Knives are dangerous, that's why we can't put them on our rifles...

They make a good bayonet sheath!

Well, you are already @^$$~ whipped so why not?

Don't worry, Dan, it's my theme song, too...

It was the whole enchilada but that year some guy in a Bender costume won.

Indiana Jones costume? I thought dan was planning on moonlighting in domination.

Oh please oh please tell me you 2 are gonna engage in a 'sword fight'!

I was going to post my lengthy reply earlier, but I lost my wall of text.

(As you read this, remember that I am not a lawyer and I am not presenting this as legal advice.
My intention is for this post to be a sort of academic dialogue only)

Think for a moment about the two "official use" exclusions that you cited- one exemots peace
officers carrying (any) dangerous weapon in the course of their official duties. The other
exempts security guards carrying police batons in the course of thier official duties. The
duty condition clearly designates that the exemption is intended to be occupational in nature-
to facilitate an individual in one of those positions carrying out the duties associated therewith.
The exemptions are not intended to create a superior class of persons, thus a caste if you
may, whereunder an individual may realize personal benefit based on their employmenty status
through an exemption that is intended to be occupational. Hence why Connecticut has comparable
verbiage in the LE exemption to the exemption section for carrying a pistol without a permit.
(Under CT state law, a peace officer must have a permit to carry off duty- there haven't been any cases to see how a Connecticut resident/ Connecticut LEO might be handled under LEOSA yet- I know that by CSP rules, a retiree needs to have a CT permit to qualify for LEOSA authorization). However, pondering
those exemptions I left myself with even more questions and puzzlement. Take security guards
for example- not that I have ever seen one carry a police baton here in CT. However, I have
known several individuals in that line of work, and I am aware that they tend to go from home
directly to their posting- they don't stop to punch-in or get a uniform/gear and then travel to the
jobsite on the clock. Might that travel from home to the jobsite (and back at the end of shift)
be protected? I'm not quite sure- under many, if not all circumstances, both they and their employer
would want to seperate the travel to the jobsite (and anything the employee does prior to
punch-in) from what they do on the job- though one wonders if there isn't an argument that getting
to the jobsite is component to the official duties- though the individual in question is clearly
off the clock. IN some instances it may be more or less practical than others to keep the baton at the jobsite.
Then consider the peace officer example. In some departments, my understanding is
that there clearly defined policies regarding when an individual may use police powers (and/or
wear uniforms, drive dept vehicles, etc...) [I have seen posts by certain LEOs in GD from large departments
that seem to suggest an officer in their dept may be in trouble for using police powers when not
on the beat, do to admin fear of labor violation/ union issues- though they are theoretically sworn 24/7] I have also read that there are departments that are
more lax and/or have policies that are more permissive (or in some instances expectations that
an officer will be on duty/ use police power even when not on the beat. (Doesn't CSP require
Troopers who drive state vehicles off duty to engage in enforcement activity 'off duty' if they see something while
driving the state vehicle??? -I thought that I read that somewhere). Though it should be easy enough for an officer to avoid
a mess by leaving his stick, TASER and any other dangerous weapons in his locker- one must wonder if
that transit home could too be protected- especially if they are in a department that permits or requires
officers to use police powers even when they aren't on shift... I can't help but wonder exactly how that may play out.
Then I think towards that military exemption, which leaves much less to the interpretation. It is
very clear. On duty, and going to/from duty- and the service member is covered. Cut and dry- no (or little)
room for interpretation.

