New Jersey Knife Laws | American Knife and Tool Institute (2024)

At a Glance:

New Jersey law prohibits the possession “without any explainable lawful purpose” of any “gravity knife, switchblade knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, dangerous knife or ballistic knife.” Possession of a weapon in one’s home is arguably a “lawful purpose.” Pocket knives may be carried outside the home, except by one having unlawful intent or who possesses the knife for some unlawful purpose. Self-defense beyond the limits of one’s home is not a lawful purpose.

Relevant Statutes:

2C:39-1. Definitions

h. “Gravity knife” means any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force.

r. “Weapon” means anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to, all (1) firearms, . . . (2) components which can be readily assembled into a weapon; (3) gravity knives, switchblade knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, or other dangerous knives,. . . and (4) stun guns; . . .

p. “Switchblade knife” means any knife or similar device which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife.

“Ballistic knife” means any weapon or other device capable of lethal use and which can propel a knife blade.

2C:39-2. Presumptions

2C:39-3. Prohibited weapons and devices

e. Certain weapons. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any gravity knife, switchblade knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, . . . or . . . ballistic knife, without any explainable lawful purpose, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

2C:39-4. Possession of weapons for unlawful purposes

d. Other weapons.Any person who has in his possession any weapon, except a firearm, with a purpose to use it unlawfully against the person or property of another is guilty of a crime of the third degree.

2C:39-5. Unlawful possession of weapons

d. Other weapons. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circ*mstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

2C:39-6. Exemptions

2C:39-7. Certain persons not to have weapons or ammunition

2C:39-9.1. Sale of knife with blade length over 5 inches or overall length over 10 inches to person under 18

2C:39-9. Manufacture, transport, disposition and defacement of weapons and dangerous instruments and appliances

2C:40-18. Knowing violation or failure to perform duty imposed by law intended to protect public safety

Search statutes on the New Jersey Department of State website.

Restricted Knives:

Gravity knives, automatic knives, dirks, daggers, stilettos, and ballistic knives are subject to significant restriction. (See discussion below)

Concealed Carry:

Concealment is not an issue under New Jersey State law.

Restrictions on Sale or Transfer:

2C:39-9 (d) Any person who manufactures, causes to be manufactured, transports, ships, sells or disposes of any weapon, including gravity knives, switchblade knives, ballistic knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos, . . . is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

2C:39-9.1 A person who sells any hunting, fishing, combat or survival knife having a blade length of five inches or more or an overall length of 10 inches or more to a person under 18 years of age commits a crime of the fourth degree;

Restrictions on Carry in Specific Locations / Circ*mstances:

Knives may not be possessed on school or educational institution property (K through University), or where not “manifestly appropriate.”

Statewide Preemption:

No.

Selected New Jersey Municipalities with Knife Restrictive Ordinances:

Camden – Section 133.02 Carrying Concealed Weapons and Section 133.03 Switchblade Knives

Discussion:

Restrictions on Possession

New Jersey law provides for three classes of restriction on knife possession in Chapter 39 of Title 2C captioned “Firearms, Other Dangerous Weapons and Instruments of Crime.”

(1) 2C:39-3. Prohibited weapons and devices

While the word “prohibited” appears in the caption of this section, the knives described are not completely forbidden. Rather, possession of any gravity knife, switchblade knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, or ballistic knife, without any explainable lawful purpose, is prohibited. In the case of State of New Jersey v. Montalvo, 162 A.3d 270 (2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that possession of a machete within one’s home for self-defense was lawful. The case arose from a long-simmering dispute between Mr. Montalvo and a neighbor who occupied an apartment immediately below that of Montalvo. A flare-up occurred, which led to the neighbor “knocking” on Montalvo’s door, who answered holding a machete behind his legs. The neighbor did not immediately see the machete. The jury found that Montalvo did not step outside of his apartment during the confrontation. Defendant Montalvo did use the machete to damage some outdoor furniture belonging to the neighbor along with a porch railing either before or after the neighbor appeared at his door, and he was accordingly convicted of a criminal mischief charge. He was also charged with violating 2C:39-4. Possession of weapons for unlawful purposes and 2C:39-5. Unlawful possession of weapons.

