- Joined
- May 1, 2000
- Messages
- 2,259
I was in my sociology class and it somehow came up that one of my classmates was an LEO. So after class I asked if I could speak with him for a minute, he said yes, not really knowing what he was getting himself into, but sensing that it wouldn't be good. So I asked him what he could tell me about California knife carrying laws. He said that you can't carry any knife with a blade longer than the palm of your hand, you can't conceal a locking folder, and you can't have a double edged knife. Well, none of that is true, so I asked him how sure he was that he was getting it right. He said he knew the law fairly well. So I asked, "Why is it then, that nothing of what you have just said is the same as what's in the penal code?" (a copy of which I conveniently had in my pocket) He said that case law is forwarded to the police immediately, but is only included in the penal code once a year. I said, "so the prohibitions on concealing locking folders, carrying double edged knives, and the palm of the hand length limit are all case law from the last ten months?" He said, "They must be, because that's what the law is." Then I asked him about the regulations for university carry, he said he had an ordinary pocket knife and that was fine, said the length limit was 3.5" (not true). We both artfully avoided the topic of what I was carrying. He explained to me the excuses that police will use when confiscating a legal knife. He said that if he says it's for "public safety," he can take anything away from anyone, they will have to go to the police station to pick their stuff up, and he won't get in any trouble. He was actually focusing more on how he can get away with confiscating a legal knife, and less on clarifying the distinction between a legal knife and an illegal one. I asked him, if the law is not in the published penal codes, how is one to know what the law is. He said, "If you think that what you're doing might be illegal, it probably is." He was actually very patient with me, considering I bombarded him with questions for half an hour, and kind of trapped him, by pretending to know nothing until after he told me what he thought the laws were, and then quoting penal code sections to him, challenging him to explain how on earth what he was saying could in any way be derived from them. We parted, both a bit frustrated, still in disagreement on what the law is.
For those that don't know, in CA, autos and gravity knives over 2" are illegal to carry, and a fixed blade cannot be concealed (a folder which is locked open is considered a fixed blade, not one which locks open) (see 653k & 12020). That's it. And for university carry, the only other restriction is no fixed blades over 2.5" (see 626.10b)
So it was obvious to me that this officer did not know what the laws were, but really thought he did. And was completely unwilling to change his opinion, even when faced with the text of the penal codes. Am I mistaken here somewhere, or is there something wrong with this.
------------------
Jason aka medusaoblongata
-----------------------
"I have often laughed at the weaklings who call themselves kind because they have no claws"
- Zarathustra
For those that don't know, in CA, autos and gravity knives over 2" are illegal to carry, and a fixed blade cannot be concealed (a folder which is locked open is considered a fixed blade, not one which locks open) (see 653k & 12020). That's it. And for university carry, the only other restriction is no fixed blades over 2.5" (see 626.10b)
So it was obvious to me that this officer did not know what the laws were, but really thought he did. And was completely unwilling to change his opinion, even when faced with the text of the penal codes. Am I mistaken here somewhere, or is there something wrong with this.
------------------
Jason aka medusaoblongata
-----------------------
"I have often laughed at the weaklings who call themselves kind because they have no claws"
- Zarathustra
