Letter to Madison City Council

Early this morning I sent the following correspondence to all members of the Madison, WI city council urging them to repeal section 25.28 of the city ordinances  which states "No person shall sell, manufacture, purchase, possess, or carry a "Numchuk" (also called a "Nunchaku") or a "Churkin" or a "Sucbai" or similar weapon, within the City of Madison."  I made the following arguments:

1) Thousands of varieties of weapons exist, yet during the city 1970's chose to ban just three which originated in Southeast Asia and are part of the long martial arts tradition?  Why? We know why:  because of a hysteria against these weapons that arose with the rise in popularity of martial arts entertainment at the same time.  This was similar to the anti-switchblade hysteria that spread in the 1950s.  Every culture has a warrior tradition. To maintain a prohibition only against weapons that originated in a particular culture might be an example of institutional racism. People whose heritage comes from Japan, China, Okinawa, The Philippines or Indonesia might consider banning their traditional weapons racist and offensive.

2) There is absolutely no practical reason to continue to prohibit these weapons.  Their use in crime is exceeding rare.   More effective weapons are easily obtainable and legal to carry.  State law already preempts the regulation of knives by municipalities, therefore the prohibition of one of the three weapons appears to have been made unenforceable a half dozen years ago.

3)  The city prohibits the sale, purchase and possession of a "sucbai" -- a term that has fallen so far out of use that virtually nobody would know what the city banned if a definition of "sucbai" had not been included.  But when one reads the definition it is clear that it describes weapons that are essentially the same but known by other names.  Not only are they the same type of weapon, but they are popular and carried by many people for self-defense.

4) Case law in Wisconsin includes a court of appeals opinion that even the statutory prohibition of switchblade knives that existed at the time could not apply to a switchblade that a man possessed inside his home for protection.  A court could easily apply the same reasoning to the Madison ordinance and render it unenforceable.

I did not include a constitutional argument.  It is my hope that one does not need to resort to making constitutional arguments outside of a courtroom.  I believe I already provided sufficient grounds to repeal the ordinance.  Article 1, Section 25 of the Wisconsin constitution did not exist at the time this ordinance was enacted. But it exists now and brings the constitutionality of the ordinance into serious question.  

Here is the text of my letter to the city council:

 Dear Alders:

Hello, I am writing to urge you to sponsor or support the repeal Section 25.28 of the Madison city ordinances which is entitled “Possession, sale and manufacture of certain weapons prohibited” and to give you the reasons why you ought to do so.

This ordinance references three specific weapons:  “Numchuk” (also known as, and more properly referred to as the “Nunchaku”), the “Churkin”, and the “Sucbai.”

Before I discuss each of these items in more detail, let me provide you with a little history.

In the 1950’s, what can best be described as a form of hysteria regarding switchblade knives spread across the country.  The hysteria was created and fueled by Hollywood and Broadway depictions of switchblade knives.  Rebel Without A Cause, Crime In The Streets, 12 Angry Men, The Delinquents, High School Confidential, The Wild Ones, and West Side Story are examples of entertainment that depicted switchblade knives as favored weapons of hoodlums, outlaw bikers and gang members; and due to this association it was believed that the switchblade must be particularly evil or dangerous.  

Because of their alleged “guilt by association” with criminals in entertainment, state after state passed statutes banning switchblade knives in the 1950’s.  Wisconsin was no exception and passed its own statute prohibiting the possession of switchblades and “gravity knives.”

Other than their association with fictional criminals, exactly what about the nature of a switchblade knife that reportedly makes it unusually evil or dangerous compared to other knife designs was not explained.  

People who are grounded in reality, and who possess a certain level of familiarity with the design and use of knives, understand that the belief in the inherent evilness or dangerousness of a switchblade is nonsense; and that there is nothing in the nature of a switchblade knife that makes it more nocuous than other types of knives.  In recent years, some state legislatures came to their senses, resulting in the repeal of anti-switchblade laws in many states.  The Wisconsin legislature came to its senses, at least momentarily, and repealed its switchblade ban in 2015.  (While on the topic of knives, I will simply point out that you also ought to revise 9.06 and 23.59 of the ordinances due to 2015 Wisconsin Act 149.)

Let’s fast forward from the 1950s to the 1970s.  The early 1970s saw the rise in popularity of the kung fu genre of movies and television shows in the United States lead by a series of movies featuring the actor and martial artist, Bruce Lee, and the television show “Kung Fu” starring David Carradine.  While not on the same scale as the 1950’s switchblade hysteria, a smaller version of it spread.  The Wisconsin legislature did nothing, but a number of municipalities in Wisconsin, including Madison, enacted ordinances banning some of the weapons depicted on TV and in movies.

Oddly, and for reasons unknown to me, out of scores if not hundreds of martial arts weapons of Asian origin in existence, the Madison City Council selected just three traditional Asian martial arts weapons to regulate.  Why they selected these three specific weapons and excluded the many others, I have no idea.  But I do know that two of the three were prominently featured in martial arts entertainment at the time.  As a matter of policy, I do not believe the inspiration provided by fictional works of entertainment is a good basis on which to create legislation. But it does explain ridiculous prohibitions we experienced regarding switchblade knives and still see in Ordinance 25.28.

