PDA

View Full Version : Trench knife legality ?


Res
05-29-2009, 9:42 PM
Hey guys. I searched here, but could not find an answer. Are these trench knives legal in Ca. ?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/dfariswheel/Mark1right.jpg

tomjones
05-29-2009, 9:51 PM
Negative on that, those would be considered metal knuckles, covered under 12020 CA PC.

pnkssbtz
05-29-2009, 9:59 PM
Negative on that, those would be considered metal knuckles, covered under 12020 CA PC.

Wouldn't they follow purview of heller, and via nordyke be protected?

I mean, they were actually used by military troops. (Referring to the comments in miller about the sawed off shotgun never being used by military forces...)

Res
05-29-2009, 11:22 PM
Yeah. I was hoping maybe it would be okay for a display item, not for carrying around. :(

JDay
05-29-2009, 11:36 PM
I wonder if that could be considered a relic?

MrClamperSir
05-30-2009, 1:09 AM
That's got to be one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

Turo
05-30-2009, 1:18 AM
12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable
firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a
firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which
contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or
carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst
trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any
short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any
leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol,
any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge
knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon
of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy,
sandclub, sap, or sandbag.

pretty much says no.

leelaw
05-30-2009, 1:24 AM
I wonder if that could be considered a relic?

There are no relic exemptions for metal knuckles.

The knife isn't legal in California.

CSDGuy
05-30-2009, 1:29 AM
The knife part of it is fine... it's them metal knuckles that are the problem... and are illegal.

CABilly
05-30-2009, 2:37 AM
There's a surplus store in Campbell that sells those....

bigcalidave
05-30-2009, 2:44 AM
People sell brass knuckles all over the state, doesn't make them legal. But you can buy and own the completely plastic ones! polycarbonate FTW!

CABilly
05-30-2009, 2:50 AM
Oops, I should have said they sell them to non-exempted (non-privileged class underlings) people.

Turo
05-30-2009, 3:03 AM
But you can buy and own the completely plastic ones! polycarbonate FTW!

nope. you can't legally sell them.

12020.1. Any person in this state who commercially manufactures or
causes to be commercially manufactured, or who knowingly imports into
the state for commercial sale, keeps for commercial sale, or offers
or exposes for commercial sale, any hard plastic knuckles or hard
wooden knuckles is guilty of a misdemeanor. As used in this section,
"hard plastic knuckles" or "hard wooden knuckles" means any device or
instrument made wholly or partially of plastic or of wood,
composite, or paper materials that is not a metal knuckle as defined
in paragraph (7) of subdivision (c) of Section 12020, that is worn
for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand, and that either
protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the
force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving
the blow. The plastic, wood, composite or paper products contained in
the device may help support the hand or fist, provide a shield to
protect it, or consist of projections or studs that would contact the
individual receiving a blow.

tgriffin
05-30-2009, 6:31 AM
Hard plastic knuckles are a no go. Search here for hard plastic knuckles and you will see they are covered under a different code section.

B Strong
05-30-2009, 7:19 AM
The trench knives that include the knuckle duster design feature are considered to be brass knuckles in California.

Depending on the situation that such a weapon is encountered, it could be a simple confiscation without consequence, or a felony, depending on the viewpoint of the LEO involved in the situation at the time.

I know of a an individual that had a knuckle knife as part of a display of his father's decorations and awards from WWII, including a pic of his father with the knife on his web gear while in the PTO - An officer was responding to his complaint about a neighboorhood problem and after dealing with the complaint, gave my friend the heads up that the knife was a problem and advised him to remove the knife from the display.

The officer took no further action.

The other side of that was a guy that I knew who had a knuckle knife in the trunk of his car, was involved in a single vehicle dui accident, and the knife ended up as a felony charge.

B Strong
05-30-2009, 7:22 AM
People sell brass knuckles all over the state, doesn't make them legal. But you can buy and own the completely plastic ones! polycarbonate FTW!

It's a no-go.

Electric Factory
05-30-2009, 7:28 AM
As others have already stated, not even close.
In fact... I got into a conversation with a couple of LEO's at Angeles Range one day and they were talking about vehichle stops which dovetailed into knives, legal and not.
The WWI Trench Knife is the all time poster child for,'... handcuffs on subject, off to jail..' should you have one while operating a motor vehichle.

socal2310
05-30-2009, 7:54 AM
Are ceramic ones (not plastic, wood or metal) covered in the P.C.?

leadchucker
05-30-2009, 11:23 PM
How about a stinkin' grandfather clause?! You know, they USED TO BE LEGAL here.
I'm getting sick and tired of being under the pressure of having to wonder if what I legally own today may be a felony tomorrow, unbeknownst to me.
Could somebody please set the legislators and judges down and maybe have a day at the library to read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to them. From all my readings of the Federalist papers, Constitution and other writings of the Founding Fathers, the original intent of law was to PROTECT one's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If having brass stinkin' knuckles makes one happy, then he should have the liberty to own them as long as they are not used to violate someone elses rights to life, liberty, or pursuit of hapiness (without just cause). So simple, huh? It's mind boggling how mere possession of an item can turn one into a "criminal". It's downright criminal!

Texas Boy
05-31-2009, 1:11 AM
How about a stinkin' grandfather clause?! You know, they USED TO BE LEGAL here.
I'm getting sick and tired of being under the pressure of having to wonder if what I legally own today may be a felony tomorrow, unbeknownst to me.
Could somebody please set the legislators and judges down and maybe have a day at the library to read the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to them. From all my readings of the Federalist papers, Constitution and other writings of the Founding Fathers, the original intent of law was to PROTECT one's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If having brass stinkin' knuckles makes one happy, then he should have the liberty to own them as long as they are not used to violate someone elses rights to life, liberty, or pursuit of hapiness (without just cause). So simple, huh? It's mind boggling how mere possession of an item can turn one into a "criminal". It's downright criminal!

