Senate Judiciary hears bill to allow adults to own brass knuckles, blackjacks and slung shots

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a bill that would repeal the state’s ban on ownership of certain impact weapons by people 18 and older.

Representative (Rep.) Splane told the committee the measure would align possession rules for brass knuckles, blackjacks and slung shots with current laws governing knives and similar items. “I would love to see us come in line with our knife laws and say that anyone 18 may not possess, buy, or sell these weapons, but that, they can be possessed, sold, and owned by people older than that age just like any other,” Rep. Splane said during the public hearing.

The bill’s sponsor argued the existing statute contains a long list of exemptions — including for licensed hunters and fishers, night watchmen and certain on‑duty personnel — that has rendered the prohibition largely unenforceable. Rep. Splane highlighted examples he said made the ban anomalous: “If I have a hunting and fishing license, which I do, I can carry brass knuckles. But if another representative doesn’t have a hunting and fishing license, he can’t,” he said, noting the statute’s list of exclusions is nearly as long as the prohibition itself.

Why it matters: supporters said the law is a technical mismatch with other weapons rules and criminal enforcement priorities. Opponents and some committee members raised enforcement and public‑safety questions, and several senators asked whether easier online availability would undercut the proposal’s intent.

Senator Osterholm questioned whether modern retail channels would make the weapons widely available even if the ban remained. “Are you aware that actually these items can be purchased brand new, updated, not vintage, on Amazon?” Osterholm asked during the hearing. Rep. Splane acknowledged that such items are sold in multiple forms, and said the proposal sought to reduce inconsistencies between statutes rather than expand access.

Members of the public who testified offered differing views on risk and enforcement. Jeff Kelman of Bedford, a member of his temple’s security committee, told the committee he supported the bill. “I am inclined to support HP 207 here,” Kelman said, adding he believed these items are less lethal on average than firearms and that enforcing the current prohibition could divert law‑enforcement resources from higher‑priority threats.

Committee members pressed sponsors on where the bill would leave law enforcement and how courts and prosecutors should treat the remaining exemptions. The hearing record shows discussion focused on whether the statute’s exemptions — for hunters and fishers “in the act of hunting and fishing,” for on‑duty personnel, and for other narrowly defined activities — were reasonable or unduly broad when applied across daily life.

The public hearing closed with no immediate vote. The bill remains in committee and could be amended before any floor action.