California state law wth.

This has been an interesting discussion. I don't live in CA, but out of curiosity does it make a difference under the law if the knife is carried in a backpack/bookpack, or briefcase instead of on the person?
 
Last edited:
cgmblade said:
This has been an interesting discussion. I don't live in CA, but out of curiosity dose it make a difference under the law if the knife is carried in a backpack/bookpack, or briefcase instead of on the person?
Click to expand...

i think readily accessible is the name of the game.
the last officers who harassed me (in error) said i should put my fixed blade in my bag to be in compliance. of course they were wrong about everything else involved soo....
 
DWK2 said:
Morimotom,

You've been so generous with information on knife (and other) laws that I thought I would provide my recollection of the background of the odd prohibition on 3+ inch exposed carry in LA City/County. I was here when the laws were being considered and passed and I recall reading the history and rationale behind them.

During the 1970s, there were a lot of gang banger type drug dealers hanging out in Echo, MacArthur and some of the other city parks. They got checked out by the police periodically so many didn't want to unlawfully carry firearms to defend their illegal inventory and cash. Instead, many of them started going to Army surplus stores and buying old WWI type bayonets. These were available very cheaply and were often the size of a short sword. Alternatively, some bought cheap machetes.

The drug dealers would wear these large blades on their belts in the public areas where they were doing business to intimidate rivals, protect their inventory, keep customers from failing to pay, etc. So the problem about which the city council and county board of supervisors were concerned was the conspicuous public brandishing of large blades by low lifes for purposes of intimidation. Accordingly, their legal staffs drafted legislation aimed only at the narrow open carry issue. Apparently they were not told to address concealed carry or to write a comprehensive, integrated knife law.

Until you hear the history and intent of the legislation, it always seems incongruous that open carry of a large folder in LA would be a problem while concealed carry would not. However, as with many annoying laws, it was a bunch of dirtbags behaving badly that caused this quirky legal situation with which we must now deal.

DancesWithKnives
Click to expand...

just saw your post, suppose that makes sense.

i also wonder if it had anything to do with the manson family members wearing fixed blade knives openly outside of the temple courthouse during the trial.
 
Could well be. If my memory is good, the Black Panthers' open carry of firearms in Sacramento worried the legislators enough to restrict that former California right.

DancesWithKnives
 
I have a kinda quick question regarding Universities, specifically CalPoly Pomona (LA County).

University policy is:
"possession of a weapon ( Penal Code 626.9 prohibits bringing a firearm, knife or dangerous weapon onto the campus of a public school including the California State University)"

----but 626.9 only applies to schools K-12, prohibiting the possession of firearms never mentioning knives or other weapons.


From the University:

"41301. Expulsion, Suspension and Probation of Students."
(3) The term "deadly weapons" includes any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, sling shot, billy, sandclub, sandbag, metal knuckles, any dirk, dagger, switchblade knife, pistol, revolver, or any other firearm, any knife having a blade longer than five inches, any razor with an unguarded blade, and any metal pipe or bar used or intended to be used as a club.

----This states that a knife under 5" is not considered a deadly weapon


626.10(a) applies only to K-12
626.10(b) prohibits fixed blades over 2.5" in colleges
626.10(h) defines a dirk and dagger


So am I legally allowed to carry my BM Mini Skirmish (~3.5") in the closed position and completely inside my pocket?
 
I was arrested on a CSU campus for carrying a Buck Strider 880. 6 months later it the case was thrown out. The judge said my knife must be returned.
 
Tubig said:
I have a kinda quick question regarding Universities, specifically CalPoly Pomona (LA County).

University policy is:
"possession of a weapon ( Penal Code 626.9 prohibits bringing a firearm, knife or dangerous weapon onto the campus of a public school including the California State University)"

----but 626.9 only applies to schools K-12, prohibiting the possession of firearms never mentioning knives or other weapons.


From the University:

"41301. Expulsion, Suspension and Probation of Students."
(3) The term "deadly weapons" includes any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, sling shot, billy, sandclub, sandbag, metal knuckles, any dirk, dagger, switchblade knife, pistol, revolver, or any other firearm, any knife having a blade longer than five inches, any razor with an unguarded blade, and any metal pipe or bar used or intended to be used as a club.

----This states that a knife under 5" is not considered a deadly weapon


626.10(a) applies only to K-12
626.10(b) prohibits fixed blades over 2.5" in colleges
626.10(h) defines a dirk and dagger


So am I legally allowed to carry my BM Mini Skirmish (~3.5") in the closed position and completely inside my pocket?
Click to expand...

Section 626.9 is irrelevant to knives, and the university made a mistake in how it worded its policy.

Section 626.10 is the section that applies to knives, and subsection (b) provides in relevant part:

(b) Any person, except a ... [LEO, etc.] who brings or possesses any dirk, dagger, ice pick, or knife having a fixed blade longer than 2 1/2 inches upon the grounds of, or within, any private university, the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges is guilty of a public offense, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
Click to expand...
Subsection (c) exempts bringing in a knife (but not dirk or dagger) "for use in a private university, state university, community college, or school-sponsored activity or class."

Subsection (d) exempts bringing in a knife (but not dirk or dagger) "for a lawful purpose within the scope of the person's employment."

Subsection (e) exempts bringing in a knife (but not dirk or dagger) "for lawful use in or around a residence or residential facility located upon those grounds or for lawful use in food preparation or consumption."

The tricky part is subsection (h), which provides:
As used in this section, "dirk" or "dagger" means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.
​
Does that include a folding knife that is in the closed position? Not clear.