+1,000,000 :thumbsup:

I have always marveled how a "thing" could be illegal. I can go purchase a piece of metal, but if I shape it a certain way then I'm a criminal? I have also been amazed at the concept of laws that instantly transform a law abiding citizen into a criminal UNLESS they take action (like the AWCA where you had to register or get rid of the rifle you had legally purchased else become a felon). The number of simple items I remember seeing in the back of boys life magazine as a kid that are now serious crimes to own in CA is simply amazing.

bigcalidave
05-31-2009, 1:12 PM
nope. you can't legally sell them.

12020.1. Any person in this state who commercially manufactures or
causes to be commercially manufactured, or who knowingly imports into
the state for commercial sale, keeps for commercial sale, or offers
or exposes for commercial sale, any hard plastic knuckles or hard
wooden knuckles is guilty of a misdemeanor. As used in this section,
"hard plastic knuckles" or "hard wooden knuckles" means any device or
instrument made wholly or partially of plastic or of wood,
composite, or paper materials that is not a metal knuckle as defined
in paragraph (7) of subdivision (c) of Section 12020, that is worn
for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand, and that either
protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the
force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving
the blow. The plastic, wood, composite or paper products contained in
the device may help support the hand or fist, provide a shield to
protect it, or consist of projections or studs that would contact the
individual receiving a blow.

Do people even read the laws they quote?
I didn't say you could sell them. I said you can buy them and own them :) Unlike metal knuckles which you cannot OWN. You can go out of state and buy plastic knuckles, come back to cali with them and be completely legal.

KylaGWolf
05-31-2009, 7:53 PM
If the knife is single edged it COULD be considered legal but double edged its not. Just had a discussion with that with a friend of mine that had a coworker go through the whole legality thing and they are both in the LEO field,

ke6guj
05-31-2009, 8:00 PM
If the knife is single edged it COULD be considered legal but double edged its not.

single-edged/double-edged does not make a knife legal/illegal. It is perfectly legal to own a double-edged knife. What you may be thinking about is the dirk/dagger prohibitions. But if you read the PC, it only restricts the concealled carry of a dirk/dagger. Open carry is perfectly legal, as well as mere possession.

HowardW56
05-31-2009, 8:02 PM
Hey guys. I searched here, but could not find an answer. Are these trench knives legal in Ca. ?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/dfariswheel/Mark1right.jpg

If I had one of those I think I'd mount it in a shadow box and hand it on a wall...

Res
05-31-2009, 9:26 PM
If I had one of those I think I'd mount it in a shadow box and hand it on a wall...

Howard, I was thinking the same thing. But it seems as though just mere possession is illegal. Which is a damn shame.

Alan Block
06-01-2009, 12:00 PM
is it legal?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Model1917_knuckle_duster.jpg/300px-

adamsreeftank
06-01-2009, 12:07 PM
I had a friend in school (many years ago) who had one of those that was handed down from his grandfather. I wonder if he still has it, and if he knows the State would consider him a felon for keeping an historic heirloom.

toopercentmlk
06-01-2009, 12:08 PM
If I had one of those I think I'd mount it in a shadow box and hand it on a wall...

Same, they're really cool looking and have history to boot.

SgtDinosaur
06-01-2009, 2:59 PM
A long time ago, before I knew of these really neat laws, I bought a blackjack and a collapsible baton. Because it was illegal to carry a concealed handgun. Imagine my chagrin to learn they were even more illegal. The laws in this place make no sense to me.

383green
06-01-2009, 3:07 PM
is it legal?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Model1917_knuckle_duster.jpg/300px-

Nope:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=8940841762+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable
firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a
firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which
contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or
carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst
trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any
short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any
leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol,
any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge
knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon
of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy,
sandclub, sap, or sandbag.

(7) As used in this section, "metal knuckles" means any device or
instrument made wholly or partially of metal which is worn for
purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and which either
protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the
force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving
the blow. The metal contained in the device may help support the hand
or fist, provide a shield to protect it, or consist of projections
or studs which would contact the individual receiving a blow.

bigcalidave
06-01-2009, 7:05 PM
Tough call... lol

ke6guj
06-01-2009, 7:25 PM
Nope:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=8940841762+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrievethat does bring up an important question. When does a knife/sword's guard cross the line from just being a guard to being metal knuckles?

bigcalidave
06-01-2009, 7:27 PM
I don't think any guards are legal, this state has the worst laws. Nobody thought out all those possibilities.

ke6guj
06-01-2009, 7:28 PM
sounds like a lot of unknown felonies floating around then.

383green
06-01-2009, 9:02 PM
I don't think any guards are legal, this state has the worst laws. Nobody thought out all those possibilities.

I'm not convinced that the writers of 12020 didn't consider that trench knives and knuckle duster stilettos would be outlawed, or that they would have seen anything wrong with outlawing them.


sounds like a lot of unknown felonies floating around then.

It occurs to me that these fine young gentlemen would be unwitting criminals if they possessed their ceremonial swords in CA outside of official USMC duties:

http://www.okinawa.usmc.mil/public%20affairs%20info/Images%20Complete/HighResImages/061201-drill3.jpg

:mad:

unusedusername
06-01-2009, 9:09 PM
If metal guards are not legal then a LOT of people who have very short fencing rapiers (which are sharp-ish sometimes) are unknowingly breaking the law...

383green
06-01-2009, 9:16 PM
If metal guards are not legal then a LOT of people who have very short fencing rapiers (which are sharp-ish sometimes) are unknowingly breaking the law...

Do they even need to be short fencing rapiers? It's the handguard on that knuckle duster stiletto that makes it illegal, with or without the blade. The handguard shields the bearer's hand, it's quite definitely part of a weapon, and one of the deliberate reasons for its inclusion in the weapon is to allow the bearer to punch an opponent (in a real fight, not in a fencing match with strict rules of conduct). I would think that a metal handguard on any sword, machete, rapier, etc. would be prohibited by 12020.