Let’s examine each item named in 25.28 briefly:

The “Nunchaku” is a weapon recognized by most people.  It originated in Okinawa and is made of two sticks connected by a short rope or chain.  It is, of course, the weapon of choice of the character Michelangelo, in the cartoon Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.  This weapon featured prominently in the popular Bruce Lee movies of the 1970s.

The “Churkin” is described in the ordinance as “a round throwing knife consisting of several sharp points protruding from a rounded disc.”  I believe the term “Churkin” has lost widespread use.  Nowadays the more commonly used term is “Shuriken” or popularly “throwing stars” or “ninja stars.”  These weapons were frequently used in martial arts movies and on the TV show Kung Fu. I am not a lawyer, but there are some in the City Attorney’s office.  I would urge you to ask if the City Attorney agrees with me that the portion of the ordinance that refers to “Churkins” is already completely unenforceable because 2015 Wisconsin Act 149 preempts and supersedes a municipality’s ability  to regulate knives, and the ordinance itself defines a Churkin as a type of “knife.”

Finally, the third weapon mentioned in Section 25.28 is a “Sucbai.”   This is particularly interesting.  The word itself has virtually disappeared from use. If you search the Internet for the term, in reference to a weapon, most likely it will only be found within the ordinances of a few Wisconsin municipalities, which I venture to guess were all enacted in the 1970s.  It is safe to say that hardly anyone would be able to tell you what is a “Sucbai” without reading the description contained in the ordinance.  Yet the city bans it.

A “Sucbai” is described in Section 25.28 as “a short length of wood or metal or similar material which when gripped in the hand protrudes on either side of the fist.”  It is, apparently, a term not currently in use within the English speaking world of martial arts.  A term long-used to refer to “a short length of wood or other material which protrudes from the hand when gripped” is “yawara.”  I have been familiar with this term since I first began to read on the topic martial arts in the 1960s.  

Other terms describing similar weapons include “ticchu”; and in the Filipino martial arts tradition a “Dulo y dulo” or “dulo-dulo.”  But I do not believe these are widely-known terms.

The yawara is a Japanese weapon.  A similar and common variation of it is a “Kubotan” (sometimes spelled “Kubaton”) which is very often found attached to keys in the purses and pockets of many women.  It would probably be exceedingly rare to find anyone in the City of Madison, or anywhere in the state, who chooses to carry Nunchaku or Churkin– even though they are legal throughout most of the state.  But the use of the Kubotan is so popular and widespread that I would not be surprised to learn that even some members of the city council carry this item attached to a keyring for self-defense.  Whatever you call them,  the “sucbai”, “yawara” and “kubotan”, are essentially the same thing– “a short length of wood or metal or similar material which when gripped in the hand protrudes on either side of the fist.”  They also happen to be one of the most common self-defense tools carried, particularly by women.

What are the reasons I believe the city should repeal 25.28?  There are several:

1. I think the residents of Madison may be offended by the fact that, out of the thousands of types of personal weapons in the world, the city has selected to ban only three, all which originated in southeast Asia.  The city has never attempted to regulate the possession of, say, an Irish Shillelagh or Nepali Kukri.  The city should not maintain institutionalization of the vestiges of anti-Asian sentiment and prejudice.

2. There is no evidence that any of these weapons are used in crimes except in the rarest instances.  I am aware that there is a very recent and rare use of a kubotan in the local news.  I doubt that it has even occurred to the police that this weapon meets the definition of “Sucbai.”

3. These weapons represent no greater threat or danger than any of a very long list of available and legal weapons.  Nunchaku require more practice and training to use as a weapon than most people will invest.  They are of interest primarily to practitioners of martial arts who are willing to invest the time in learning their use.  “Churkins” have practically no value as a weapon.  Even among practitioners of martial arts they are regarded as useful only as a distraction and diversion against an attacker.  Their most important use is as a recreational device, similar to throwing darts.  Also, as I mentioned, I believe the city is already preempted in its ability to enforce this portion of the ordinance by statute.  The so-called “scubai” is in reality a very commonly used self-defense tool carried by women throughout the country in the form of a kubotan.  Also very similar to a kubotan is the “tactical pen” which is used in a similar fashion.  As is the use of a tactical flashlight when employed as an improvised weapon. These items are seldom used in an offensive manner, and to be realistic, to be effective with them in any manner requires a certain amount of training and practice. There is no rational reason to continue to prohibit the possession of any of these items, considering there are more lethal alternatives easily and legally available. 

4. Shortly before the passage of 2015 Wisconsin Act 149, which legalized the possession of switchblades in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of State v Cory S. Herrmann, that ruled that a statutory prohibition against switchblades was unconstitutional insofar as it did not allow Mr. Herrmann to have a switchblade for protection in his own home.  I believe if a person challenged Madison’s ordinance, the opinion of the Court of Appeals in that case would present a challenge to the city.  And to be frank, if one remembers the city’s failed attempts to regulate open carry and weapons on city buses, the City of Madison does not have a good record of prevailing in court on issues involving weapons. These cases resulted in the city paying thousands of dollars in settlements, and payment of the attorney fees and court costs of the aggrieved parties.  

Therefore I ask you to repeal 25.28.  It is pointless, archaic, insulting to a particular minority community, and of dubious validity legally.  I also ask you to vote to update 9.06 and 23.59 to make it consistent with changes in state law that went into effect in early 2016.

Thank you,