Criminal Defense Lawyers in Prohibited Bladed Weapons

When is Carrying a Knife a Crime?

Prohibited Weapons

The Weapons Regulation expressly prohibits a closed list of bladed weapons whose mere possession or carrying constitutes the offence of possession of prohibited weapons (Art. 563 CP): switchblades (spring-loaded), butterfly knives, stilettos and double-edged daggers, machetes and any blade exceeding 11 cm without a justified domestic, professional or sporting use, as well as disguised weapons (sword canes, knuckle dusters). By contrast, manual single-edged knives with a blade under 11 cm and common tools are not prohibited weapons, and their possession is in itself lawful. The first task in any case is to determine whether the seized object actually falls within this prohibited list.

Fine vs Crime

The decisive distinction is between mere possession and public carry. Keeping a kitchen knife, an agricultural machete or a collection of historical blades at home is, as a general rule, lawful. The problem arises with carrying in a public place: carrying a non-prohibited knife without justification may be a serious administrative infringement (fine of 601 to 30,000 euros) under the Citizen Security Law, but not necessarily a crime. The line crosses into the criminal sphere when the weapon is one of the prohibited ones, or when it is carried with intent to attack. Context and intention are therefore determinative, and at a police checkpoint the burden of justifying the carry falls on the person carrying it.

Court Defense

If accused of a crime for carrying a bladed weapon, we argue:

• Prohibition Error: Rational belief that the object (e.g., knife bought at a gas station) was legal.
• Absence of Danger: The weapon was in the trunk, in a box, far from reach, with no risk to others.
• Object Nature: Expert analysis to prove it does not fit the technical definition of "prohibited weapon" (e.g., the opening system is not automatic, or the blade is under 11 cm).
• Reclassification to Infringement: Arguing the object is regulated, not prohibited, replacing prison with an administrative fine.
• Legitimate Use: Professional or sporting purpose (cooking, fishing, hunting, mountaineering) with no offensive intent.

The Line Between Crime and Administrative Offence (LO 4/2015)

The technical core of almost every defence in this area is deciding whether the conduct is genuinely a crime or, instead, a mere administrative offence under Organic Law 4/2015 on the protection of public safety. Not everything involving a weapon amounts to a crime. The offence in Article 563 requires the object to be a weapon prohibited by the Weapons Regulation (Royal Decree 137/1993): automatic switchblades, brass knuckles, non-approved electric batons and the like. Merely carrying a conventional knife, a non-prohibited bladed item or an approved defensive spray does not constitute any offence at all.

When the conduct falls outside the Penal Code, it usually fits as a serious or very serious administrative offence under LO 4/2015, punishable with a fine and, where appropriate, seizure of the object, but without a criminal record or any risk of imprisonment. The gap between the two characterisations is enormous, which is why defence work focuses on showing that the weapon is not among the prohibited ones, that the irregularity is purely regulatory, or that the element the criminal provision demands is missing. A correct administrative characterisation can close the criminal proceedings for lack of a punishable act.

This boundary also extends to firearms. Minor irregularities in the paperwork, an expired licence or failure to renew the ownership permit do not automatically equate to the offence in Article 564, which punishes possession of regulated weapons without a licence or permit. The defence examines whether an authorising title existed, whether the defect can be cured administratively, and whether the intent the offence requires is present, in order to steer the case toward administrative sanction where appropriate.

How the Proceedings Run and the Competent Court

These offences are investigated as preliminary proceedings before the Investigating Court of the place where the events occurred, and as the case advances, the trial falls to the Criminal Court (Juzgado de lo Penal) when the maximum penalty does not exceed five years' imprisonment, which is the case for virtually all the possession offences of Articles 563 and 564 and the stockpiling of regulated firearms. The Provincial Court (Audiencia Provincial) hears only the most serious cases, such as the stockpiling of war weapons or explosives, whose penalty exceeds that threshold. It is worth clarifying that the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) has no jurisdiction over these matters, unless there is a connection to a terrorism offence.

The five-year boundary is not merely about which court hears the case: it determines the procedure, the investigation deadlines, and the scope for a plea agreement and suspension. For that reason the defence's first task is to confirm that the prosecution's provisional charge fits the correct criminal type and that the accusation has not been inflated by dragging in the aggravating factors of Article 564.2 (erased marks, illegal importation or modification of the weapon) without sufficient evidentiary basis.

From the very first statement it matters to fix the account, examine the chain of custody of the seized weapon, and review the lawfulness of the search or the stop-and-frisk that led to the find. A search carried out without legal cover, an arrest lacking safeguards, or a seizure of the object that ignored the legal requirements can render the essential evidence void. In a process that almost always revolves around a single object, such procedural defects are frequently decisive for the outcome.

Expert Evidence from the Civil Guard Weapons Unit and the Weapon's Operability

In firearms offences the leading evidence is the expert report of the Civil Guard's Weapons and Explosives Unit (Intervención de Armas), which examines the weapon and determines its classification, its category under the Weapons Regulation, and above all its operability: whether it is capable of firing, whether it has been deactivated, and whether the ammunition is live. This report conditions the offence itself, because a weapon definitively deactivated in accordance with the regulations, or incapable of firing, may fall outside the criminal type or be steered toward an administrative offence.

The defence does not treat the official report as a closed fact. It is possible to request that the expert analysis be expanded, to appoint a defence expert, to question the expert at trial about the method used, and to challenge issues such as the reversibility of the deactivation, the state of preservation of the weapon, or the object's true regulatory category. With bladed weapons, the analysis centres on whether the object is catalogued as prohibited under the Weapons Regulation or, on the contrary, is an everyday utensil not included in that list.

The technical debate over operability and classification is often the real battleground of the trial. Establishing that the weapon was incapable of firing, that it was deactivated, or that it is not among the prohibited items can transform the characterisation entirely, lead to acquittal for lack of a punishable act, or serve as the basis for a substantial reduction of the penalty. That is why it is advisable to examine the weapon and its report from the outset of the proceedings.

The Article 565 Mitigation, Plea Agreements and the Weapon's Fate

Article 565 offers a mitigation route specific to this family of offences: the judge may reduce the penalty by one degree when, in view of the circumstances of the act and of the perpetrator, the lack of any intention to use the weapons for unlawful purposes is evident. It is a proportionality tool designed for someone who possesses a weapon with no intention of using it dangerously, for instance an unregularised family inheritance or a weapon kept with no purpose of use. Establishing that context, together with ordinary mitigating factors such as restitution or confession, can place the penalty at its minimum range.

When the facts are hard to dispute, a plea agreement may be a sensible way out: negotiating with the prosecution a measured characterisation and an agreed penalty which, in many cases, where it does not exceed two years' imprisonment and the person has no prior record, opens the door to suspension of the sentence's enforcement. The strategy depends on the strength of the evidence, the personal circumstances, and the mitigating factors that can be gathered in each file.

The ancillary consequences should not be overlooked. A conviction, and often the administrative file itself, entail the seizure and forfeiture of the weapon, its ammunition and related objects, as well as possible disqualification or withdrawal of licences. As for limitation, under Article 131 of the Penal Code offences whose maximum penalty is five years or less become time-barred after five years, while the stockpiling of war weapons, exceeding that limit, becomes time-barred after ten. Verifying the count from the moment the offence was completed is always a mandatory check for the defence.