Hmm, since you mention fencing rapiers with handguards, doesn't that imply that state colleges and universities are creating criminals through their fencing programs?

bigcalidave
06-01-2009, 9:48 PM
VIOLENT FELONS ARE EVERYWHERE !!! lol... I hate this place. Since people are starting to talk about using interstate commerce protections in re handguns, why not almost EVERYTHING on the damn pc 12020 list!!! Nunchucks? Brass knuckles? F#$%$ing Ninja stars!!! When do these get used in crimes!!! Fake grenades? I want to buy one of those sweet 8 in one ninja weapons that I used to have as a kid in Connecticut. The one with the hidden sword cane, spike, 3 shirukens, blow gun, etc, etc, I think that's like, 8 felonies in one damn $40 purchase !!!! I had one when I was 8 !!!! Do people get killed with those?

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 9:57 PM
Hmm, since you mention fencing rapiers with handguards, doesn't that imply that state colleges and universities are creating criminals through their fencing programs?



I would say negative on the whole hand guard thing. Read section 7 again.

(7) As used in this section, "metal knuckles" means any device or
instrument made wholly or partially of metal which is worn for
purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and which either
protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the
force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving
the blow. The metal contained in the device may help support the hand
or fist, provide a shield to protect it, or consist of projections
or studs which would contact the individual receiving a blow.

While fencing you are not striking a blow with the hand guard, it is there simply to protect that hand from an blow to the hand from another object.

In addition, there is only one type of fencing that has a full hand guard, and that is Saber (guard wraps around the hand and attaches at the base of the hilt.) The only other fencing that does utilize a form of a wrap around hand guard, however not attached would be the Italian Foil.
Foil and Épée utilize a bell shaped guard, more so a dish shape, not wrapping around the hand. The Foil and Épée guard is no more a knuckle duster than a cross guard is a knuckle duster on a sword or other blade.


The one part I found interesting is it is illegal to own any practice grenade made of metal....

Eroland7
06-01-2009, 10:01 PM
There's a surplus store in Campbell that sells those....

Thats doesnt mean they are legal.. It would be fine to have in a display cabinet in your home. I sure wouldnt have it on your person...

1*mike
06-01-2009, 10:03 PM
There's a surplus store in Campbell that sells those....

Selling them is one thing. Possessing them is another. no bueno

ke6guj
06-01-2009, 10:04 PM
The one part I found interesting is it is illegal to own any practice grenade made of metal....not entirely accurate.

12020(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following:
(15) Any plastic toy handgrenade, or any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade that is a relic, curio, memorabilia, or display item, that is filled with a permanent inert substance or that is otherwise permanently altered in a manner that prevents ready modification for use as a grenade.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 10:08 PM
not entirely accurate.

I was just reading section one that stated

any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade

ke6guj
06-01-2009, 10:12 PM
I was just reading section one that stated

any metal military practice
handgrenade or metal replica handgrenaderight, 12020(a) lists those, but then exempts those that comply with 12020(b)(15).

383green
06-01-2009, 10:23 PM
While fencing you are not striking a blow with the hand guard, it is there simply to protect that hand from an blow to the hand from another object.

While fencing, you are operating under strict rules which allow a competition and exhibition without anybody getting injured. Fencing weapons are modeled on real swords, and it's my understanding that in a real fight with a real sword, one of the reasons for a handguard is to allow the fighter to punch his opponent with great force, just as with the trench knife design or the knuckle duster stiletto.

It would seem to me that the fact that punching with the handguard isn't permitted in a fencing competition is no more relevant under CA law than an assertion that when carrying a trench knife for self defense, you'll only use the blade. That doesn't change the fact (assuming my interpretation is correct) that a handguard on a sword, epee, rapier, etc. serves the same purposes as the handguards on the trench knives or knuckle duster stilettos, whether or not competitive fencing rules permit them to be used in that manner in a competition.

It seems clear to me that the first trench knife shown (with individual holes for each finger) meets the definition of metal knuckles under CA law. It seems to me that the next knife shown (the knuckle duster stiletto) also meets that definition; the presence of studs on the handguard and its very name suggest that it was designed specifically for both stabbing and punching opponents.

Now, if the knuckle duster is considered to be "metal knuckles" under CA law as defined in 12020, why would a USMC sword or a fencing weapon with the same style of handguard not also be "metal kunckles"? Aside from having longer blades, they're the same shape as that knuckle duster weapon, and they could and would be used the same way in a real life-or-death fight. Does the longer blade make any difference, since in the case of either the trench knife or knuckle duster stiletto, the blade has no bearing on the weapon's being considered "metal knuckles" under CA law?

I might be playing devil's advocate here a bit. I'm not sure. I just don't see how 12020 would apply to the knuckle duster stiletto (and I think it does), without also applying to other weapons with the same configuration when held normally, such as a sword with a full handguard, whether the blade is present or not, and whether the handguard is "pretty" like on a USMC sword, or "ugly" and utilitarian like on the knuckle duster. I think that the handguard is intended to have the same offensive and defensive uses in all of those weapon designs, even though the USMC and fencing weapons are more symbolic and less utilitarian than a real no-holds-barred fighting weapon, and the fencing weapons are most commonly used in highly stylized and constrained competitions.

Personally, it seems absurd to me to outlaw any of these primitive weapons, while we here on this board generally think that carrying firearms is a protected right and we're gaining ground in getting others to agree with us on that. I think that trench knife looks like a perfectly reasonable backup weapon to resort to after the rifle, pistol and backup pistol are empty. I hope that one day I'll be able to legally both carry/posses a trench knife and drill that missing hole in my OLL here in CA. :p

383green
06-01-2009, 10:27 PM
I want to buy one of those sweet 8 in one ninja weapons that I used to have as a kid in Connecticut. The one with the hidden sword cane, spike, 3 shirukens, blow gun, etc, etc, I think that's like, 8 felonies in one damn $40 purchase !!!! I had one when I was 8 !!!! Do people get killed with those?