The jury found Montalvo not guilty of 2C:39-4 but guilty of 2C:39-5. He was sentenced to confinement for 540 days for the violation of 2C:39-5 and 18 days for the criminal mischief and appealed the 2C:39-5. Unlawful possession of weapons conviction on the basis that the trial Judge had not instructed the jury as to Montalvo’s right to keep or possess a weapon for defense in his home. The New Jersey Supreme Court stated:

Self-defense is a potential defense to a possessory weapons offense. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”U.S. Const. amend. II. The Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,”District of Columbia v. Heller, 554U.S.570, (2008), and fully applies to the States,McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561U.S.742, (2010). It extends to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms.”Heller,supra, 554U.S.at 582, .

However, the Court limited the holding to the home:

The home is accorded special treatment within the justification of self-defense. InHeller,supra, the United States Supreme Court emphasized the right to possess weapons in the home, “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.”554U.S.at 628. New Jersey law reflects that principle. For example, although “[t]raditionally self-defense claims require that a person who can safely retreat from the confrontation avail themselves of that means of escape,” that requirement is suspended under the “castle doctrine … if the confrontation takes place in one’s home or “castle.”State v. Gartland,A.2d 564 (1997).

It is implicit in the wording of 2C:39-3. Prohibited weapons and devices that under New Jersey law, automatic knives, as well as dirks, daggers, and stilettos, have an explainable lawful purpose. Given the holding of State of New Jersey v. Montalvo, 162 A.3d 270 (2017), one may keep such items in his or her for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

We do read current New Jersey law as being intolerant to the possession of such knives outside of one’s home. The case of State of New Jersey v. Harmon, 516A.2d 1047 (1986) holds that self-defense does not excuse the possession of a weapon outside of the home except “in those rare and momentary circ*mstances where an individual arms himself spontaneously to meet an immediate danger.” This affords a significant advantage to the aggressor or robber who selects the time and place of the attack.

(2) 2C:39-4. Possession of weapons for unlawful purposes

The second class of possessory offenses “prohibits the possession of a weapon with the intent to use it against the person or property of another.” Very similar statutes are a common feature in most states.

(3) 2C:39-5. Unlawful possession of weapons

This is the most troubling of the New Jersey statutes that apply to knives. It is extremely vague and therefore provides insufficient guidance. The statute covers various weapons. Sub-section (d) applies to knives along with “other” weapons:

d. Other weapons. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any other weapon under circ*mstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.

A “fourth-degree” crime is a felony under New Jersey law and is punishable by imprisonment for up to 18 months and a fine of up to $10,000! One can become a felon without any criminal intent or engaging in any criminal conduct by simply possessing a weapon, including a knife, under circ*mstances “not manifestly appropriate.” The offense is not based on what happened or what was intended but rather on what could happen because something with lawful uses and not otherwise restricted is slightly inappropriate at some time and place.

New Jersey is a geographically small state with a population of nine million. One cannot know what circ*mstances will occur throughout the day as “circ*mstances” are largely beyond one’s control. The variables are infinite; the offense is indefinite, does not require that any harm actually occur, and results in a felony conviction. The constitutionality was upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court, although one Justice wrote a scathing dissent in State of New Jersey v. Lee, 475 A3d 31 (1984):

CLIFFORD, J., dissenting.

If the woeful lack of precision in our public discourse has not yet reached scandalous proportions, it bodes fair soon to do so. Teetering on the brink of that hyperbole, I view today’s decision as making a significant, if unwitting, contribution to thedecline of exactness in speech, thereby advancing an unfortunate trend that our every effort should be bent on retarding.

Not only has the Court swept aside respected authority (State v. Green,and In re T.E.T.,with its holding that proof of intent to use a weapon for an unlawful purpose is not required to sustain a violation ofN.J.S.A.2C:39–5d; it has succeeded in cloaking the statutory language “not manifestly appropriate” with wholly undeserved respectability. The first, a disregard of established case law, is one thing—an affront to the dignity of precedent, but endurable. The second, however, is quite another—an insult to civilized parlance that in this instance depreciates an indispensable characteristic of the law: concise expression and clarity of meaning.