Under Penal Code section 12020, the term "dirk or dagger" is defined for the purpose of that section. It provides:
As used in this section, a "dirk" or "dagger" means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death. A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not prohibited by Section 653k, or a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.
​
So for purposes of section 12020, a folding knife that is not open is clearly and unequivocally not a dirk or dagger, but section 626.10 contains no such limitation with respect to folding knives.

Probably a drafting error on the part of the legislature, and if I were the judge, I would rule that a folding knife that is not open is not a dirk or dagger, based in part on section 12020. And subsection (e) might work to protect a student from charges. But I am not a judge, and the section as drafted does seem to expose the students and visitors to college and university campuses to the risk of criminal charges simply for carrying a pocket knife if the authorities claim that it is a "dirk or dagger."

Keep in mind that university policies are in addition to the Penal Code and can only supplement it. University policy can not legalize what is prohibited by the Penal Code.

So the short answer to your quick question is maybe yes, maybe no. But at least you now understand why there is no clear answer.
 
This is one of those issues each person or heck even student needs to decide. Whether to carry your defensive tool and may be caught with out it or rarely unlike get caught with it. And for you college students, check out the crimes committed in your campuses you will want your 5 inch fixed blade on your side at minimum. When i heard that my campus had some car jackings while parked far away in un lit areas. And student being beat up by gangsters, and what not, i choose not to be a victim and carry my tool.
 
It is worth your time to read the entire CA penal code 12020. It will tell you everything you need to know for the state (not including schools and govt building). Read it and re-read it just to make sure.

Then read up on your county. If it is LA -you are screwed. Orange County is not bad -it is basically the same as the state code -dont quote me on it though, read up for yourself.
 
Charlie Mike said:
Tell me about it:barf:

That knife cost me approx $3000 in legal fees.
Click to expand...
Didn't you work for the campus police in their office at that university? Wasn't it someone who also worked for the PD that turned you in? Could it have been sour grapes or office politics? Otherwise, how would they even know that you carried that Buck?
 
The guy who turned me in was the boyfriend of a girl in the dorms who I was interested in. She never said she was taken. We never did anything but she told her boyfriend who was visiting. He told the police that I showed him a gun in my room. I get arrested by one of my former co-workers. I go to jail for having violating PC626.10. I was carrying in a belt sheath. They never found a gun because I have never owned one. They found a target and a few empty casings that were souvenirs from a trip to the local indoor range. They called the range and verified I had been there and rented a gun that matched the casings.

I still don't know why they pursued prosecution. The law states semi clearly that my 4" folder was legal. It didn't violate campus policy either but they kicked me out of the dorms for it anyway. I'm guessing that some departments just won't reverse themselves when they know they are wrong.
 
Charlie Mike said:
I still don't know why they pursued prosecution. The law states semi clearly that my 4" folder was legal. It didn't violate campus policy either but they kicked me out of the dorms for it anyway. I'm guessing that some departments just won't reverse themselves when they know they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Charlie Mike, sorry you had to go through that but I'm glad it finally got cleared up in your favor even though it cost you $3000. Did the judge throw out your case on some legal ground that could be used as a precedent by others or did the prosecutor just decide not to go forward?
 
The judge threw out the case because no law had been broken.
 
In response to cgmblade and speaking primarily about Calif. law, although there are exceptions to every rule, generally speaking a trial court decision like that is not citable precedent. With a few exceptions, you usually need a published appellate court decision before you can cite as precedent. Some other states may be more liberal on what can be cited as precedent.

DancesWithKnives
 
DWK2 said:
In response to cgmblade and speaking primarily about Calif. law, although there are exceptions to every rule, generally speaking a trial court decision like that is not citable precedent. With a few exceptions, you usually need a published appellate court decision before you can cite as precedent. Some other states may be more liberal on what can be cited as precedent.

DancesWithKnives
Click to expand...

even appellate decisions, like the 9th circuit, are not considered case law. though citeable, they are "persuasive opinion", and are not necessarily binding in lower courts.

afaik, only the scotus creates nationally binding case law.
 
I would completely agree that decisions of federal appellate courts, when interpreting state law, are not binding on state courts. And the Ninth Circuit is, of course, a federal court.

However, I believe that a published Ninth Circuit decision may be considered precedent by federal District Courts that are within the Ninth Circuit.

My recollection is that on points of California state law, the decisions of the California Supreme Court are binding precedent on lower state courts. Needless to say, the SCOTUS can strike down decisions of any state supreme court if an appropriate basis exists. However, absent that, I believe that California Supreme Court decisions are controlling on California state trial courts.

DancesWithKnives
 
Last edited:
DWK2, thanks for the info. It is sometimes very hard for a layman to understand these things.

The older I get the less right and wrong seem to have anything to do with legal and illegal.

It seems that the law is often very capricious. If Charlie Mike had had another judge by your account then he might very well have been convicted and if he were arrested tomorrow for the same offense then he could very well be convicted even though the same charges were thrown out by another judge. It doesn't really make any sense to me, but thanks for taking the time to explain it.
 
Hopefully most reasonable trial court judges would reach the same conclusion. But if one did not, that would be the time at which precedent might be generated by appealing the bad trial court decision, winning in an appellate court, and having the decision published.

If the final decision were rendered by the California Supreme Court on a point of California law, I believe that it would be binding on all California trial court judges (unless, as Morimotom pointed out, the U.S. Supreme Court for some reason later agreed to hear and decide the case).

DancesWithKnives
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top