Washington Supreme Court ruled that the Seattle law which prohibits people from carrying fixed-blade knives such as kitchen utensils for self-defence does not contest with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on Thursday. The Supreme Court, however, was divided with the decision.
Small paring knives and other kitchen utensils are not part of the amendment as the court have decided. The Olympian reported that the majority opinion written by Justice Charles Wiggins stated that the right to bear arms amendment does not specify paring knives in it. He added that the paring knife is a kitchen utensil not a weapon.
Wiggins also wrote in the opinion that not all objects that are subjected to malice will generate constitutional protections afforded to 'arms'. Kitsap Sun said in their report that almost every object can be used as a weapon and does not necessarily mean it would be used as one especially sharp or big object that can kill an individual.
According to Washington Times, the issue was from an incident in a traffic stop. A man named Wayne Anthony Evans told the police officers that he was has a knife with him after being asked if he had any weapons he had brought. He was arrested after the questioning and was convicted of unlawful use of weapons. He made an appeal with his case focusing on the Second Amendment. He said in his appeal that the Seattle statute infringed on his right to bear arms.
A strongly formulated opposition written by Justice Mary Fairhurst together with the court ruled a 5-4 against Evans. The Justice wrote that the Seattle law is unconstitutional and very broad. Washington laws cannot exceed the United States Constitution thus will not offer fewer protections than the Constitution. In the end she claimed that the fixed-blade knife is a manageable arm and protected is by the Second Amendment.
