Uechi-Ryu.com

I just got off the phone with GEM , and what a great conversation we had.
I came on this site by accident, but believe " fate " really put me here.

I called him to find out his views on martial art weapons, and how the law in Massachusetts is unjust, AND unfair.

Why can we own and carry a GUN, but it is illegal to own / have in your posession nunchaku ?

After a hiatus from martial arts, I'm bringing it back into my life.
Part of the art is weapons to develop skills.

I have sent a letter to the Governors office as well as, John Stossell of 20/20 news show.

I have a copy of how the law reads in this state concerning weapons. It is too long to list, but I would be happy to send anyone a copy. Or log onto www.state.ma.us and go to part IV chapter 269, section 10, 6 (b)
if there are enough of us ,we CAN change how the law reads.

Pleased to see that you found "Panther's" forum. You might do a search (top of page) for "gun laws", "weapons", "knife laws" to see some of the many topics already discussed here and on Al Kumian's "Martial Arts and the Law" forum.

Interesting topic and worthwhile cause. You should get lots of support here.

Thanks so much for your help. I just sent Alan K an e-mail.

I'll cc it to you now




Michael

Without tipping my hand on how I feel about banning such things....

While some people might think the law is unjust and unfair, others don't. Also, the state's power to enact laws in the interest of public health and safety is unquestionable, provided there is a legitimate state interest and the law is rationally related to that interest. One could successfully argue that in order to reduce the number of assaults, etc that it is necessary to ban certain weapons, especially ones that don't have any other purpose other than to open up a bigger can of whop-@ss than one's opponent (or victim...). This is partly the reason why the Commonwealth doesn't ban all knives (although some would like that...), just ones that are dangerous weapons. The only real way to fight the law is either get it repealed on Beacon Hill or get a judge to agree in court that the law leads to absurdity or unjust consequences. Constitutional or fundamental rights are held to a higher standard, but owning a nunchaku doesn't fit the bill...

In short, the state can ban these weapons, and they did.

Without getting into a whole big thing about the right to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment and such, here's my take on why we can own and carry a gun, but it is illegal to own / have in our posession nunchaku:

Because the state let's us, that's why. Remember that the state courts as well as the federal courts in this jurisdiction have ruled (repeatedly) that there is no constitutional right to bear arms. So if a state (like Vermont) wants to issue permits without too many restrictions they can. And if a state (like Massachusetts) wants to make people jump through hoop after hoop after hoop in order to get a gun license, they can do that too. It may sound pretty arbitrary that we can at least apply for a gun permit (and it might get denied) but we can't apply for a nunchaku permit. But that state has that power.

Again this does not mean that I support or oppose the state's position on any of this. It's just informational....

Gene

Gene DeMambro wrote:the state's power to enact laws in the interest of public health and safety {is} unquestionable, provided there is a legitimate state interest and the law is rationally related to that interest.

This is key to the type of legislation being discussed.

One could successfully argue that in order to reduce the number of assaults, etc that it is necessary to ban certain weapons...

But that wouldn't make it legitimate to enact a law banning those weapons. Part of the State Constitution states that the State must provide evidence and proof that such legislation is in the compelling interests of the State and that any proposed legislation will have the desired effect of protecting that compelling interest. MANY laws on the books in MA do not meet that criteria.

BTW: Michael, Welcome to the "Tough Issues" forum. We're all opinionated, many of us are jerks, but we try our best not to get "personal". In fact, personal attacks are strictly verboten. (I'm sure you already read that somewhere... ) Regardless, look forward to your contributions.

You'd have to check with a competent lawyer (Alan K of the "Martial Arts and the Law" forum and others0, but I thought I saw an exemption for martial artists studying weapons for competition and training. Many martial artists in MA have and practice with Nunchaku, Sai, Kama, etc... And they can be purchased in plenty of Martial arts stores around. Then again, most stores seem oblivious to the laws that apply to them for some reason. Good Luck.

Hi Panther,

I looked at the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and I couldn't find any referrence that the State must provide evidence and proof that any legislation be in the compelling interests of the State and that any proposed legislation will have the desired effect of protecting that compelling interest. I did, however, find the following. In the interst of full disclosure, I'll post the entire Article, and then post the section applicable to our discussion:

Part The Second, Chapter 1, Article IV:

And further, full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the said general court, from time to time, to make, ordain, and establish, all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without; so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of this commonwealth, and for the government and ordering thereof, and of the subjects of the same, and for the necessary support and defence of the government thereof; and to name and settle annually, or provide by fixed laws, for the naming and settling all civil officers within the said commonwealth; the election and constitution of whom are not hereafter in this form of government otherwise provided for; and to set forth the several duties, powers, and limits, of the several civil and military officers of this commonwealth, and the forms of such oaths or affirmations as shall be respectively administered unto them for the execution of their several offices and places, so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution; and to impose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates, and taxes, upon all the inhabitants of, and persons resident, and estates lying, within the said commonwealth; and also to impose and levy, reasonable duties and excises, upon any produce, goods, wares, merchandise, and commodities, whatsoever, brought into, produced, manufactured, or being within the same; to be issued and disposed of by warrant, under the hand of the governor of this commonwealth for the time being, with the advice and consent of the council, for the public service, in the necessary defence and support of the government of the said commonwealth, and the protection and preservation of the subjects thereof, according to such acts as are or shall be in force within the same.

