Legal history of the Bowie Knife.....applies to guns too.

[ScottT]

I am working on an article regarding the legal history of the Bowie Knife in Texas.

I thought you might find some of this interesting. The carrying of a Bowie Knife was not prohibited until 1871 as part of the carpetbagger "reforms" following the War of Northern Agression.

But, what is not commonly known is that the Texas Legislature made it a felony to kill someone with a Bowie Knife as far back as the 1850s. Here is a small portion of the argument of Attorney General Roberts in the Texas Supreme Court in Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex 394 (1859).

"The right to carry a bowie-knife for lawful defense is secured, and must be admitted. It is an exceeding destructive weapon. It is difficult to defend against it, by any degree of bravery, or any amount of skill. The gun or pistol may miss its aim, and when discharged, its dangerous character is lost, or diminished at least. The sword may be parried. With thse weapons men fight for the sake of the combat, to satisfy the laws of honor, not necessarily with the intention to kill, or with a certainty of killing, when the intention exists. The bowie-knife differs from these in its device and design; it is the instrument of almost certain death. He who carries such a weapon, for lawful defense, as he may, makes himself more dangerous to the rights of others, considering the frailties of human nature, than if he carried a less dangerous weapon."

It is said that there is nothing new under the sun, and I think this proves it!!! Best regards, Scott

[rjohns94]

very kewl

[Ysabel Kid]

I knew there was a very good reason that I love Bowie knives!!!

Thanks for posting this Scott!!!

[Old Savage]

So the great state of Texas is one of the points of the genesis of the problem?

[FWiedner]

Devious men who wish to disarm other men rarely change the argument they use to demonize an inanimate object.

It's made for only one purpose, it's design is more dangerous than other things like it, and the people who use it are themselves inherently more dangerous.

Imagine how dangerous a Bowie knife would be if it had a flash supressor or .50cal rivets in the handle.

Thanks for intresting tidbit ScottT!

[Jaguarundi]

Interesting post ScottT..thanks.

[spurgon]

Good history lesson.

[Borregos]

Interestimg!
Thanks for posting.

[AmBraCol]

Interesting tidbit there. Personally, down here, I fear a knife WAY more than a firearm. Most folks down here can't shoot worth beans. I understand the arguments that the attorney general put forth, but would extend them to the sword as well. Include machetes along with that. However, the argument that because they are somehow more inherently dangerous along with the tendency to use that argument to justify some kind of prohibition is asinine at best. The purpose of carrying a weapon is to provide a means of defense - and the greater the perceived dangerousness of that defensive weapon the more likely one will not have to use it. Anyway, the mentality of blaming inanimate objects for the deeds of the violent is obviously no recent occurrence. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Now, do you have any background on the ban on blackjacks and other such blunt instruments?

[Modoc ED]

Anybody here from Arkansas or Missouri?

If memory serves me, it is illegal to own or possess a Bowie Knife in one of those two states.

One thing about a Bowie that instills fear in so many is that the top two to four inches of the top of the blade is sharpened too which makes it possible to slash/cut on either an upstroke or downstroke.

AmBraCol listed a machete in his list of blades and machetes can indeed be turned into a very dangerous weapon. I like those cheap, plastic handled, thin bladed, machetes that Wal-Mart and some surplus stores sale for around $5.00. They last forever, sharpen easily and can serve as a great deterent in some situations.

[Sarge]

I am working on an article regarding the legal history of the Bowie Knife in Texas....

I'll be looking forward to reading that.

Ed,

RSMo Chapter 571 touches on knives but makes to specific reference to Bowies. From the chapter's definitions in 571.010:

"[10] "Knife" means any dagger, dirk, stiletto, or bladed hand instrument that is readily capable of inflicting serious physical injury or death by cutting or stabbing a person. For purposes of this chapter, "knife" does not include any ordinary pocketknife with no blade more than four inches in length; " and
"[18] "Switchblade knife" means any knife which has a blade that folds or closes into the handle or sheath, and

(a) That opens automatically by pressure applied to a button or other device located on the handle; or

(b) That opens or releases from the handle or sheath by the force of gravity or by the application of centrifugal force. "

The chapter index may be viewed at: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c571.htm

[Modoc ED]

I am working on an article regarding the legal history of the Bowie Knife in Texas....

I'll be looking forward to reading that.

Ed,

RSMo Chapter 571 touches on knives but makes to specific reference to Bowies. From the chapter's definitions in 571.010:

"[10] "Knife" means any dagger, dirk, stiletto, or bladed hand instrument that is readily capable of inflicting serious physical injury or death by cutting or stabbing a person. For purposes of this chapter, "knife" does not include any ordinary pocketknife with no blade more than four inches in length; " and
"[18] "Switchblade knife" means any knife which has a blade that folds or closes into the handle or sheath, and

(a) That opens automatically by pressure applied to a button or other device located on the handle; or

(b) That opens or releases from the handle or sheath by the force of gravity or by the application of centrifugal force. "

The chapter index may be viewed at: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c571.htm

Thanks Sarge. I think it must be Arkansas. Bowies may no longer be illegal there but years ago they were.

