Random Thought Thread

Box_Opener said:
Well, I hate to interrupt an oral thread but my daughter was born on Sunday. I’d planned to get a pic of her sleeping next to an HDFK (in the sheath, because I’m not a monster) but we had an emergency c-section (wife and baby are fine) so we’re still in the hospital. But hey, one more CPKer!
Click to expand...
congrats to your wife's gold medal in the baby toss! 9 months of training paid off:thumbsup:
 
Oh well . . . no "miracle" for the Men's Olympic Hockey team this yr.

Couldn't hold the lead w/less than 1 min left in reg and couldn't make a goal in the "shootout" v. Slovakia.

They did better than expected getting as far as they did and it helps that the Canadians got knocked out too. :)

BUT, there's still hope for GOLD for the Women who play Canada in their finals tonight.

You go, GIRLS!!!! ;)
 
Last edited:
For those of you interested in California knife laws, I just posted this in the Knife Laws forum:

California Dirk or Dagger "Morality"

California Dirk or Dagger “Morality" In keeping with my experience that California criminal laws always get more convoluted instead of simpler, the California Second District Court of Appeal quietly slipped a stunning case into the appellate record during the pandemic: People v. Hester (2020)...
www.bladeforums.com www.bladeforums.com
 
rb1 said:
For those of you interested in California knife laws, I just posted this in the Knife Laws forum:

California Dirk or Dagger "Morality"

California Dirk or Dagger “Morality" In keeping with my experience that California criminal laws always get more convoluted instead of simpler, the California Second District Court of Appeal quietly slipped a stunning case into the appellate record during the pandemic: People v. Hester (2020)...
www.bladeforums.com www.bladeforums.com
Click to expand...
Cliff notes:
"Anything and everything WILL be thrown at the wall in the hopes that something sticks"
🙄
 
rb1 said:
For those of you interested in California knife laws, I just posted this in the Knife Laws forum:

California Dirk or Dagger "Morality"

California Dirk or Dagger “Morality" In keeping with my experience that California criminal laws always get more convoluted instead of simpler, the California Second District Court of Appeal quietly slipped a stunning case into the appellate record during the pandemic: People v. Hester (2020)...
www.bladeforums.com www.bladeforums.com
Click to expand...

I read about that decision and it is pretty stupid but my understanding of the "holding" (if it stands) is that any folder that is "locked open" and concealed would be consider an illegal concealed "dirk or dagger" in violation of CA law.

This means if you have an folding/sliding box cutter/utility knife "locked" open and concealed in your pocket, you could be changed/convicted of a violation of illegal carrying a concealed "dirk or dagger."

However, as a retired cop and lawyer, I have to note that there is "the law" and then there is "reality."

The reality is that if you have a box cutter/utilty knife "locked" open in your pocket, no one is really going to know that you do. The same thing applies to carrying a fixed blade "dirk or dagger" illegally concealed, which I do all of the time.

Of course, no one will know that I am carrying an illegal concealed weapon (whether it's a knife or gun) unless I reveal it (or am stopped and searched).

Who is stupid enough to reveal that they are carrying a weapon illegally or put themselves in a position to get stopped and frisked except the few people (usually repeat offenders) who are caught doing so?

So, FWIW, I wouldn't worry much about this decision because it really changes nothing BUT, if you are the type of person who likes to branish your concealed weapons and/or gets stopped and frisked by LEO's from time-to-time, thenb you should make sure than any box cutters/utility blades that you are carrying concealed in your pocket are unlocked/closed.
 
Last edited:
sgt1372 said:
I read about that decision and it is pretty stupid but my understanding of the "holding" (if it stands) is that any folder that is "locked open" and concealed would be consider an illegal concealed "dirk or dagger" in violation of CA law.

This means if you have an folding/sliding box cutter/utility knife "locked" open and concealed in your pocket, you could be changed/convicted of a violation of illegal carrying a concealed "dirk or dagger."

However, as an ex-cop and retired lawyer, I have to note that there is "the law" and then there is "reality."

The reality is that if you have a box cutter/utilty knife "locked" open in your pocket, no one is really going to know that you do. The same thing applies to carrying a fixed blade "dirk or dagger" illegally concealed, which I do all of the time.

Of course, no one will know that I am carrying an illegal concealed weapon (whether it's a knife or gun) unless I reveal it and who is stupid enough to reveal that they are carrying a weapon illegally, except the few people (usually repeat offenders) who are caught doing so.

So, FWIW, I wouldn't worry much about this decision because it really changes nothing BUT, if you are the type of person who gets stopped and frisked by LEO's from time-to-time, you should make sure than any box cutters/utility blades that you are carrying in your pocket are CLOSED.
Click to expand...
While I agree with much of this (and most likely, your general sentiment on the matter), in the case in question, the box cutters were in the closed position. The court states:

"Defendant was searched and a box cutter was found in the right pocket of his pants. It was a folding box cutter that locked into place when opened. When in the locked open position, the exposed portion of the blade was about an inch in length and very sharp. A second box cutter was found in the side pocket of defendant's backpack. It also locked when in the open position, exposing a sharp, one-inch blade. No visible blood was on either box cutter, nor were there visible blood drops or smears on defendant."