And further, full power and authority are hereby given and granted to the said general court, from time to time, to make, ordain, and establish, all manner of wholesome and reasonable orders, laws, statutes, and ordinances, directions and instructions, either with penalties or without; so as the same be not repugnant or contrary to this constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of this commonwealth,

The standard Massachusetts laws must meet, therefore are:

• Be wholesome and reasonable
• Not be repugnant or contrary to the Consitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and presumably the US Constitution, which was written afterwards)
• Be for the good and welfare of the Commonwealth (according to the state legislature)

Would you mind posting the part in the state Constitution about there being a compelling state interest, in case I missed it?

Remember that when dealing with state laws, states have "the sole power to enact all laws that relate to matters completely within its territory and which do not by their necessary operation affect the people of other States". Such laws, however, must "always yield in case of conflict" with Consitutional rights, either State or Federal. And again, such laws "should receive a sensible construction and be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression or absurd consequence". This is US Supreme Court case law and precedent, on the books for at least a hundred years.

The "compelling state interest" doctrine evolves from cases where states have sought to restrict Constitutional/Fundamental rights. In such cases, courts have ruled that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn" to express only the state interests at stake. This is a much higher standard. A notable example of this is the reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision. Some "strict constructionists" go even further and argue that there is never a compelling state interest in restricting a Constitutional right. They may have a point.....

Also, to my knowledge there is no exemption in the law for the banned weapons. This has been confirmed by Alan Kunian on his website. Check the text of the law, and see if we perhaps have missed it.

Again, this is not to show my approval or disapproval of the state's position on such things. This is just for informational purposes only.

Gene

Gene,

I looked further and the rule that I was thinking of surrounds statutes and regulations set forth by other offices, such as the Attorney General's office. Those, from what I was told, are supposed to have some backup research to prevent the AG from enacting regulations on a whim. I was thinking about a recent case that was brought against some regulations stating that they were not researched or backed up and were therefore invalid. My error in mixing the regulations of one agency with the laws enacted by the legislature.

On the Martial Arts weapons, Alan is the expert, not me. I defer to his greater knowledge. I do know of quite a number of martial artists who own, practice and train with these banned weapons. I also know of one who was stopped by a LEO who found his nanchaku in his duffel bag. After confirming that the guy was going to the dojo, the LEO let him go and informed him that he can't carry them around, only to/from the dojo/competition. (This shouldn't surprise anyone, it wouldn't be the first time an LEO stated something that contradicts the actual laws) You can purchase items from nanchaku to shurikens to three-section staffs at many martial arts stores in Massachusetts and also at more than a few stores in Chinatown. There may very well not be an exemption for them, but it seems that someone is looking the other way. Naturally, IMNSHO, the powers that be will cease looking the other way when someone uses the items to commit a crime or even for self-defense.

Regardless, thanks for your clarifications. IANALNDIPOOTV...

We just need an organization with the clout to sway politicians. . . the NNA (National Nunchaku Association).

I think the reason guns are permitted with restrictions and martial arts weapons are not is simply that gun owners are more prevalent and yell louder.

Ryokan wrote:We just need an organization with the clout to sway politicians. . . the NNA (National Nunchaku Association).

I think the reason guns are permitted with restrictions and martial arts weapons are not is simply that gun owners are more prevalent and yell louder.

Claiming that "gun owners are more prevalent and yell louder" than any other group, especially martial artists, is (as you say) simply not true. However, you actually hit on the reasons (in Massachusetts) why guns are allowed and martial arts weapons are not... Restrictions!

In order to legally own, carry, possess and practice with martial arts weapons, would you be willing to:

1) Undergo a full criminal background check Massachusettts, Federal and Nationwide.

2) Be photographed, fingerprinted and have your information put into a database maintained by the Criminal History Systems Board, the same folks that maintain databases on murderers, rapists, and sexual perverts.

3) Be willing to undergo a National "Instant Check" every time you purchased a martial arts weapon and only be allowed to purchase martial arts weapons from either a specially licensed dealer OR from a private individual after filling out a special form that gets sent to the CHSB documenting that you have taken possession of martial arts weapon, serial number XYZZY-12345678.

4) Have your ability to obtain the license to own, have, possess and carry the martial arts weapons be completely and totally at the whim and discretion of the local chief of police (goodness forbid you voted against the new police gear at the last town meeting...).

