CALIFORNIANS: urgent action item alert - NOT A DRILL

Jim March

Knifemaker / Craftsman / Service Provider
Joined
Oct 7, 1998
Messages
3,018
Y'all need to call the members of the Assembly Safety Committee TODAY and complain about SB274. Make it short, polite and to the point - the main thing is that they know you're opposed. The main talking point is that it was planned as an attempt to ban cheap, easily "flicked open" pocketknives by labeling them switchblades, but it'll get applied to dang near all pocketknives outside of maybe a SAK or similar.

You can also EMail them.

We've got permission to use the main NRA California legislative contact tool, at:
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/legs.shtml - one click-link EMails all but one of the Committee members, and another link brings up all their phone numbers.

FLOOD 'EM! This is NO DRILL. For more details, see some of the threads on the AKTI forum.

Jim
 
Done Jim. Thanks for the alert.

I'm not a Kalifornian but my voice most likely won't hurt.

[This message has been edited by Mr E Blackadder (edited 06-18-2001).]
 
Well Jim, I'm not a Californian either, but I tried to send a brief email on its way. I don't know if my computer connected, though.

Hope everything goes well,

Karl

P.S. Just checked my whatchamacallit. Message was sent.
smile.gif


[This message has been edited by Safety Guy (edited 06-18-2001).]
 
Thank you, Jim. I just emailed 'em. Good heavens, I don't want *all* my knives to be illegal to carry in Kalifornia!!
 
OK, an update:

Jason (Medusaoblongata), myself and Nadja Adolf who was my partner in the MMM investigation all went up to Sacto together.

I got to speak as prime opposition as planned, and the committee chairman let me talk long enough to make the point about how the legislative intent statements by AKTI ("we're banning easy flickers") differs from the stated law, which doesn't define how MUCH of a detent or "bias towards closure" is needed. Therefore, the law not only could ban large numbers of currently legal folders, it's sets a "trap".

Jason and Nadja were allowed to make brief follow-up points, and both did so to good effect. We weren't able to discuss the alternative supported by many BF members (involving "criminal control) right there in the committee hearing. We were able to discuss the concept with a fairly large group of CDAA/AKTI people including CJ, and some of the staffers of the bill's author.

Their universal opinion was that a switch to the "criminal control" plan is impossible at this point.

Now, the only good news is that the Safety Committee is at least aware of the possibilities for confusion. They've asked the bill's author to re-think the possibilities for confusion and get back to them.

The best we can hope for now is a bit of cleanup in the legislative intent statements. I *really* hope CJ and AKTI can do that.

If they do, we could come out of this in decent shape. As long as the "if it has a detent or bias towards closure" language is read to say that ANY such features legalize the knife, we'll end up OK.

At least we managed to come across as polite, reasonably professional and we didn't scare anybody. I explained that we had a locked bag with sample knives; a security officer looked over the contents to make sure it was only knives, and was OK with the contents. I was sitting right next to the lady Democrat bill sponsor, and managed not to freak her out, asking her permission before doing a flick on Walt's Sebenza.

So the upshot is, we didn't hurt anything and with any luck we'll see a change in the intent language. A lot depends on CJ right now.

The original bill the top cops wanted said "no one-hand openers at all". The current bill IS better than that. I just wished AKTI would have pushed "criminal control" over a year ago, when such a switch might have been possible.

It isn't now.

Sigh.

Jim
 
Thanks for the update, Jim. Also, Thanks to you and Jason for making it to Sacramento to provide real faces for our collective voice.

Can you briefly describe what awaits SB274, in terms of the process? And, How best we can prepare for the next step?

Thanks again for your efforts,

Seth
 
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jim March:
The original bill the top cops wanted said "no one-hand openers at all".

Jim
</font>

And that proves my point that I have been trying to make in here in many threads.

The goal is to ban ANY POCKETknife that can be opened with one hand.

Acquiescing and appeasing them is never going to work. People in the Law Enforcement Community need to be chastised and put in their place, I see no other way than for there to be an "Adversarial Relationship."

If they are so terrified of everything, Burger King is hiring.



------------------
Usual Suspect
Ipsa scientia potestas est aut disce aut discede
Some of my Knives and other neat things
 
Cheers on the job you and others did Jim.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jim March:
OK, an update:


Now, the only good news is that the Safety Committee is at least aware of the possibilities for confusion. They've asked the bill's author to re-think the possibilities for confusion and get back to them.

The best we can hope for now is a bit of cleanup in the legislative intent statements. I *really* hope CJ and AKTI can do that.

</font>

So is there any chance they will actually rework the bill itself?

I mean how does "intent" get entered into the official record of a bill like this? Doesn't this mean that they need to at least consider rewording the bill?

I'm also interested in how the AKTI and CDAA felt about being told to go back and work on it somemore. Was the CDAA and the senator annoyed that these objections were raised or did they seem receptive to our concerns?
 