There's a South Park episode on that topic, titled "Good Times With Weapons"... ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/SP_Good_Times_With_Weapons.jpg

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 10:33 PM
While fencing, you are operating under strict rules which allow a competition and exhibition without anybody getting injured. Fencing weapons are modeled on real swords, and it's my understanding that in a real fight with a real sword, one of the reasons for a handguard is to allow the fighter to punch his opponent with great force, just as with the trench knife design or the knuckle duster stiletto.

It would seem to me that the fact that punching with the handguard isn't permitted in a fencing competition is no more relevant under CA law than an assertion that when carrying a trench knife for self defense, you'll only use the blade. That doesn't change the fact (assuming my interpretation is correct) that a handguard on a sword, epee, rapier, etc. serves the same purposes as the handguards on the trench knives or knuckle duster stilettos, whether or not competitive fencing rules permit them to be used in that manner in a competition.

It seems clear to me that the first trench knife shown (with individual holes for each finger) meets the definition of metal knuckles under CA law. It seems to me that the next knife shown (the knuckle duster stiletto) also meets that definition; the presence of studs on the handguard and its very name suggest that it was designed specifically for both stabbing and punching opponents.

Now, if the knuckle duster is considered to be "metal knuckles" under CA law as defined in 12020, why would a USMC sword or a fencing weapon with the same style of handguard not also be "metal kunckles"? Aside from having longer blades, they're the same shape as that knuckle duster weapon, and they could and would be used the same way in a real life-or-death fight. Does the longer blade make any difference, since in the case of either the trench knife or knuckle duster stiletto, the blade has no bearing on the weapon's being considered "metal knuckles" under CA law?

I might be playing devil's advocate here a bit. I'm not sure. I just don't see how 12020 would apply to the knuckle duster stiletto (and I think it does), without also applying to other weapons with the same configuration when held normally, such as a sword with a full handguard, whether the blade is present or not, and whether the handguard is "pretty" like on a USMC sword, or "ugly" and utilitarian like on the knuckle duster. I think that the handguard is intended to have the same offensive and defensive uses in all of those weapon designs, even though the USMC and fencing weapons are more symbolic and less utilitarian than a real no-holds-barred fighting weapon, and the fencing weapons are most commonly used in highly stylized and constrained competitions.

Personally, it seems absurd to me to outlaw any of these primitive weapons, while we here on this board generally think that carrying firearms is a protected right and we're gaining ground in getting others to agree with us on that. I think that trench knife looks like a perfectly reasonable backup weapon to resort to after the rifle, pistol and backup pistol are empty. I hope that one day I'll be able to legally both carry/posses a trench knife and drill that missing hole in my OLL here in CA. :p

The cross guard on the sword was not for punching, it was to keep the fingers from getting chopped when a blade strike occurred and the opponents blade slid down.

You made the comment the same style, let me ask you this (just to be the devils advocate) is a Semi-Truck that same style as a Yugo?

If you look at the trench knife, the knuckle duster part is clearly defined by individual areas where the user places his fingers, much like wearing a ring, where as the hand guard on the saber does not dictate a certain hold position. Hypothetically you could hold the saber in such away that the hand guard does not cover the hand, but rather rest against the side of the wrist. However with the trench knife, it is designed in such away where you would be placing your fingers through the holes of the weapon, hence wearing it on your hand falling under 12020 section 7.

Or another way of looking at it, if you release the grip on the Saber, would the weapon still be attached to your body, if the answer is yes then you are wearing it, if it is no, then it would not fall under 12020 section 7. Now ask yourself the same question about the trench knife.

The key word in section 7 is worn.

Because the key word is worn, I would have to say the 2nd trench knife is not illegal because there is no clear way that it can be worn on the hand.


Ohand strict rules or not, I have suffered from many a dislocated/cracked ribs and bloody knuckles while fending in college.

ke6guj
06-01-2009, 10:45 PM
granted this is a wikipedia definiton, but it does make sense.

On a sword or some knives, the crossguard (or cross-guard), also known as quillons, is a bar of metal at right angles to the blade, placed between the blade and the hilt. The crossguard stops the wielder from punching shields while swinging the weapon, thereby protecting the user's hand. It also prevents other blades from sliding down onto the hand of the weapon wielder during combat.

The bar crossguard is the simplest form of guard. Swords evolved into lighter, faster duelling weapons whilst the gauntlet of armour became obsolete, so the crossguard became more elaborate, forming first quillons and then, through the addition of guard branches, the basket hilt, which offered more protection to the swordbearer's hand.

Crossguards sometimes contained openings through which the swordbearer could insert his fingers to improve his grip while fighting.
The bolded section would seem to fit the definition of metal knuckles.

As for your "wearing" arguement, maybe, maybe not. I would not be wanting to spend the $$$$$ to defend that in court. Perhaps there is some defining case law out there that clarifies this.

383green
06-01-2009, 10:54 PM
If you look at the trench knife, the knuckle duster part is clearly defined by individual areas where the user places his fingers, much like wearing a ring, where as the hand guard on the saber does not dictate a certain hold position. Hypothetically you could hold the saber in such away that the hand guard does not cover the hand, but rather rest against the side of the wrist. However with the trench knife, it is designed in such away where you would be placing your fingers through the holes of the weapon, hence wearing it on your hand falling under 12020 section 7.

So, by that line of reasoning, would this weapon not be considered to be metal knuckles under 12020?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Model1917_knuckle_duster.jpg/300px-

To my eye, it looks like it would. As I read 12020, having separate holes for each finger is not at all necessary to be classified as metal knuckles.

The cross guard on the sword was not for punching, it was to keep the fingers from getting chopped when a blade strike occurred and the opponents blade slid down.

To be clear, I am not referring to cross-guards. I am referring only to handguards which completely encircle the hand, like on the weapon pictured above, or on a USMC ceremonial sword.

I do not see any functional difference between the handguard on the weapon pictured above and the one on the USMC sword, aside from the differences inherent in the USMC sword serving a ceremonial role rather than being specifically designed as a primary killin' weapon. Thus, I propose that they're either both "metal knuckles" under CA law, or that neither of them is "metal knuckles" under CA law.