5) Be prohibited from obtaining a martial arts weapons license for a misdemeaner assault charge that occurred when you were a teen-ager, say 20, 30 , 40 or more years ago... even though you've never had a bit of trouble since and you're an upstanding person. Also, having a DUI would be grounds for denying your martial arts weapons license. And (even though I think this is a good thing) so would any domestic violence charges OR someone getting a 209A restraining order against you.

6) be willing to pay $100 every four years for the martial arts weapons license... and realize that getting the license or renewing the license can take as long as 6 month or more in some instances... and you don't get credit for that lost time.

7) be considered an instant felon because you possess a martial arts weapon without a license because you've been waiting for your license to renew for months and months, your old license has expired and there is no "grace period".

Most people will not voluntarily give up that much freedom and martial artists are no different, but those who chose to be gun owners go through that to exercise a Right, granted to them by their Creator, which supposedly "shall not be infringed"...

I'm sure that GEM-Sensei, Canna-Sensei and "old-fahts" (like me) will remember when there was a big push in the early 80s to license martial artists! Part of that license would have granted the ability to own, possess and practice with "martial arts weapons", but not carry them. Martial artists across the State and across styles actually got together and stopped that BS. In return, we have the restrictions on martial arts weapons. Which would you have preferred? The ability to have martial arts weapons but having to submit to being registered and licensed by the State for participating in martial arts practice/training OR lose the ability to have certain martial arts weapons but not be forced into some licensing scheme/scam simply to workout and learn martial arts? Martial artists (wisely IMNSHO) chose the latter overwhelmningly! Martial artists saw what was happening to gun owners! And learned from it! They realized that the minute the State gets their toe in the door with a little control, the first push down the slippery slope has started... and there's no turning back. Realize that even though there are bans on certain martial arts weapons, martial artists have not spent the last thirty years or more in constant battles with the hoplophobes and pacifist legisTraitors trying to pass YET MORE RESTRICTIVE bans and licensing! Gun owners have spent countless time, effort and money over the past thirty PLUS years, to simply try and maintain the Rights that were granted to them by their Creator! I remember signing the petitions against licensing martial artists and getting my students to sign as well...

Think about it... I'm not so sure you want to open that can of worms again.

Besides, legal or not, lots of folks in the martial arts still go ahead and train with those items... Don't carry them around and flaunt them, stay under the radar and many have gone on contentedly training that way for a long time...

Your choice...

To: Michael29:

I just happened to come across this thread. Tou have been given great explanations by Gene and Panther.

What we have in the statute MGL Chapter 269 Section 10, is a very old statute dating back to about 1916..

Many of the weapons mentioned as dangerous per se, was the product of the industrialization of the north east and midwest states, followed by WW 1, rising crime rates, followed by the great depression.

If you look at the statute, you will see that some of the favorite weapons of those era were billy clubs, saps, cestus,, dirk knives etc.

Having been around Martial Arts in the early 1970's, I can tell you the reason certain MA weapons were banned, fired up by the rapid expansion of martial arts schools, the popularity of which were greatly enhanced by Bruce Lee Movies (and others). Soon the kids in thickly populated city neighborhoods, were emulating these MA heroes, with the favorite weqpon being the nunchuck. There were injuries, assaults and lots of problems with LEO's.

In about 1973, the strict inclusion of traditional martial arts weapons were included by legislators whose knowledge of the martial arts was limited to the Hong Cong and Hollywood portayals.

There was a warning period in the process that could have been addressed by lobby activity or strong MA presence.

The problem is that many in the position of good ma's who could of picked up the torch, feared that publicity might result in licensing the schools or the teachers.

Health clubs and spas were expanding then and many complaints were filed concerning enrollment contracts and bankruptcy filings which wiped out many members fee investments.

So much for history; this cobbled statute is a masterpiece of ambiguity, and undefined terms.

The courts are rapidly acknowledging the pitfalls of this statute and are ruling that the statute is very strict in the interpretation which will be in favor of the defendant and not be fishing expediton for zealous prosecutors.

I would suggest that you take some time to peruse the Martial Arts and the Law Forum and some of the cases and threads there. The Commonwealth of Massachusets v. Stephen Miller is a good one.

Foam Nunchucku for tournament or school use should be ok. Small dull bladed kama, should be ok, as is bo, and sull bladed swords and spears. Tridents with dull points should also be ok. But please remember that even a No.2 pencil can be a dangerous weapon if so employed and attended.

If I had the time, I would address slef defense issues, but you can learn a lot from the Martial Arts and the Law threads.

Alan K

i have to apologize i was one of the teens infatuated by Bruce lee, and ninja movies whiping around nunchucks.

to my memory Ted Kennedy got the law passed easily because there was a concern that us youngsters were ordering weapons from catalogs. the truth being only a very small percent were able to get parents to fork over the credit card for the mail purchase ( i belive you had to be 18 as well). for the most part teens were making nunchucks out of broom stick handles and "stars" in metal shop.
Hoshin
~~~~~