By discussing the opening and locking mechanism, it suggests the box cutters were closed.

More explicitly:

"Defendant next contends that a closed box cutter without an exposed blade is not, as a matter of law, a dirk or dagger ... He says both box cutters were closed and the blades were not exposed and therefore there is no evidence supporting his conviction ...
Deputy Gamboa testified the box cutter found in defendant's pants pocket was a “folding box cutter” with a button on the handle. When the button was depressed, the blade slid open and locked into a fixed position. The button had to be depressed again to retract the blade into the handle. The box cutter found in the side pocket of defendant's backpack was a “non-folding box cutter” that had a button to slide the blade open and which locked the blade into place. The button had to be pushed again to retract the blade.

Neither box cutter was a nonlocking folding knife. Defendant concedes that both box cutters locked into a fixed position when open and therefore do not qualify as nonlocking knives. The box cutters obviously were not pocketknives, and defendant does not contend they were.
Defendant maintains however that because the blades on both box cutters either folded into the handle (the one found in his pocket) or retracted with a push of a button (the one found in his backpack), they qualify as non-switchblade folding knives and the statutory exemption therefore applies.

We are not persuaded." (Emphasis added.)

The court is saying it doesn't matter whether open or closed in this instance. The case is problematic for many reasons, but in this instance, the court expressly ruled that it made no difference whether the box cutters were open or closed.
 
SCTorrero said:
The court is saying it doesn't matter whether open or closed in this instance. The case is problematic for many reasons, but in this instance, the court expressly ruled that it made no difference whether the box cutters were open or closed.
Click to expand...

You've identified one of the major problems with this case. It sets some legal precedent in California for the possibility that closed knives with locking mechanisms can be dirks or daggers and are illegally possessed if carried in a pocket. Realistically, this isn't going to be a problem for people who aren't actively committing crimes or using a knife in a fight, but I can envision a number of scenarios where this would create a class of knife possession crimes in California for average legitimate carry situations.

As for carrying concealed fixed blades in California, ironically this case might provide a defense if you can prove it was for a lawful purpose. I would never cop to "illegally" carrying anything. It's not illegal until a jury says it is. Some people are more likely to get hassled by cops than others, but it's best practice to follow the law. Realistically, I rarely see people charged in California with knife crimes unless they cut somebody, brandish at or threaten somebody, are actively committing another crime (which could include DUI, by the way), are a gang member/biker, or a juvenile.
 
rb1 said:
Rick rolled! Damn!
Click to expand...
Saw "youtube" in the link and did not click. LOL!

I'm trying to understand, with this case as a precedent, on what basis a person carrying a BIC razor home from the pharmacy, in a plastic shopping bag, would not be in violation of Kalifornia law? I also do not get the "morality" angle. First day in the crappy law school that I attended, my criminal procedure professor advised us that we were in a law class and if we wanted to discuss morality then the philosophy class met in another building at 11 AM.
 
The Amazing Virginian said:
Saw "youtube" in the link and did not click. LOL!

I'm trying to understand, with this case as a precedent, on what basis a person carrying a BIC razor home from the pharmacy, in a plastic shopping bag, would not be in violation of Kalifornia law? I also do not get the "morality" angle. First day in the crappy law school that I attended, my criminal procedure professor advised us that we were in a law class and if we wanted to discuss morality then the philosophy class met in another building at 11 AM.
Click to expand...
Lesson learned.

It is currently good case law, btw. I doubt a BIC razor would qualify under any scenario as a "stabbing" weapon, which is a critical element here. As for "morality", I think that was the court's way of framing a mens rea for what otherwise would seem like a strict liability crime if they didn't qualify it here. He's a bad guy with bad intent, so in this case possessing a perfectly legal knife is a crime. They were clearly concerned if they didn't qualify it like this, it would set off a lot problems. That seems to be the rationale anyway, with a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Their way of slightly mitigating the trope that hard cases make bad law. They really shouldn't have called it "morally blameless", they should have just said "possessed with specific intent to unlawfully harm a person" or something like that. The problem for the court is that the statute doesn't really speak to a mens rea so they have to make it up. It's a pretty shitty precedent, but at least this particular defendant makes a great contrast to many other people that might be charged with illegal possession of a knife. Most people who are charged with actual assault or violent felonies in California aren't going to be terribly concerned about the knife possession count, it's kind of a throwaway charge in that instance. Hell, you can only get an extra year in prison as an enhancement on violent crimes for using a knife in California. Now, use a gun here and some of those enhancements are up in the 20+ year range. And at least in this case, the court's "morally blameless" language sets up a defense of "lawful purpose" for simple knife possession, which might actually be extremely useful in cases where there is evidence of a lawful purpose, like possession of BIC razor in a pharmacy shopping bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top