This article appeared in Knife Magazine in May 2026.
Know Your Knife Laws – The Dumbest Knife Law in the U.S.
By Anthony Sculimbrene, Attorney and Knife Expert
It’s a bold claim, but I do think that the New Jersey law §2C:39-5 could very well be the dumbest knife law in the country still on the books. It is also a law that is emblematic of a second layer of anti-Second Amendment laws that have yet to be impacted by Heller, Bruen, or even basic constitutional law. What does this incredibly stupid law say? Here it is:
Any person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.
This law is part of New Jersey’s weapons law statute. It is, like many laws across the country, one that does not prohibit mere possession but instead criminalizes other kinds of possession. And while many states have repealed laws involving mere possession, and some have had such laws struck down in court, these kinds of laws have generally escaped legal scrutiny. In part, this is because of the holding in U.S. v. Rahimi. In that case, which was decided after Bruen, the US Supreme Court held that Bruen’s prohibition on gun ban laws does not apply to laws barring individuals convicted of domestic violence from possessing a firearm.
The law in Rahimi, 18 USC §922(g), is part of a series of laws found all throughout the country that bar possession, plus some other factor. In Rahimi, it is possession plus a conviction for domestic violence. Many states have laws that bar possession of weapons, including knives, for “unlawful purposes” or “in the commission of a crime.” Other “possession plus” laws ban possession plus concealed carry, even in states where “concealed carry” is not defined by law. Still other “possession plus” laws place restrictions on carry in certain locations, such as schools, courts, and government buildings. Among these “possession plus” laws, New Jersey’s stands out as the most ridiculous. The problem here is obvious to anyone familiar with the law, the English language, or both. What does “under circumstances not manifestly appropriate” mean?
Well, New Jersey’s Supreme Court, which is often the most left-leaning state supreme court in the country, gives us two answers, both of which are pretty silly.
In State v. Lee, the court wrestles with the problem of a phrase when someone was found carrying a shiv made of two halves of a pair of scissors taped together during a burglary. It notes that “a machete can be a lethal weapon or a useful device for deep sea fishing…[and] a steak knife is appropriate at the dinner table, but sinister when concealed in a car with a BB gun…” Perhaps we have different takes on “sinister” when it includes a…wait for it…BB gun. The court then says that “not manifestly appropriate” means that police must look at “surrounding circumstances–such as the size, shape, and condition of the knife, the nature of its concealment, the time, place, and actions of the carrier when found…” In the end, this seems very much like the definition of pornography from Jacobellis v. Ohio – ”I’ll know it when I see it.” There is an easy out here–the defendant had the shiv during a burglary, so ipso facto, the carry was “not manifestly appropriate carry…” but no, the Lee Court refuses to make it that easy. Instead, they find that “not manifestly appropriate” is different than “proof of an intent to use a weapon for an unlawful purpose.” Alas, all we know after Lee is that “not manifestly appropriate” is defined by something it is not, which, as we all know from childhood (an admonition to “stop misbehaving” only leads to the follow-up: “what was I doing wrong?”). It is a useless definition.
In State ex. rel. GC, we get a little help, and I do mean only a little. In this case, a juvenile was charged with possession of a weapon with a not manifestly appropriate purpose when he shot a parked and unoccupied car with a paintball gun. At trial, the juvenile was sentenced to two years in incarceration (!) for this bit of target practice. In Lee, the court had speculated that the core purpose of §2C:39-5 was to protect people from harm. In this case, given the car’s lack of occupants, the appeals court dismissed the weapons charge. But in this case, the court found that “protecting people” also means “protecting their property,” and so shooting a paintball gun at an unoccupied car violates §2C:39-5. As such, according to the court, the phrase “not manifestly appropriate” means “either a threat of harm to a person or a threat of damage to property.”
What does this mean to people carrying traditionally restricted knives in New Jersey, like autos and gravity knives? Well, no one knows for sure, not even the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey, but you’d probably be best off refraining from carrying a prohibited knife for unspecified reasons. Using a restricted knife in fishing, given the language in Lee, is probably okay, but as a lawyer with 22 years of criminal experience and lots and lots of experience reading and writing about knife laws, I still have no idea what §2C:39-5 means. And that is why it is the dumbest knife law in the US.
I am also not sure if the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling would hold up post-Bruen. It is unlikely that there is a historical analog to something as vague as this, and as a result, there is a chance §2C:39-5 is unconstitutional. I would certainly raise such a challenge if I were a New Jersey lawyer.
All of this reveals a second front in the fight for Second Amendment rights. Bruen went a long way, and legislative efforts have helped a lot, but there are still a bevy of stupid knife laws on the books that impede lawful owners from having and carrying knives when exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Be knife law-wise, check out the laws in your state, or where you travel for work or fun, in the State Knife Laws section.