Good grief, fiddletown! Leave it to you to dredge up a case that officially ruled a knife to be MORE dangerous than a gun. Further proof (as if we needed any) that judges are no smarter than the rest of us, and frequently not even in close competition with a pet rock.
Reminds me of a few years ago when Sportsmans Guide Company was selling 1898 Mausers (no FFL needed due to age). Unlike many places that include the associated "kit" with the firearm, SGC was selling the bayonets as a separate item. I wasn't in the market for an old Mauser, but I had noticed that my brother-in-law had a coffee table display of several historic bayonets that I found interesting/attractive, so I thought I'd buy a Mauser bayonet to start a similar display.
However, SGC decreed that they "couldn't" sell a knife to residents of my state. My on-line order was accepted, then canceled by e-mail the following day. So I called customer service. The woman explained why my order had been canceled, but she couldn't really explain the reasoning (since it is NOT illegal to buy knives on-line in my state). Paraphrased, part of the discussion went about like this:
ME: Look on page xx of the current catalog. What's on the top of the page?
SHE: A Mauser rifle.
ME: And can I buy that, in my state?
SHE: Yes, certainly.
ME: So, let me get this straight: Your company is willing to sell me a completely functional military battle rifle, with which I could potentially kill someone from as far away as maybe a quarter of a mile -- but you won't sell me a bayonet, with which I can't hurt anyone unless I'm within a couple of feet?
SHE: [LONG pause]I guess it doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
Last edited by Aguila Blanca; November 12, 2011 at 10:28 PM.