CA Knives with Metal Knuckle Type Hand Guards

WTFOver

WTFOver

Joined
Oct 21, 2000
Messages
537
OK... we may have been over CA laws "6 ways to Sunday" but I am confused.:confused:

I have seen it posted that "Knives with Brass Knuckle Type Hand Guards are Illegal" But I can not find the Penal Code section that deals with it. I found the following explaining what "metal knuckles" are:

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE

SECTION 12020

(7) As used in this section, "metal knuckles" means any device or
instrument made wholly or partially of metal which is worn for
purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and which either
protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the
force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving
the blow. The metal contained in the device may help support the
hand or fist, provide a shield to protect it, or consist of
projections or studs which would contact the individual receiving a
blow.

But this clearly it to protect the public from "Impact Weapons" I would think that it would be a far reach to state that a 9" fixed blade knife with hand guard could fall under this classification. Is there law covering this? Can someone provide me a reference?

Thanks,

Lorne
 
By my reading, that section does cover a D guard on a 9" fixed blade. That guard is there to protect the wearer's hand while striking a blow.

That section might be expanded soon to include plastic knuckles too. :(
 
I agree with what Medusaoblongata said. Sounds like a metal knuckle guard & metal D guard on a knife would be illegal in CA. I asked a CA knifemaker about the legality of trench knives in CA, he came to the same conclusion as I had that they are illegal. In addition, it would be a felony rap. Welcome to Kalifornia!
 
OK, I can see your points however I'm asking if this is the only section that covers this or if there are more sections that clear-up this point.

Let's break it down a bit
"worn for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and which either protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving the blow."
It is a question of intent. If I had the intent of securing my grip while this was worn then this section might not apply to me. If I have a roll of quarters in my pocket and I intend to spend them I'm OK, but once I use them as a "fist load" I meet this definition.

Almost all knife handles are made wholly or partially of metal therefore all knives would increases the force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving the blow. Are all knives illegal? After all it is "IN OR ON THE HAND" and I always hold my knives in my hand.

"D" guards are found on many products sold in CA that are made wholly or partially of metal and this has caused me some confusion on this subject.

I think that either we are missing some reference or the supposition that these products are illegal might be incorrect. It would seem that the intent of the user is what might determine the legality of the product.
 
Let me start by saying that I don't know the answer to this question. However, the question of "intent" does not always mean the subjective intent of a particular individual user. It often refers to the general intent for which a product was designed/developed and the intent with which it is typically used. For example, it's hard to argue that a double edged dagger with a needle sharp point isn't intended to be a stabbing weapon because you personally intended to use it as a butter knife.

Other impediments to succeeding with that type of intent argument are the rules for interpreting statutes of this nature. Generally, a statute intended to protect the public welfare is construed fairly broadly by the courts to give effect to the protection that the Legislature sought to achieve. A court is unlikely to construe the statute strictly and narrowly (as it would, for example, a statute which purports to limit free speech).

Another problem is the cost of vindicating your position. On a close call or to make precedent, the DA might take you to trial on the issue. That would definitely cost you a pile of legal fees and lost work time, even if you win. If you lose, you're out the money and time, plus the criminal liability.

Although these are interesting questions to debate from an academic standpoint, you have to make a cost/benefit analysis before putting the theory to a real world test. If you believe the risk of an LEO seeing the knife and having a problem with it is low, and your potential success in dissuading the DA from prosecuting (or your chance of winning at trial) is high, then the benefit may exceed the risk. I don't know how I would personally come out on this one.
 
DancesWithKnives,

You raise some interesting points. These ARE interesting questions to debate from an academic standpoint. Due, in part, to the poor wording of these laws it can often fall on the common sense of the prosecutors and judges to interpret them. Not a position that I always feel comfortable with.

Intent is a difficult thing to interpret, but let's take your example of "the general intent for which a product was designed/developed and the intent with which it is typically used" and let’s move forward with it.

It is common to refer to a small weighted/pointed extension/cap on the end of the hilt as a "Skull Crusher". This term is one I have seen used by both Collectors and Knife Manufactures. While it is doubtful that many of us have "typically used" this feature in the way the name would imply (and would therefore indicate the “intent for which a product was designed/developed”) does our use of this term put knives with this feature of the "forbidden fruit" list for California residents?

I fully understand your Cost/Benefit analysis position. While I would find it doubtful that I would ever find myself in that position, I still wonder about things. I wonder why California (as well as many other states) has some very bizarre/vague/confusing laws on the books related to knives and how they are enforced now or have been enforced in the past.

Over the years I have invested a fair amount of time and money on this “hobby” of ours. I consider myself to be a responsible, hardworking, and law abiding adult. However, I have items in my collection that could easily be misconstrued as violating vague laws on the books. I’m sure we all have a few of those. For most of us, many of the items in our collections seldom, if ever, leave our homes but some do. Are we victims of poorly written and unenforceable laws? Or are we actively seeking ways to circumvent and outright violate legitimate laws we simply don’t like or agree with?

As this issue is primarily related to the legal system I felt this would be the proper forum for this discussion. If I was wrong or have moved off topic SHOOTIST16 please let me know and I will open a new thread on the Knives, News and Your Views! Forum or any other that is deemed more appropriate.

Thank You,
Lorne
 
WTFOver,

Again, I can't answer your question but perhaps I can throw in a little more food for thought. Many years ago I spent some time studying the legal history of laws on weapons, especially in California. One thing that I immediately noticed was the odd distinction between the penalties for unlawful concealed carry of a firearm and unlawful carry of certain knives and martial arts weapons. The penalties for the latter were often more harsh than the penalties for the firearms violations.

