(a)(1) No person shall carry or possess or attempt to use against another any instrument
or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slingshot, billy, sandclub, sandbag,
metal knuckles, slap glove, bludgeon, stun-gun, or the so called “Kung-Fu” weapons.
(2) No person shall with intent to use unlawfully against another, carry or possess a
crossbow, dagger, dirk, stiletto, sword-in-cane, bowie knife, or other similar weapon
designed to cut and stab another.
(3) No person shall wear or carry concealed upon his person, any of the above-mentioned
instruments or weapons, or any razor, or knife of any description having a blade of
more than three (3) inches in length measuring from the end of the handle where the
blade is attached to the end of the blade, or other weapon of like kind or description.
Any person violating the provisions of these subsections shall be punished by a fine
of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for not more than
one year, or both, and the weapon so found shall be confiscated.
Any person violating the provisions of these subsections while he or she is incarcerated
within the confines of the adult correctional institutions shall be punished by a
fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than three thousand dollars
($3,000), or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five (5) years,
or both, and the weapon so found shall be confiscated.
(b) No person shall sell to a person under eighteen (18) years of age, without the written
authorization of the minor’s parent or legal guardian, any stink bomb, blackjack,
slingshot, bill, sandclub, sandbag, metal knuckles, slap glove, bludgeon, stungun,
paint ball gun, so called “kung-fu” weapons, dagger, dirk, stiletto, sword-in-cane,
bowie knife, razor, or knife of any description having a blade of more than three
inches (3″) in length as described in subsection (a) of this section, or any multi-pronged
star with sharpened edges designed to be used as a weapon and commonly known as a
Chinese throwing star, except that an individual who is actually engaged in the instruction
of martial arts and licensed under § 5-43-1 [repealed] may carry and possess any multi-pronged star with sharpened edges for
the sole purpose of instructional use. Any person violating the provisions of this
subsection shall be punished by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000)
nor more than three thousand dollars ($3,000), or by imprisonment for not less than
one year nor more than five (5) years, or both, and the weapons so found shall be
confiscated.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case:
Moning v. Alfono, 254 N.W.2d 759 (Mich. 1977).
Moning v. Alfono, 254 N.W.2d 759 (Mich. 1977).
· cites it 2× “…Rev Codes Ann § 94-3525; Tenn Code Ann § 39-4901; Utah Code Ann § 76-23-4; NC Gen Stat § 14-269; SC Code § 16-23-460; RI Gen Laws § 11-47-42. [39] Alas Stat Ann § 11.55.010 (treated, along with pistols, firearms and daggers, under carrying concealed weapons statute); Del Code…”
Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 2× “[22] Section 11-47-42(a)(1). [23] Section 11-47-38.”
State v. Johnson, 414 A.2d 477 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 7× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-47-42, as amended by P.L.1975, ch. 278, § 1, a knife having a blade more than three inches in length.”
State v. Forbes, 925 A.2d 929 (R.I. 2007).
· cites it 2× “” Moreover, the incident report indicates that the knife in question had a three-inch blade, possession of which is not illegal under G.L.1956 § 11-47-42. 2 Carrying a small pocketknife is not in and of itself behavior constituting a failure to keep the peace.”
State v. Page, 792 A.2d 748 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 4× “The defendant was subsequently charged with possession of a weapon designed to cut or stab another with the intent to use it unlawfully pursuant to G.L.1956 § 11-47-42. 1 On June 28, 1999, during a jury trial in Superior Court, Correctional Officer Jeoffrey Brouillette…”
Bellisle v. Landmark Med. Ctr., 207 F. Supp. 3d 153 (D.R.I. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-42. The record references a taser, another name for a stun-gun.”
O'Neil v. Neronha (D.R.I. 2022).
· cites it 22× “Plaintiffs also refer to the term “other electronic arms” and specifically request a dec- laration that the Court finds unconstitutional the “ban on electric arms” in § 11-47-42. Id. at 13, 14, 15. Defendants contend that such a ruling would extend beyond the language of §…”
State v. Francisco Guerrero, 206 A.3d 108 (R.I. 2019).
· cites it 2× “1956 § 11-5-2 ; (2) assault and battery resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of § 11-5-2 ; and (3) wearing or carrying concealed on his person a knife having a blade of more than three inches in length, in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-47-42. The defendant was tried…”
State v. Richard Baribault (R.I. 2021).
· cites it 2× “1956 § 31-11-18; and G.L. 1956 § 11-47-42, respectively. A The Investigation and Arrest On August 4, 2015, while he was on routine patrol, the City of Warwick’s Chief Harbormaster, Jeffrey Baris, came upon a twenty-six-foot sailboat that was -2- “dragging the anchor” at the…”
Fouts v. Becerra (S.D. Cal. 2021).
“24 46 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-42 . 25 47 State v.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-42(a) — 1 case
O'Neil v. Neronha (D.R.I. 2022).
“Plaintiffs also refer to the term “other electronic arms” and specifically request a dec- laration that the Court finds unconstitutional the “ban on electric arms” in § 11-47-42. Id. at 13, 14, 15. Defendants contend that such a ruling would extend beyond the language of §…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-42(a)(1) — 2 cases
Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031 (R.I. 2004).
“[22] Section 11-47-42(a)(1). [23] Section 11-47-38.”
O'Neil v. Neronha (D.R.I. 2022).
“Plaintiffs also refer to the term “other electronic arms” and specifically request a dec- laration that the Court finds unconstitutional the “ban on electric arms” in § 11-47-42. Id. at 13, 14, 15. Defendants contend that such a ruling would extend beyond the language of §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.