united-states us-constitution weapons school louisiana
Do school zone knife exclusions violate the 14th Amendment?
<p>In the US, most if not all states have some kind of law(s) in place that prohibit the carrying of knives in school zones.  While most states define a knife as a weapon by edge length, I can not find any legal definition of what constitutes an edge or what constitutes a knife as a weapon in regards to school zones.</p>
<p>Many things that some people may call a knife are not weapons at all such as palette knives, butter knives, oyster knives, etc.  Palette knives are even required school supplies for many schools that have an art program.</p>
<p>Then there are things that look like knives, like nail files, letter openers, etc., which are not called knives, have no cutting edge, but which I've heard of people getting in trouble for purely on the grounds that they &quot;look like knives&quot;.</p>
<p>There are also many tools that have an edge sharp enough to potentially cut or stab but not things that people would call a knife, like keys, chisels, box openers, saws, screwdrivers, etc. Many of these tools are allowed on school property by maintenance personnel and are required class materials in certain courses like wood-working, and keys are literally carried by everyone who drives into or through a school zone.</p>
<p>Then there are also &quot;blunted weapons&quot;. &quot;Wall-hangers&quot; are decorative swords, daggers, etc. that look like they could be real weapons, but are blunted for safety, and so have no effective cutting or stabbing edges.  Similarly, a fencing rapier also looks like a full length sword, but has been blunted and is required equipment on school campuses that have fencing teams.</p>
<p>On top of all of this, a handful of states, such as Louisiana, don't even have edge length restrictions that differentiate a short-bladed &quot;tool&quot; from a long bladed &quot;weapon&quot;.</p>
<p>So the question is: with all the ambiguity and exceptions, are there any rulings in place that would allow a reasonable person of at least average intelligence to determine what constitutes the crime, and if not, could knife restrictions in school zones be considered <a href="https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2228" rel="noreferrer">void for vagueness</a> under the 14th Amendment?</p>

<p>School administrators have the right to try to express the law in seemingly simpler language, but they do not have the right to enforce their misstatements of the law. <a href="https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=78741" rel="noreferrer">The law of Louisiana</a> does not refer to knives at all</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Carrying a firearm, or dangerous weapon as defined in <a href="https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78337" rel="noreferrer">R.S. 14:2</a>,
by a student or nonstudent on school property, at a school sponsored
function, or in a firearm-free zone is unlawful...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&quot;Dangerous weapon&quot; is defined so that it &quot;includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm&quot;. The law does not exhaustively list the things that count as firearms or dangerous weapons, so every individual is held responsible for knowing what the courts have held to constitute &quot;dangerous weapons&quot;. A novice interpretation (not relying on case law) might lead to the conclusion that a speargun is not a &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; (perhaps on the theory that it is used underwater to spear fish), but a reasonable interpretation of &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; suggests that it is a dangerous weapon because it can be used to kill a person. The same is true of a pencil, as well as a dog.</p>
<p>You can turn to <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/article/jaws-bite-claws-snatch" rel="noreferrer">this article</a> for an example of the dangerous weapon status of a dog, a propos <a href="https://casetext.com/case/state-v-michels-1" rel="noreferrer">Louisiana v. Michels</a>, where defendant was &quot;armed with a dangerous weapon&quot;. That court recited previous case law to the effect that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;the dangerousness of the instrumentality because of its use is a
factual question for the jury&quot; State v. Munoz, 575 So.2d 848, 850</p>
</blockquote>
<p>RX 14:3 also states that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The articles of this Code cannot be extended by analogy so as to
create crimes not provided for herein; however, in order to promote
justice and to effect the objects of the law, all of its provisions
shall be given a genuine construction, according to the fair import of
their words, taken in their usual sense, in connection with the
context, and with reference to the purpose of the provision</p>
</blockquote>
<p>which means that if faced with a novel application (dog, pencil, or speargun), the jury can decide based on &quot;context and purpose&quot;, not just narrow words. The article points to a law review article by a lawyer involved in the 1942 codification of Louisiana criminal law  that &quot;the code was to be read as a civilian document, not a mere compilation of common law rules&quot;, thus the code is shorter and uses plain language.</p>
<p>The article then reviews a number of previous rulings on the scope of &quot;dangerous weapon&quot;, starting with <a href="https://casetext.com/case/state-v-calvin-4" rel="noreferrer">Louisiana v. Calvin</a> where it was ruled that teeth and fists are not dangerous weapons, even though you can kill a person with your fists. It therefore turns out that a &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; must be an inanimate object, under Louisiana law.</p>
<p>A knife <em>can</em> be found to be a dangerous weapon, as reported in <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-41425-CR0.pdf" rel="noreferrer">this opinion</a> (deportation dependent on a prior criminal conviction for felony aggravated battery, specifically referring to R.S. 14.2(3) and deeming a knife to be a dangerous weapon). Since that conviction is no being appealed at the state level, details of the knife-usage are omitted, so all we know is that a knife was used.</p>
<p>Insofar as box cutters were the essential weapons that brought about the airplane hijackings on 9/11, it is not unreasonable to at least consider that they are within the scope of &quot;dangerous weapon&quot; (I would not, but that's a matter for the jury). A butter knife or especially a pencil cannot reasonably be deemed to be &quot;dangerous weapons&quot;. But there doesn't seem to be any case law specifically addressing these objects. If a pencil were actually used as a weapon, perhaps the jury might find that a pencil (so used) was a dangerous weapon. However, the question is about a law forbidding the mere possession of a dangerous weapon, eliminating how it was actually used from the calculation.</p>
<p>It is extremely unlikely that I would get arrested for driving past a school with a screwdriver in my car.</p>