On the surface, it seems absurd to me to consider a USMC sword to be metal knuckles. However, I don't think it's any more absurd than the situations created by defining some rifles as being assault weapons based on cosmetic features. Maybe the lawmakers who wrote 12020 didn't intend to define a USMC sword to be metal knuckles, but when you place one side-by-side with that knuckle-duster stiletto (in a state other than CA, that is ;)), I can't see a logical way that 12020 as written would restrict one but not the other. How are they at all different, other than one being pretty/flimsy/elegant/for-show, and the other being ugly/sturdy/functional/for-killing?

GuyW
06-01-2009, 10:55 PM
It's the handguard on that knuckle duster stiletto that makes it illegal, with or without the blade.

Rediculous - its the metal knuckles aspect of the knuckle duster that makes it illegal...
.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 10:57 PM
granted this is a wikipedia definiton, but it does make sense.


The bolded section would seem to fit the definition of metal knuckles.

As for your "wearing" arguement, maybe, maybe not. I would not be wanting to spend the $$$$$ to defend that in court. Perhaps there is some defining case law out there that clarifies this.


Its not my argument, its clearly stated in section 7.

I'll post it again. which is worn for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand

The hand guard is not worn in or on the hand, it does not make contact with the hand, nor does the cross guard. Neither of them are worn in or on the hand. The only weapon that has been posted that is worn on the hand would be the first trench knife posted, where the knife is worn on the fingers of the hand.

We can go back and forth for hours over the semantics of it, but section 7 clearly states worn in or on the hand. Now if section 7 stated "worn in or on the hand, or while held by the hand" then yes you would be correct about the hand guard on the Saber.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 10:59 PM
So, by that line of reasoning, would this weapon not be considered to be metal knuckles under 12020?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Model1917_knuckle_duster.jpg/300px-

To my eye, it looks like it would. As I read 12020, having separate holes for each finger is not at all necessary to be classified as metal knuckles.



To be clear, I am not referring to cross-guards. I am referring only to handguards which completely encircle the hand, like on the weapon pictured above, or on a USMC ceremonial sword.

I do not see any functional difference between the handguard on the weapon pictured above and the one on the USMC sword, aside from the differences inherent in the USMC sword serving a ceremonial role rather than being specifically designed as a primary killin' weapon. Thus, I propose that they're either both "metal knuckles" under CA law, or that neither of them is "metal knuckles" under CA law.

On the surface, it seems absurd to me to consider a USMC sword to be metal knuckles. However, I don't think it's any more absurd than the situations created by defining some rifles as being assault weapons based on cosmetic features. Maybe the lawmakers who wrote 12020 didn't intend to define a USMC sword to be metal knuckles, but when you place one side-by-side with that knuckle-duster stiletto (in a state other than CA, that is ;)), I can't see a logical way that 12020 as written would restrict one but not the other. How are they at all different, other than one being pretty/flimsy/elegant/for-show, and the other being ugly/sturdy/functional/for-killing?

Can this weapon be worn in or on the hand? if yes then it is a illegal, if no then it is legal. If you know of away to wear this in or on your hand please tell me because I cannot picture it.

383green
06-01-2009, 11:01 PM
Those don't have the characteristics of metal knuckles....

Does this weapon have the characteristics of "metal knuckles":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Model1917_knuckle_duster.jpg/300px-

when "metal knuckles" is defined this way:

(7) As used in this section, "metal knuckles" means any device or
instrument made wholly or partially of metal which is worn for
purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and which either
protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the
force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving
the blow. The metal contained in the device may help support the hand
or fist, provide a shield to protect it, or consist of projections
or studs which would contact the individual receiving a blow.


I think that the above weapon meets the 12020 definition of "metal knuckles", with the only possible arguable point being the "worn" part. I don't think I'd want to be the defendant arguing held vs. worn on a 12020 charge.

ke6guj
06-01-2009, 11:02 PM
you assume that "worn in or on the hand" is that limited in scope. I've seen metal knuckles that did not have indiviual finger holes, that were shaped along the lines of jogging weights.

Intent has a lot to do with it. Jogging weights are legal, but I bet if you got into a fight and intended to use them as metal knuckles, you'd be fighting a 12020 charge.

383green
06-01-2009, 11:04 PM
Rediculous - its the metal knuckles aspect of the knuckle duster that makes it illegal...
.

So, what exactly is the difference between the pictured knuckle duster and a USMC-style handguard, as defined by 12020. Remember, we're not talking about what makes sense; we're talking about what's illegal. As our AW laws show, something can be illegal without making any sense at all.

GuyW
06-01-2009, 11:05 PM
Does this weapon have the characteristics of "metal knuckles":


Nope.


defendant arguing held vs. worn on a 12020 charge.

Easy win, and parallel argument to 12031 carry vs have....
.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 11:10 PM
you assume that "worn in or on the hand" is that limited in scope. I've seen metal knuckles that did not have indiviual finger holes, that were shaped along the lines of jogging weights.

Intent has a lot to do with it. Jogging weights are legal, but I bet if you got into a fight and intended to use them as metal knuckles, you'd be fighting a 12020 charge.


It could be easily argued with 12020 as well in the same statements I have posted earlier. The courts would have to ask the legal question is the device in question designed for offense or defensive purposes? if yes, then the next question would be Is the item designed to be worn in or on the hand? if yes to that then you could face a 12020 charge, if the answer was No to either one, then you would more than likely you would not face a 12020 charge.

So if the device in question was designed as a jogging weight, and sold and marketed as a jogging weight, then I think it would be hard for them to place a 12020 charge against you and if they did you could argue it down with a good attorney.

In my opinion (which is not a legal one mind you) I personally would guess you would face an assault with a deadly weapon charge.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 11:15 PM
So, what exactly is the difference between the pictured knuckle duster and a USMC-style handguard, as defined by 12020. Remember, we're not talking about what makes sense; we're talking about what's illegal. As our AW laws show, something can be illegal without making any sense at all.


