.227; It's illegal to carry anything above a 3" statutory limit with intent to use unlawfully. The standard caution applies: unlawful intent could be presumed by a court if the knife is scary enough. Also, no carry of daggers/stilettos, concealed or not, is allowed in a vehicle.
open yes yes yes no yes
MN (BL)
cncl yes? yes? ? no yes? 609.66(1)(4) and (5);