Well, it must have been a quick review and clean up effort. According to the bills history file it was passed 6-0 with 1 not present or not voting and is now in the appropriations committee as of the 19th.

I am no student of these matters but I assume it is what gets to the floor that counts, maybe there will be a cleaner version yet but I am not holding my breath.
The fact that they lead off with the AKTI comments in the house analysis is disturbing. It clearly states “…The proposed amendments to Penal Code Section 653k would 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 a measure of resistance that prevents the knife from being easily opened with a flick of the wrist.”

Well, that seems pretty darn clear to me and nothing I have meets it. Detent, yes … but they can all be flicked. My fear is the author will ”clean up” the detent language to something more restrictive not less (call me optimistic).

A question for the active duty LEO’s out there. My old agency had an outright ban on “switchblades” without written permission. Is it possible the CDAA just hosed the group they represent here? Gerber MK II’s were OK, but no switchblade-toting thugs allowed. Everyone’s agency is different, I’m just sort of curious, there are A LOT of these knives out in patrol.

Thanx for your efforts Jim and the rest of you who went up there.

Stay safe.
 
Just to clarify: we do NOT need any tweaking on the law itself right now. We need the legislative intent language from AKTI cleaned up, if that's at all possible.

I really, REALLY hope CJ and AKTI can pull that off.

Jim
 
My concerns are that Kalifornia is becoming more of a republic for the Elitist than the little people.
 
Hello all

Let me start by saying Jim and his group did a great job under very stressful circumstances. It was odd that even though we share so many of the same views, we are at odds to the tactics required. The law (SB 274) is written well and needs no additional tweaking. Jim's testimony did inspire an additional action of clarifying legislative intent that we will all be the better for and I would not have pushed for had he not testified before the assembly committee.

SB 274 passed unanimously in the committe, will fly through fiscal committee (has no impact) and will sail through senate to be signed by Gov. Davis hopefully by the end of July.

In a discussion following the assembly committee hearing in Senator Karnette's office we discussed her authoring a letter that will be added into the congressional daily journal. This is where I was told folks would go to get any back-up for what the intent of the legislation did. This letter would clarify why fairly easy action is required for onehanders and how one handers were not the target here.

I would appreciate any feedback fairly quickly so I can give to the lobbiest tomorrow who is writing this letter for the senator.

LETTER TO THE SENATE DAILY JOURNAL
July 5, 2001

Mr. Gregory Schmidt

Secretary of the Senate

State Capitol, Room

Dear Greg:

The purpose of this letter is to express the Legislature’s intent in enacting my SB 274, which makes amendments to Penal Code Section 653k.

Section 653k makes it a misdemeanor to possess a switchblade in California. The statute was enacted in 1957 and provides a length definition of a switchblade knife. In 1996, AB 3314 (Ch. 1054) an exemption was created for one-handed folding knives. Recently, there has been concern that the language of the exemption is broadly read to apply to knives that are essentially switchblades, but are designed to fall under the language of the exemption.

In order to ensure that only legitimate one-handed opening knives are covered, SB 274 narrows the language to only allow knives to fall under the exemption from the switchblade law if that one-handed opening knife contains a detent or similar mechanism. Such mechanisms ensure there is a measure of resistance (no matter how slight) that prevents the knife from being too 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 some resistance to opening the knife, then the exemption is triggered. These knives serve an important utility to many knife users. For example, firefighters, EMT personnel, hunters, fishermen, and others utilize one-handed opening knives. (i have asked him to include some mention of everyday carry here)

The exemption created in 1996 was designed to decriminalize the legitimate use of these extremely functional tools by law-abiding citizens. SB 274 is not intended to interfere with those knife owners and users. The amendments to Section 653k accomplish this important purpose by establishing more objective criteria for determining whether a knife meets the intended exemption to the switchblade law.

Sincerely,

BETTY KARNETTE

Senator, 27th District


------------------
CJ Buck
Buck Knives, Inc.
AKTI Member #PR00003


 
If that letter becomes the primary "fallback intent clarifying document" when the courts are unsure about SB274, then we're not going to be shafted.

The *only* possible "gotcha" left is the Axis/Rolling/Arc locks that have "retractable detents". Even then, they HAVE detents.

In short, if this change to the legislative intent happens as a result of myself, Jason and Nadja making that trip to Sacto, it will have been worthwhile.

Thanx, CJ!

Jim
 
Jim, I don't doubt that the efforts of you Jason, and company had a bearing on the letter of intent.

I wish I knew what kind of numbers the last minute contact campagain generated. That must of also had a bearing as well.

Once again, thank-you for the efforts.

Seth
 
Sounds like some serious good came of the hard work of Jim and others. Great job guys. I'm glad that the letter will be on record to help keep one handed knives legal in California.

Now lets just wait and see whether any further restriction are asked for in the next few years.
 
Back
Top