I keep posting this and you have yet to answer it. Can you wear this device in or on the hand?

The first trench knife is clearly designed to be worn in or on the hand, due to the individual finger holes. It would allow for the wear to still wear the trench knife even if the hand was in an open position.

The 2nd trench knife posted does not posses the proper design to allow for the user to have it worn in or on the hand. IE, if they held the knife in their hand, and then opened their hand, the knife would drop to the ground.

ke6guj
06-01-2009, 11:22 PM
It could be easily argued with 12020 as well in the same statements I have posted earlier. The courts would have to ask the legal question is the device in question designed for offense or defensive purposes? if yes, then the next question would be Is the item designed to be worn in or on the hand? if yes to that then you could face a 12020 charge, if the answer was No to either one, then you would more than likely you would not face a 12020 charge. you mean, if the police feel it may be considered brass knuckles, they would pass it on to the DA, who would decide whether or not to prosecute the 12020 charge. If he did so, you would be facing a 12020 charge before you got to court.

Heck, BWO faced a 12020 charge for "sap gloves", which aren't even defined in 12020.

So if the device in question was designed as a jogging weight, and sold and marketed as a jogging weight, then I think it would be hard for them to place a 12020 charge against you and if they did you could argue it down with a good attorney.but if you used it as a weapon, or carried them around in your car, they could possibly 12020 you. Just like people who carry baseball bats and minature bats in their cars for "protection" get arrested for them under 12020. Seems that smart people also carry a ball, glove, and maybe even cleats with them to show a "legal" reason to carry the bat in the car all the time.

In my opinion (which is not a legal one mind you) I personally would guess you would face an assault with a deadly weapon charge.Obviously there would be charges like assualt and battery involved.

383green
06-01-2009, 11:31 PM
I keep posting this and you have yet to answer it. Can you wear this device in or on the hand?

I could see that answer going either way if a jury was called on to answer this question. Please bear with me for a moment while I make up a hypothetical question, which I hope will show why I don't think a simple "yes" or "no" answer to your question is sufficient.

Let's say that somebody was found with an item in their possession which was identical to that knuckle duster stiletto, but without the blade. Just the handle with the surrounding metal strap and studs. I'm leaving the blade off so we can just focus on the knuckly parts.

Now, they're in court, facing a 12020 charge.

Their defense attorney argues that this item is made to be held, not worn, and thus it doesn't meet the definition of "metal knuckles" (even though it's clearly intended to be used in exactly the same way as traditionally-shaped brass knuckles, with the same effects and results).

The prosecutor argues that the item is clearly a weapon, and it's clearly intended to be used in exactly the same way as traditionally-shaped brass knuckles, with the same effects and results, (even though it's held and not worn).

Neither one of them actually says the parenthesized parts out loud; I included them to emphasize the parts that they deliberately left out of their arguments.

Now, it's up to the jury to decide whether they're "metal knuckles" or not. In this hypothetical case, my gut feeling is that the jury would be much more likely to call them "metal knuckles" than "not metal knuckles", or even "not metal knuckles (but just on a technicality)". I think that if the defendant seemed like a bad guy, he'd be pretty likely to get the "metal knuckles" verdict. I think he would have a slim chance of getting the "metal knuckles (but just on a technicality)" verdict if he was a very sympathetic defendant. I don't think the "not metal knuckles" verdict would be too likely, since they are so obviously designed to be used in exactly the same way as traditional brass knuckles.

Ok, so after all of these words, I'll answer you: I agree that it can be argued that the trench knife is worn exactly like regular brass knuckles, and that the knuckle duster is held, but not worn. I further agree that there is logical merit to that argument. Still, my gut tells me that trying to argue that as a defendant of a 12020 charge would be pretty unlikely to work out the way that you or I would like it to.

Comments?

leadchucker
06-01-2009, 11:32 PM
The vintage dive knife shown in this link (the "Vulcan", by U.S. Divers), http://cgi.ebay.com/Vietnam-Navy-Seal-US-Diver's-Knife-Scabbard-Vulcan_W0QQitemZ280349394120QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ2 0090524?IMSfp=TL090524144006r34836 , has a finger guard that is so flimsy that it would do anything BUT protect your knuckles if used for punching. I'm certain that knife could be argued out of a 12020, so if the "knuckle duster" previously mentioned and pictured WOULD be a 12020 offense, then where the heck could anyone draw a clear line between the two?! Illegal "laws" are inherently STUPID!

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 11:34 PM
you mean, if the police feel it may be considered brass knuckles, they would pass it on to the DA, who would decide whether or not to prosecute the 12020 charge. If he did so, you would be facing a 12020 charge before you got to court.

Heck, BWO faced a 12020 charge for "sap gloves", which aren't even defined in 12020.

but if you used it as a weapon, or carried them around in your car, they could possibly 12020 you. Just like people who carry baseball bats and minature bats in their cars for "protection" get arrested for them under 12020. Seems that smart people also carry a ball, glove, and maybe even cleats with them to show a "legal" reason to carry the bat in the car all the time.

Obviously there would be charges like assualt and battery involved.

If you read the last portion of the 12020 penal code it states "instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag" So yes it does say sap, it does not say sap gloves but it does make the statement commonly known as.

ke6guj
06-01-2009, 11:38 PM
I keep posting this and you have yet to answer it. Can you wear this device in or on the hand?.I would ask, how could anyboyd wear a device "in the hand" that would be considered metal knuckles?

Think maybe they are talking about those rods with 3-4 metal spikes that would protrude out between the fingers. Heck, I've even heard of people fighting with rolls of nickles or quarters getting arrested for metal knuckles. Obviously those aren't "worn in or on the hand". Those types of items would not stay worn if you opened your hand.

383green
06-01-2009, 11:41 PM
Illegal "laws" are inherently STUPID!

I totally agree with you on that! The thing that makes this debate so much more difficult (and so much more interesting?) is that I think we're generally fairly rational and well-educated on matters of weaponry here, but these laws that we're discussing are inherently illogical and stupid. In order to debate them meaningfully as they apply in real life, it's necessary to turn off parts of our brains and force ourselves to think in the illogical ways that these laws are written and applied. This kind of doublethink is really hard!