<p>No.  Normally schools or school districts will have definitions of their terms covered in student handbooks or rule books that are communicated to the public at request.  I recall my schools having definitions of knives that included size or material restrictions of the blade.  In U.S. law, a violation of a weapon law can occur regardless of the weapon's ability to inflict actual harm.  For example, by law, realistic toy guns must have an orange &quot;safety cap&quot; over the muzzle to indicate the gun does not work.  If one takes that cap off or uses the toy in a manner where the safety cap's purpose to alert people to the gun's fake nature is defeated (such as holding the gun under clothing so that you can only see the outline) will be a violation against the weapon law, since the law doesn't care if the weapon is actually functional but rather that it was reasonable for someone to assume the weapon was functional and threatening.</p>
<p>It is also the case that no right is absolute and the government may restrict a right to something based on a compelling government interest.  As most schools in the U.S. are government run, the compelling interest in the safety of those who are by law in the government's care during the course of the school day out ways the public interest in a right to carry arms on school property.  In the case of private schools, they are allowed to restrict what items are permissible on private school property the same as any other private property owner.</p>
<p>The list of impermissible items may not be practice to post on a general sign at the front of the property but most likely can be easily found when talking with an administrator.</p>

<h3>Absolutely not</h3>
<p>The 14th Ammendment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not sure what here you think would protect you from arrest &amp; incarceration for carrying a &quot;knife&quot; on school grounds.  All the state has to do is give you due process. The vagueness doctrine is from both the 5th and 14th Ammendments, and no, calling something a knife isn't going to run afoul of it. You can convince a jury that it wasn't a knife if you're arrested for it.  People are going to know what the government means when they say &quot;no knives at school.&quot;</p>
<p>Rules at school are different from laws you can go to jail for.  If you can show me someone arrested for a nail file I'll respond, but schools can tell you to not bring a nail file to school all day long.</p>
<p>While we're at it, constitutional rights don't exist in a vacuum.  They must be interpreted with all other rights, including the &quot;necessary and proper&quot; things governments need to do to make a country work.  All the constitutional rights that say that they &quot;shall not be abridged&quot; are abridged daily for numerous good reasons.  Things just wouldn't work otherwise.</p>