At the outset I would record my agreement with Judge Antell, dissenting below, that even if we were able to agree on an acceptable meaning of “not manifestly appropriate,” its use presents an insurmountable obstacle to any coherence in this criminal statute.

If read literally the statutory language would encompass countless situations which the Legislature could not have intended as the subject of prosecution. The workman carrying home a linoleum knife earlier used in his work; the paring knife inadvertently left on an automobile floor after being used for a lawful purpose; a stevedore’s hook or a fisherman’s gaff thrown into a vehicle and forgotten. A “weapon” could include a brick, a baseball bat, a hammer, a broken bottle, a fishing knife, barbed wire, a knitting needle, a sharpened pencil, a riding crop, a jagged can, rope, a screwdriver, an ice pick, a tire iron, garden shears, a pitch fork, a shovel, a length of chain, a penknife, a fork, metal pipe, a stick, etc. The foregoing only illustrate the variety of lawful objects which are often innocently possessed without wrongful intent, but under circ*mstances which are clearly not “manifestly appropriate” for their lawful use.

. . .

The point is that a phrase like “not manifestly appropriate” runs the risk, intolerable in a criminal statute, of wild swings of meaning. We should not undertake to justify its use in this statute by assuming that “we allknowwhat it means. (citations omitted)

One can reduce the threat to liberty from 2C:39-5. Unlawful possession of weapons by selecting a knife without features that suggest weapon usage. In the case of State of New Jersey v. Riley, 703 A2d 347 (1997), the defendant was convicted of first-degree armed robbery and a violation of 2C:39-5. He “knocked” an elderly man to the ground and stole $45 from him. Upon arrest at the scene, the defendant was found to have in his possession a folding knife with three blades, of which the longest was four inches. (We surmise it would have been a slip-joint “stockman” pattern or similar knife.) The knife was not “used” for the robbery. The victim testified he was unaware that the defendant had a knife at the time.

On appeal, both convictions were set aside for the reason that the knife was not a “weapon.” It was not one of the knives listed in the statutory definition of “weapon” and was neither used nor intended to be used as a weapon. Accordingly, an essential element of “armed” robbery – use of a weapon to coerce – was missing, and the defendant did not actually have a “weapon” under manifestly inappropriate circ*mstances.

Another approach to reducing the risk of violating 2C:39-5. Unlawful possession of weapons is to avoid having in one’s possession any “dangerous knife,” which is mentioned in 2C:39-1. Definitions, but not defined. The courts have established use or intent to use as a weapon as the test for what makes a knife not otherwise restricted, a “dangerous knife”:

Plainly the possession of any knife is not an incriminatory offense and a knife, popularly known as a pocketknife, penknife, or jackknife, commonly carried for personal utility, convenience, or other lawful purposes, is not a “dangerous knife” Per se. That is not to say, however, that such a knife, irrespective of the length of its blade or the circ*mstances under which it is carried, may not be a lethal weapon and should be excluded as a matter of law from the term “dangerous knife” the possession of which is interdicted by statute. Distilled from the rationale of our relevant statutes and the prevailing decisional law is a reasonable conclusion that a knife that is not dangerous Per se will be a “dangerous knife” if the purpose of possession is its use as a weapon. State of New Jersey v. Green, 303 A.2d 312 (1973).

New Jersey law does not currently recognize a right to possess even defensive weapons outside of one’s home. 2C:39-5. Unlawful possession of weapons is the statute used to enforce this policy. The American Knife & Tool Institute recommends that “personal utility, convenience, or other lawful purposes” per the Green case be considered when selecting a knife for everyday carry in the State of New Jersey.

Consequences

Violations of any of the three possessory prohibitions are felony-level offenses. A violation of 2C:39-4. Possession of weapons for unlawful purposes is a third-degree matter and carries a penalty of confinement for three to five years and up to $15,000. Violations of 2C:39-3. Prohibited weapons and devices or 2C:39-5. Unlawful possession of weapons is a fourth-degree crime and is punishable by imprisonment for up to 18 months and a fine of up to $10,000.

Law Enforcement / Military

There is an exception for U.S Military and National Guard members in 2C:39-3 (e) relating to knives while the members are on active duty or traveling to or from such active duty.

Updated February 20, 2020, by Daniel C. Lawson