It's hard to have a reasoned debate on a topic where the very act of using reason changes the results. :banghead:

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 11:42 PM
I could see that answer going either way if a jury was called on to answer this question. Please bear with me for a moment while I make up a hypothetical question, which I hope will show why I don't think a simple "yes" or "no" answer to your question is sufficient.

Let's say that somebody was found with an item in their possession which was identical to that knuckle duster stiletto, but without the blade. Just the handle with the surrounding metal strap and studs. I'm leaving the blade off so we can just focus on the knuckly parts.

Now, they're in court, facing a 12020 charge.

Their defense attorney argues that this item is made to be held, not worn, and thus it doesn't meet the definition of "metal knuckles" (even though it's clearly intended to be used in exactly the same way as traditionally-shaped brass knuckles, with the same effects and results).

The prosecutor argues that the item is clearly a weapon, and it's clearly intended to be used in exactly the same way as traditionally-shaped brass knuckles, with the same effects and results, (even though it's held and not worn).

Neither one of them actually says the parenthesized parts out loud; I included them to emphasize the parts that they deliberately left out of their arguments.

Now, it's up to the jury to decide whether they're "metal knuckles" or not. In this hypothetical case, my gut feeling is that the jury would be much more likely to call them "metal knuckles" than "not metal knuckles", or even "not metal knuckles (but just on a technicality)". I think that if the defendant seemed like a bad guy, he'd be pretty likely to get the "metal knuckles" verdict. I think he would have a slim chance of getting the "metal knuckles (but just on a technicality)" verdict if he was a very sympathetic defendant. I don't think the "not metal knuckles" verdict would be too likely, since they are so obviously designed to be used in exactly the same way as traditional brass knuckles.

Ok, so after all of these words, I'll answer you: I agree that it can be argued that the trench knife is worn exactly like regular brass knuckles, and that the knuckle duster is held, but not worn. I further agree that there is logical merit to that argument. Still, my gut tells me that trying to argue that as a defendant of a 12020 charge would be pretty unlikely to work out the way that you or I would like it to.

Comments?


My comment is any good defense attorney would point out what the definition of "metal knuckles" which is "metal knuckles" means any device or
instrument made wholly or partially of metal which is worn for
purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and which either
protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the
force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving
the blow.

The argument is not is that item in question a weapon or not, the question is it a 12020 section 7 charge or not. I personally feel that if someone where to explain the definition of worn and the penal code definition of "metal knuckles" the jury would not say the 2nd trench knife posted was a 12020 violation under section 7.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 11:45 PM
I would ask, how could anyboyd wear a device "in the hand" that would be considered metal knuckles?

Think maybe they are talking about those rods with 3-4 metal spikes that would protrude out between the fingers. Heck, I've even heard of people fighting with rolls of nickles or quarters getting arrested for metal knuckles. Obviously those aren't "worn in or on the hand". Those types of items would not stay worn if you opened your hand.


Where they arrested on a 12020 or convicted of a 12020 with the role of nickles? Cops are there to observe and report, it is up to the judge to determine if you actually broke the law under the cops charges.

People are arrested all the time, and then later the charges are dropped once the DA gets the case and says there is no reason to prosecute because we have no legal grounds to win.

383green
06-01-2009, 11:46 PM
By the way, Conversekidz: I think that your arguments make logical sense, but I also think that logical sense isn't entirely applicable here. Like some of the examples that ke6guj has brought up, it appears that 12020 has been, can be, and will be applied to cases where the worn vs. held distinction that you bring up would seem to make 12020 inapplicable. Maybe it's unjust to convict somebody for "metal knuckles" when they punched somebody with a roll of quarters in their hand, but that's not much consolation for them as they rot away in jail for up to a year.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 11:46 PM
I totally agree with you on that! The thing that makes this debate so much more difficult (and so much more interesting?) is that I think we're generally fairly rational and well-educated on matters of weaponry here, but these laws that we're discussing are inherently illogical and stupid. In order to debate them meaningfully as they apply in real life, it's necessary to turn off parts of our brains and force ourselves to think in the illogical ways that these laws are written and applied. This kind of doublethink is really hard!

It's hard to have a reasoned debate on a topic where the very act of using reason changes the results. :banghead:


Laws are highly logical, you just have to think like an attorney and know how they operate.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 11:49 PM
By the way, Conversekidz: I think that your arguments make logical sense, but I also think that logical sense isn't entirely applicable here. Like some of the examples that ke6guj has brought up, it appears that 12020 has been, can be, and will be applied to cases where the worn vs. held distinction that you bring up would seem to make 12020 inapplicable. Maybe it's unjust to convict somebody for "metal knuckles" when they punched somebody with a roll of quarters in their hand, but that's not much consolation for them as they rot away in jail for up to a year.

Its sad to say but a lot of the people rotting away in jail over the charges in question did not have a good defense lawyer in my opinion, they probably used a public defender who is so over whelmed with cases that they rather plea bargin than actually fight for their clients.

ke6guj
06-01-2009, 11:51 PM
Where they arrested on a 12020 or convicted of a 12020 with the role of nickles? Cops are there to observe and report, it is up to the judge to determine if you actually broke the law under the cops charges.I've just heard that people have been arrested for them. I'll ask my LE buddy the next time I talk to him if there is any case law or anything that helps define them.

People are arrested all the time, and then later the charges are dropped once the DA gets the case and says there is no reason to prosecute because we have no legal grounds to win.true, but just the mere arrest is a loss to many people. Getting booked, bonding out, hiring an attorney, etc.

GuyW
06-01-2009, 11:54 PM
I guess by one line of "reasoning", owners of lever action rifles had better be careful, or they'll get popped for brass knuckles... :(
.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 11:55 PM
I've just heard that people have been arrested for them. I'll ask my LE buddy the next time I talk to him if there is any case law or anything that helps define them.

true, but just the mere arrest is a loss to many people. Getting booked, bonding out, hiring an attorney, etc.