[Comal Forge]

Thank you very much, Scott - I love historical tidbits such as this. Please let us know when and where your article will appear as I'm sure many of us will want to read it.

The Fairbairn-Sykes style is also a pure fighting knife - link here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairbairn- ... ting_knife

...and was designed solely for killing men in hand-to-hand combat. A nasty subject even when discussed in broad daylight...

[Old Ironsights]

BAN BOWIE KNIVES... They are more dangerous than Guns!

"The purpose of the bayonette is to kill..."

FWIW, I have a Qama/Gladius that I tend to carry in the woods...

[C. Cash]

Thanks Scott. Very interesting......and will look forward to seeing your article as well.

[Lastmohecken]

The Bowie knife, I am sure, was a hard weapon to defend against, in a crowded bar room, where your opponent would probably be within a few feet, as a man could probably draw a knife faster then lots of the handguns they had in that day.

I like Bowies, and often carry one when bow hunting, as I like to have some sort of weapon, and the game and fish frowns on having a firearm when bow hunting, although that has changed lately, regarding CCW carry while hunting in Arkansas. It is now legal to carry while bowhunting.

And believe it or not, a good Bowie makes a darn good squirrel knife. The sharp point can get under the hide eaisly, and also removes feet, and heads like a cleaver. And it works fine for chopping onions also, or building a blind.

[JerryB]

Scott that is an interesting article on the Bowie, I'll check here in Arkansas to see how the law reads on them.
Lastmohecken, what did you find out about our CCW and travel to some states?

[rock-steady]

Remember the scene in "Lonesome Dove" when Elmira was on the whiskey boat? The buffalo hunter Big Zway pulled his Bowie and killed the guy who was ogling Elmira. It happened in a flash. The victim never saw it coming and was dead before he hit the deck. Although this was just a scene from a movie, it seemed very realistic and is an example of how deadly a sharp Bowie can be.

[Texican]

So the great state of Texas is one of the points of the genesis of the problem?

(Good dig, Kalifornian.)

Yes, in one way: Jim Bowie was a Texican, we can thank him for the knife

No, in all others: it's the politicians as always. Before there ever was a Texas, people throughout history were deprived of the use and ownership of arms by those in office.

[Blaine]

Once again, Scott, your on the cutting edge........

I love my Case Bowie.....

[Kapincrunch]

sounds like you are rewriting history, "war of northern agression".
Jim

[Dirty Dan]

If you read the Constitution, you will come to the only conclusion a learned person can: that the "Civil War" was a war of northern aggression to deny the rights of the SOUTHERN states.

[Charles]

sounds like you are rewriting history, "war of northern agression".
Jim

Nope Jim...Not a rewrite. The North refused to acknowledge the right of the South to suceed and form a seperate country The North used force of arms to prevent the division of the "Union". The Confederate States of America did not make war on the United States of American. They defended their rights and their soverign territory.

Have no doubt about it, the North was the agressor. There would have been no Civil War/War Between The State had the North allowed the Southern States to go their way in peace, which was what they wanted.

[Blaine]

sounds like you are rewriting history, "war of northern agression".
Jim

Nope Jim...Not a rewrite. The North refused to acknowledge the right of the South to suceed and form a seperate country The North used force of arms to prevent the division of the "Union". The Confederate States of America did not make war on the United States of American. They defended their rights and their soverign territory.

Have no doubt about it, the North was the agressor. There would have been no Civil War/War Between The State had the North allowed the Southern States to go their way in peace, which was what they wanted.

Same old, same old......

[ScottT]

Think about what a good man who knows how to use one of these can do with it:

[ScottT]

BTW boys, I am not going to get into political discussions or even read them anymore. It just is not worth the hassle. I don't particularly care what you think the cause of the American Civil War was or what you want to call it. It happened too long ago for me to be too worried about re-fighting it.

From a historical perspective, in Texas Reconstruction was not a good time for most residents of the state. This was the time when most of the weapons laws originated and it took over 100 years to get to where Texas residents could legally carry pistols to defend themselves again.

The point of the original post is that this kind of thing was tried, even before the War. I though it put things into an interesting perspective.

[JerryB]

Scott thanks for this post. It must be enjoyable work digging up this history. Those are three real beauties, I would hate to face one.

[Hobie]

Mr. Bagwell makes some pretty, nice knives. Thanks for sharing the photo of those.

[ScottT]

Scott thanks for this post. It must be enjoyable work digging up this history. Those are three real beauties, I would hate to face one.

I just wish I had more time!