Looks like the legislature needs to amend its definition of one dangerous weapon
By adamg - 11/18/09 - 10:45 am
The Supreme Judicial Court today reversed the conviction of a man for possession of a blackjack because while an "expandable baton" can be used just like a blackjack, it is not, in fact, a blackjack.
Ami H. Perry had been charged with possession of a blackjack, which is illegal in Massachusetts. But the court noted that the legislature was very specific in its definition of "blackjack" - unlike in its definitions of banned knives, which includes the phrase "or any similar weapon" - and that even though one could beat another person with the device Perry was charged with carrying, it was most definitely not a blackjack. Or as the court put it:
According to the detective's testimony, the expandable baton was "metal, approximately eight to ten inches long, and if you--you can expand it by--... flicking your wrist and having the tipped end of it come out of the handle."
Buzz this
More