California Arrest

[CJ Buck]

CALIFORNIA JUDGE RULES BENCHMADE FOLDER IS NOT A SWITCHBLADE; FIRST JUDICIAL DECISION DEALING WITH AKTI LEGISLATION

By Chris Micheli


After two days of testimony from the author and the arresting officer, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge issued a verbal ruling on October 29, 2003 that a Benchmade Model 910 Striker was not a switchblade under California Penal Code Section 653k because it fell within the one-handed opening knife exemption language drafted by AKTI in 2001. However, the prosecution in the case may appeal this decision, and the judge suggested that the Legislature should modify the exemption language so that it is clearer. The case is People v. Miller and the district attorney dismissed the charges against the defendant that day.
By way of background, California’s switchblade law was modified in SB 274, by State Senator Betty Karnette, which was signed into law in 2001. The bill was the result of extensive discussions and negotiations between the American Knife & Tool Institute (AKTI) and the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA).
The amendments to Section 653k by SB 274 were intended to only allow knives to fall under the exemption from the switchblade law if the knife contains a detent or similar mechanism. Such mechanisms ensure there is some resistance that prevents the knife from being easily opened with a flick of the wrist.


This is CJ,

Chris has been working this case with Benchmade.

The Judge rethought his ruling and there is a hearing on Nov 21st that Chris is preparing for. He has put together a brief (why do thay call them that, it is multiple pages) laying out to the court why it made the right choice the first time.

I will post any updates I get from Chris.

 

[CJ Buck]

Chris goes to a court hearing today at 1:30pm pacific in Sacramento. He has spoken with the defense atty and she had spoken with law enforcement and the Califorinia District Attys Assoc. Here is what he said...

It looks pretty good so far. The DA will not call any witnesses and will not be submitting a legal brief. She said that she had talked with several DAs and the CDAA staff, who said two things to her: First, talk to Chris Micheli about knife laws. Second, his testimony was correct about the intent of the law. So, she is totally frustrated and is just going to tell the judge that she has nothing to add.

The exemption for one handers that AKTI fought for twice is still holding strong. We will see how the hearing goes.

 

[IamMatt]

Despite the favorable ruling, I just read Chris' article in the April KI Magazine with some quotes from the judge that show he does not understand the place of the judiciary in our system of government, wanting to impose his personal values over the will of the people as expressed by their elected legislature.

SB274 is REALLY CLEAR, IMHO regarding the exemption for one-handed folding knives from the general classification of switchblades, and if it were not sufficiently clear, Senator Karnette's statement of legisltative intent certainly is.

Despite SB274's language indicating that:

"'Switchblade knife' does not include a knife that is designed to open with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife or a thumb stud attached to the blade, provided that the knife utilizes a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or biases the blade back toward its closed position,"

and the further language in the statement of legislative intent written by Senator Karnette--the author of the bill--clarifying that:

"...SB274 narrows the language [of the previous laws prohibiting sale or possession of switchblade knives] to allow knives to fall under the exemption from the switchblade law if that one-handed knife contains a detent or similar mechanism. Such mechanisms ensure that there is a measure of resistance (no matter how slight) that prevents the knife from being easily opened with a flick of the wrist... Although some one-handed opening knives can be opened with a strong flick of the wrist, so long as they contain a detent or similar mechanism that provides resistance to opening the blade, then the exemption is triggered.",

This judge [quoting the KI article] "set forth a definition of 'resistance,' although one is not provided in the statute," taking it upon himself to decide that it means "a force that limits or retards movement," and asserted "that the one-handed opening knife exemption language is 'sufficiently vague'" as to require the statute to be narrowly construed, and then, apparently because he holds that his personal views are more important than those of the duly-elected legislature, he expressed his concern with the exemption language, saying that he did not think the exemption was a "wise" decision, and suggesting that the prosecution appeal his decision. He also suggested that the Legislature take up the matter because the language of the statute is "ambiguous and unclear".

I suggest that if he finds the language unclear, he lacks the mental acuity to sit on the bench. I further find it repugnant that he, like so many activist judges, feels it is his place to assert that his personal views are superior to the expressed will of the people [all emphases mine].

Rant mode off.

Thanks to Chris, everyone at AKTI, Senator Karnett, and everyone involved; what a pity that we have to fight tooth and nail for simple common sense.

 

[CJ Buck]

Thanks for the note Matt.

We all worked to get a clear understanding for the exemption. It does go to show that this is never done. Constant monitoring and re-tweaking is neccessary.

It is why the industry continues to support AKTI.

 

[Geode]

Anyone know where this ruling stands now? My brother lives in CA, and one-hand openers make great gifts - if legal.