Closed half folder = folder or fixed?

killgar said:
Although I usually appreciate the efforts of Kniferights, I think they missed the mark here.

The defendant was not arrested for carrying or possessing a swiss army knife, he was arrested for allegedly carrying a folding knife CONCEALED with the BLADE OPEN. "CONCEALED", and "with the BLADE OPEN" are two very specific and important details, and the basis for his charge and initial conviction.

There is nothing illegal about possessing or carrying a swiss army knife in the state of California, either openly or concealed, and the outcome of this case will not change that. The right to possess and carry swiss army knives, or similar knives, is not in jeopardy as a result of this case.

What is illegal under CA state law is carrying a folding knife of any type CONCEALED with the BLADE OPEN. No one is saying that swiss army knives, or similar knives, are dangerous weapons and should be illegal. Only that carrying a CONCEALED folding knife with the BLADE OPEN should be illegal.

I really don't see how this is an issue that should take up the time and resources of Kniferights. Although I like seeing the knife rights of American citizens being expanded, I don't really see any need for the right to carry a folding knife concealed with the blade open. Who in their right mind would want to walk around with an open folder in their pocket?

In that regard, I find the details of the case to be highly suspect. The idea that the defendant was riding around in a car with an open folding knife in his pocket strains credibility to the point of absurdity. I can't help but think that the arresting officer found the knife on the defendant, and simply made up the story about it being open in order to justify a charge.

As far as this being a matter worthy of the effort of Kniferights, it strikes me as a complete non-issue. When it comes to California's knife laws, I'd rather see the prohibitions on switchblades 2" or longer repealed. Or see the prohibitions on carrying a concealed fixed-blade repealed. But like I said, who really wants the right to walk around with an open folder in their pocket?

Still, I applaud Kniferights in their other efforts throughout the country. Keep up the good work. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Thanks for your general support, but I think you missed the critical issue at stake here that was key to our getting involved and filing a brief in this case. That issue is the question of what constitutes a "lock." If the state of California, in the person of the anti-everything AG, is allowed to redefine a non-locking slipjoint to it being a locking blade folder, then this would represent a very significant change that would have potentially very adverse impact on many knife owners down the road. Many very bad legal precedents start out in California and then migrate to other states. Knife Rights is committed to both advancing knife owners' rights AND preventing further erosion of those rights. We could not stand by and allow something like this to occur when we could take a stand against it in hopes of stopping it.
 
My assumption is that Kniferights has limited resources. There are many laws throughout the country that restrict knife carry, some more restrictive than others. My point is- I think the limited resources of Kniferights might be better spent fighting laws that are CURRENTLY denying people their right to carry a knife.

But if Kniferights considers this to be a matter important enough to spend some of it's resources, rather than apply those resources elsewhere, then that is their decision to make.

But the fact is- if the California supreme court decides that a slipjoint with the blade open constitutes a "locked" blade, it will mean that the Castillolopez conviction will be upheld and that it will be illegal in California to carry a slipjoint CONCEALED with the BLADE OPEN. And that's not what I would call a serious infringement of our knife rights. Certainly not compared to what people in some other states/cities are currently experiencing.

If the court decides that an open slipjoint does not constitute a "locked" blade, it will mean that the Castillolopez appeal will be upheld, and the people of California will have the legal right to carry a CONCEALED slipjoint with the BLADE OPEN.

It is currently legal in this state to carry concealed any size or type of manually opened folder, both locking and non-locking, as long as the blade is not open. It is also currently legal to openly carry such folders with the blade either opened or closed. And nothing the CA supreme court rules in the Castillolopez case will change that.

It is currently illegal in this state to carry what we on this forum generally regard as a "locking" folder CONCEALED with the BLADE OPEN, and the outcome of the Castillolopez case will have no effect on that law either.

I personally don't see anything to be gained by having the legal right to carry a slipjoint CONCEALED with the BLADE OPEN, either in ones pocket or a sheath. A slipjoint isn't exactly a good choice for self-defense. And I don't think a CONCEALED slipjoint with the BLADE OPEN is going to be as handy for work as an openly carried knife or a clipped folder.

As far as whether or not a police officer would be willing to commit wrongful arrest and perjury, one only has to watch the news lately to see what some cops are willing to do, and some of it is a lot worse than wrongful arrest and perjury. I live in San Diego where the Castillolopez case occurred, and we here in San Diego have had some very serious problems with police misconduct over the past few years. Several cops here in San Diego have been sent to jail and prison over the past few years on a variety of charges involving crimes against the public.

I don't believe that the cops randomly stopped Mr. Castillolopez on the street and decided to frame him, I believe that he was in a car with someone who was breaking the law and he gave the cops a hard time, so the cop decided to give him a harder time.
 
Last edited:
supergnat said:
But you're fine with CA classifying slip joint knives as locking?
Click to expand...
My only problem with it would be that it's stupid, and I hate to see lawmakers make stupid decisions. Beyond that, I wouldn't lose a moments sleep over it.

Locking folders are perfectly legal in California. So if slipjoints are defined as "locking" folders, they will still be completely legal in this state.

Here is a relevant breakdown of California state law regarding manually opened folding knives, both locking and slipjoints-

It is LEGAL to carry concealed any locking folder, of any size, as long as the knife is closed.

It is LEGAL to openly carry any locking folder, of any size, with the blade either opened and locked in place or closed.

It is LEGAL to carry concealed any slipjoint, of any size.

It is LEGAL to openly carry any slipjoint, of any size, with the blade opened or closed.

It is ILLEGAL to carry a locking folder concealed with the blade open.

And none of that will change if the CA supreme court decides to categorize slipjoints as "locking" folders. The only impact such a ruling would have on the citizens of California is that we would not have the right to carry a concealed slipjoint with the blade open. And as I said before, who really wants to carry a slipjoint concealed with the blade open. What possible benefit could there be in that? Aside from losing the right to carry an open slipjoint concealed, our knife rights here in California would remain exactly the same.

As far as I'm concerned it's no different than if the CA supreme court decided to define a razor blade carried inside ones mouth as a concealed fixed-blade, thereby making it illegal to carry a razor blade in ones mouth. I say, who cares. After all, who wants to go around carrying a razor blade in their mouth. Losing the right to do something that makes no sense and has no benefit isn't exactly what I would call a loss.

I don't want to see any new restrictive knife laws get passed in this state, or this country. But that wasn't my point. My point is, there are much more serious issues facing knife owners in this country (take a good look at NYC), and I think that the limited resources of an organization like Kniferights.org might be better spent fighting something more serious than whether or not slipjoints are defined as "locking" folders in the state of California. Especially since such a ruling would have no meaningful effect on our knife rights.

And as far as California law having some kind of influence over the legislation of other states, I would like to see anyone cite a specific instance where a ruling by the California supreme court directly resulted in the passage of a law in another state. Does this really happen with such frequency that it posses a genuine threat? I don't think so. I think some people overestimate California's influence over other states. In fact, it seems to me that people outside of California generally have a very dim view of California, it's lawmakers, and it's citizens. I find it hard to believe that people outside of California would allow "a bunch of granola eating, tree-hugging, goof-ball hippies" to influence the laws of their state and tell them how to live.
 
Last edited:
Didn't the defendant do enough to land in prison anyway?

Why allow prosecutorial creep just to squeeze an extra conviction in when the defendant in question is already getting sent away for his actions?

I don't see value in allowing elected officials, lawyers no less, to reimagine existing laws to increase the variety of charges they have available.

Prosecutors already have God-like powers over people in the U.S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top