Back to the question at hand. The hunting/fishing/trapping exemption was added to the dangerous weapon law when the legislature
removed the ability for CLEOs and First Selectman to issue dangerous weapon permits. The intention was to facilitate
sportsmen's ability to carry long knives for use in the field while engaged in their respective activities. (Note that with limited
exemptions for party boats, saltwater anglers too now require licensure, though they did not
when the exemption was written, to be legal) Obviously, the listed sportsmen have a legitimate right and
necessity to carry the long knife in the field while engaged in their respective sport(s).
However, I believe that the legislature left room for more broad interpetation to cover the reality that
sportsmen do not magically appear in the field. The have to get there- either by vehicle (there is a comparable exemption in 29-38) or by some
other means. Doing such is not typically a direct A to B affair. It is not uncommon for hunters, trappers, and anglers to do various things like stop for supplies, bait,
food, beverage, fuel, to get/drop members of their party, bring fish/ game to butcher or taxidermist, etc... on their way
to or from the field. There are also times when a hunter may need to use the knife when they are not hunting per-se
but are outside the perview of the protection afforded individuals in their place of residence
(for example, butchering a deer in the back yard or in a common area of a multi-family building)
Some sportsmen may hunt, fish, or check the trapline (remember they must check min 1x every 24h) for a couple of hours before or after work.
Clearly, I believe, the legislature recognized that reality and wanted to account for it, but
without allowing to broad of a permission to carry a dangerous weapon on a license obtainable by only paying
a token fee, by any person, including those who clearly would never have been considered suitable to carry any weapon before.

The hunting/ fishing/ trapping license was not intended to become the dangerous-weapon/ knife license. I believe
that individual enforcement would vary depending on the individual officer, his/her training, experiences, and the totality
of the situation that he or she encountered. I believe that somebody with a fishing license walking to/ from the direction of a lake/ river access with a rod and a long knife in his possession would be treated very differntly than
an individual with a fishing license, who is shopping (nowhere near a fishing area) with a long knife on their side and fishing equipment
in their possession that consists of a six inch string and hook tucked in their wallet.

In the end, it is also possible that an individual may beat the rap but not the ride. Around the same time that the legislature added the exemption
for certain sportsmen (but clearly left out hikers, campers, and several other potnetially legitimate users), they also removed a line from the definition
section that defined butterfly knives as per-se dangerous weapons. As recently as 3 or so years ago, I can recall an arrest involving an individual carrying (what I believe to have been)
an otehrwise not-illegal knife (unless they were carrying it with some sort of unlawful intent that qualified it as a prosecuteable weapon). Ultimately, that specific case dropped from the docket. I know that there wasn't a conviction- but
I'm not sure if the non-conviction was the result of a nolle pros or if it was dismissed by successful completion of a diversionary program.

The other interesting thing is that there is no exemption for transporting a dangerous-weapon from place of purchase to place of business or residence,
as there is for a handgun (an individual without a permit to carry may transport a handgun in a specified manner from place of purchase to residence).
The closest thing to such an exemption is for knives that are gun/knife show merchandise. So, might the licensed sportsma who is taking a long knife home from (say WALMART) for
later licensed sporting use be protected by the exemption? I AM NOT QUITE SURE.

One of the things that doesn't necessarily come out in my written posts is the thoughts that underly what
I write. Except where I may have made specific reference to transport in a motor vehicle (I b
believe that I may have made one or two references) my use of the term was synonomous with possession
upon or about the body- primarily based on my own personal practice/ experiences. In my youth,
I often made my way to the field by methods that didn't qualify as motor vehicles. Secondly, though I did
use the term transport, it is possible for an individual to be in a position where they could
be subject to arrest/ prosecution for 53-206 AND 29-38 (weapon on/about person in motor vehicle). I know
when I hit the field, I tend to already have my knife on my belt (though usually I don't carry a 4" or greater
edged blade) along with certain other pieces of gear. I hope that puts some of my word choice into
perspective.

As it stands, many of the same thought patterns and questions are applicable to vehicle
situations and on-person situations.

Good catch on the OR word in the merchandise clause. I have questions about how broad the
merchandise clause may be (does it extend to occasional disposal of personal property, or does
in this instance, it require the item to be one purchased and held as inventory with the intention of resale) [or
in-transit as merchandise- e.g. from a walmart distribution center to a retail store in the back of a cargo truck]

Want

Me like!

Go for it, it is a pistol

I just changed my undies...holy crap that looks useless...

Dano, get the knife that shoots its blades out! Ballistic Knife

Note the laws on this were made for us to figure out a way to circumvent, CTHTF members forte.