Some of the historians who have researched the development of the California weapons laws believe that this apparent anomaly was due at least in part to the racial and class evolution of California between Statehood and the time that the laws reached their modern form. Some historians opine that during the Frontier Days, knives were often considered preferred weapons of minority groups and/or the lower economic classes. So-called martial arts weapons were associated with immigrant Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino laborers. Firearms, on the other hand, were perceived to be the preferred weapons of the Caucasian upper and middle classes. Since those people held most of the seats in the Legislature and most of the judgeships, the theory is that the weapons laws were promulgated and enforced in a manner that would favor the racial and economic class to which the lawmakers belonged. Hence, harsher penalties for knives, nunchakus, and other weapons of that ilk than for concealed handguns.

Other analysts discount the foregoing theory and believe that the enactment of harsher penalties was related to the perception that knives and martial arts weapons are supposedly easier to silently employ as assassin's/street criminal's weapons (setting aside the issue of suppressed firearms).

Another factor that cannot be overlooked is the desire of some politicians to hastily enact poorly researched and ill-conceived laws for the purpose of making it look like they are addressing a problem (while they are actually having no real effect on its roots). The laws banning balisongs because they were supposedly favored by gang members is a classic example. As if the gang bangers wouldn't buy another type of knife or simply buy the bali unlawfully!

I wish someone could definitively answer your question rather than my just tossing in a few theories that I remember reading. Unfortunately, it's such a complex question that there probably isn't any clear answer.
 
In addition to what DWK just said, the firearms lobby is quite strong and, even here in CA, they have more influence in politics than any knife rights group could. Firearms also have more of a sense of legitimacy as defensive weapons than knives do, according to lawmakers everywhere. Look at the number of states that offers CCW permits, and how many of those permits cover knives as well. Even the pro-RKBA people rarely go out of their way to keep knives legal. And when some bozo sees his kids watching a ninja movie and moves to ban those deadly martial arts weapons, who's really gonna fight him on it?

As far as what the law covers, it does say, "any device or instrument ... which is worn for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand." The mention of purpose seems to suggest something on the order of intent. If you got caught using a roll of quarters as a fistload they might even try to get you on this. You could argue that the D guard on your 9" FB is just there for the purpose of grip security while you chop down trees, and if a park ranger who sees you chopping down trees with said knife believes you then all is well, but if you end up in court, I think you're screwed. Yes, a knife in the hand does provide the holder with something metal in his hand with which to hit someone, but the only way I could see this coming up is if you beat someone with a closed knife, and even then I don't think a 12020c7 charge would stick. It does bring up an interesting question about the Gunting drone, though, and this has been mentioned before. Since the live blade version has a knife on it, it's probably legal, but the drone has no other use than as an impact weapon, and may be illegal for that reason.

Ultimately, I think that the issue of intent could count against a defendant, but not in favor of him. I think, if you're caught with something that resembles "metal knuckles," you're busted no matter what your intent is, and if you're caught with something that doesn't necessarrily resemble "metal knuckles," but your intent is to use it as such, then you're busted. At least, that's the interpretation I'm gonna use to try to keep my ass outta jail.

Oh, and people always use issues like this to bash CA, and while I agree that weapons laws are stupid, I think most states have laws against brass knuckles, and it's not just a CA thing.
 
You both raise good points. I am not seeking a definitive answer as I don’t believe there is one. The circumstances surrounding why someone might be cited are key to this issue I would think.

Haste to appear “hard on crime” by politicians while choosing a “soft target” I’m sure has played a large part in many states ill-conceived edged weapon laws. Firearm manufacturers and supporters have been much more politically active and wield more power than knife enthusiasts. That’s even before we try to address the possible constitutional rights issue.

I wondered if and when Bram’s/Spyderco’s Gunting would be brought up. If Jason had not brought it up I was going to. I find it interesting that a tool designed from the start as an impact tool might be considered “legal” solely due to the fact that it includes a “live” blade. The Gunting was designed and intended for non-lethal force application as an impact tool and allows for force escalation, if needed, by deployment of the blade. It is true that the Drone has no use other than training or to be used solely as an impact weapon/tool. As a tool for safe training of an otherwise “legal” self-defense tool I could see that this would be OK in the training sense and implementation only. Bram will not be making the blue CRMIPT available to anyone other than LEO and we should have no problem there. We would just need to resolve the legality of the “live” Gunting and the rest would fall in place.

Now let us look at the broader picture related to “metal knuckles”. I agree that many states other that California have restrictions on this type of weapon. However CA is the one most often identified with this restriction and that was the reason I first asked about this. I would have to believe that whether we are dealing with the “metal knuckles” issue or “Trench Knife” there will be several states that might find these items to be questionable.

I wonder if I’m the only one who finds it interesting that when my wife attends a “Woman’s Self-Defense” course led by local LEO’s she is told to hold her keys in her hand when going to her car in a parking lot. She was instructed that she can use these as “force multipliers” in punching an attacker and also to “rake them over soft target spots on the attacker”. Now while keys were not designed for this task, they can work very well. It might be hard to justify charging the “victim” of an attack with a felony but would her implementation of this tactic not be in violation of the letter if not intent of the law? After all Defensive use is specifically identified in the applicable section.

One other item I wonder about relates to Cutlass and Sword products. These manufacturers for years have implemented “D” guards. I can find no clear definition of “sword” in CA state law. The dictionary is not very helpful in drawing the distinction between these and knives. How are these “D” guards any different than those used on knives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top