Well, they shouldn't have been engaging in an illegal act, its not people are getting arrested for having a roll of quarters in their pocket. They are getting arrested for assaulting someone with the roll of quarters, the 12020 charge is just adding to their jail time if convicted.

Conversekidz
06-01-2009, 11:57 PM
I guess by one line of "reasoning", owners of lever action rifles had better be careful, or they'll get popped for brass knuckles... :(
.

Good thing the lever wasn't designed for offensive or defensive purposes while been worn on or in the hand.

The gun its attached to is a whole new set of penal codes to argue :thumbsup:

383green
06-01-2009, 11:58 PM
People are arrested all the time, and then later the charges are dropped once the DA gets the case and says there is no reason to prosecute because we have no legal grounds to win.

And OJ was found not guilty of murder, despite mountains of damning evidence. Things don't always make sense when a jury of your peers get involved. Your average peer isn't the sharpest marble in the deck, and half of them are even stupider. :(

Anyway, you and I clearly have different opinions about whether that knuckle duster stiletto would be found to be "metal knuckles" under CA law. I don't think that reflects badly on either of us, because I think that the law in question is fundamentally stupid.

Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable being caught owning one of those knuckle duster stilettos here in CA. I just don't think that the worn vs. held argument is compelling enough to give me good odds in front of a jury, and I think that the fact that it's clearly designed to be used in the same manner as brass knuckles would be enough for a DA to take it to court. Even winning would bankrupt me, and in order to win I'd be betting on a technicality of the way the law was written.

By the way, I've been on one jury so far. In that case, the DA's case wasn't strong, she didn't argue it very well in my opinion, and we found the defendant not-guilty. Even with the not-guilty verdict, I think that guy's life was pretty thoroughly messed up by a lame charge brought by a low-life and poorly argued by a lousy DA. With this experience, I'm pretty pessimistic about things like this "worn or held" debate.

1JimMarch
06-02-2009, 12:00 AM
OK, what about my motorcycle gloves, of a type sold in every California bike shop that caters to the sportbike crowd:

http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-gloves/osi-gloves/osi-coolguard-glove.htm

The knuckleguard is either hard plastic or sometimes carbon fiber. Hell of a weapon. I'm not aware of any busts, but?

383green
06-02-2009, 12:01 AM
I guess by one line of "reasoning", owners of lever action rifles had better be careful, or they'll get popped for brass knuckles... :(
.

1) SHHHHH! Don't give them any ideas! :TFH:

2) I think I just found a new use for my model 94... :whistling:

Conversekidz
06-02-2009, 12:06 AM
And OJ was found not guilty of murder, despite mountains of damning evidence. Things don't always make sense when a jury of your peers get involved. Your average peer isn't the sharpest marble in the deck, and half of them are even stupider. :(

Anyway, you and I clearly have different opinions about whether that knuckle duster stiletto would be found to be "metal knuckles" under CA law. I don't think that reflects badly on either of us, because I think that the law in question is fundamentally stupid.

Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable being caught owning one of those knuckle duster stilettos here in CA. I just don't think that the worn vs. held argument is compelling enough to give me good odds in front of a jury, and I think that the fact that it's clearly designed to be used in the same manner as brass knuckles would be enough for a DA to take it to court. Even winning would bankrupt me, and in order to win I'd be betting on a technicality of the way the law was written.

By the way, I've been on one jury so far. In that case, the DA's case wasn't strong, she didn't argue it very well in my opinion, and we found the defendant not-guilty. Even with the not-guilty verdict, I think that guy's life was pretty thoroughly messed up by a lame charge brought by a low-life and poorly argued by a lousy DA. With this experience, I'm pretty pessimistic about things like this "worn or held" debate.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I worked for 3 years for the Santa Clara DA, and I know what a good attorney can do with the letter of the law. If the law says worn, it means to wear, you can try and argue it anyway you want but the law clearly states worn in or on the hand. This is what makes the difference between a good attorney and a bad one. The bad are not good at making people understand what the law says, a good one can make people understand what the letter of the law is, and how it effects their client and their clients actions.

383green
06-02-2009, 12:09 AM
OK, what about my motorcycle gloves, of a type sold in every California bike shop that caters to the sportbike crowd:

http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-gloves/osi-gloves/osi-coolguard-glove.htm

The knuckleguard is either hard plastic or sometimes carbon fiber. Hell of a weapon. I'm not aware of any busts, but?

I think that's the best example yet of an innocuous and reasonable possession, which could nevertheless get you charged with 12020 if you misused them or somebody in power decided to make your life difficult.

383green
06-02-2009, 12:17 AM
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I worked for 3 years for the Santa Clara DA, and I know what a good attorney can do with the letter of the law. If the law says worn, it means to wear, you can try and argue it anyway you want but the law clearly states worn in or on the hand. This is what makes the difference between a good attorney and a bad one. The bad are not good at making people understand what the law says, a good one can make people understand what the letter of the law is, and how it effects their client and their clients actions.

With that in mind, do you think that the knuckle duster stiletto would be found to be 100% not-metal-knuckles in both of these cases:

1) Very good DA, lousy public defender.

2) Lousy DA, very good defense attorney.

I think (or at least hope) that the DA in case one would not file the 12020 charge, but I fear that they might file it anyway, and then argue it successfully.

I think that the DA in case 2 might not have enough sense to not file the 12020 charges, and even after the very good defense attorney convinced the jury that the charges were bogus, the defendant would still be out $50k or so.

If you feel differently, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Although I've probably had a tiny fraction of your exposure to the court system, I've seen enough bad charges filed against good people that I'm a lot more pessimistic about things like this. I only jumped on the OLL bandwagon after there was a lot of track laid to support it, and I was part of a big group of folks who would help fund each other's defense in the case of a bad OLL-related prosecution like Matt's. I wouldn't personally gamble on this "worn vs. held" distinction, though. The odds just don't look good to me.