Assisted Opening Knives

[Crawfish141]

Are they legal in Ca?

[wilit]

Yes.

[jinggoyd1967]

I you don't mind me asking, what's the difference between a regular folder, an assisted opening, and an automatic.

[Crawfish141]

Yes.

Wow, I'm honestly surprised. Guess Ca must have ok knife laws.

[ke6guj]

I you don't mind me asking, what's the difference between a regular folder, an assisted opening, and an automatic.
a regular folder is your classic folding pocket knife.

An automatic is a switchblade. A knife that has a spring inside that, when you push a button, snaps the blade open.

An assisted opener is a folding pocket knife that has a spring that, when your start to open the knife and have the blade out a couple degrees, snaps the blade open.

The difference is that if you push a button to initiate the opening it is a switchblade, but if you push on the blade, it isn't.

[ke6guj]

Wow, I'm honestly surprised. Guess Ca must have ok knife laws.

Crawfish, read this excelent summary on CA knife laws, http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/knifelaw.html . It covers pretty much everything you need to know. Read it and then ask more questions, if need be.

[Crawfish141]

Read it, wow the laws are way better for knives than guns.

[leelaw]

I you don't mind me asking, what's the difference between a regular folder, an assisted opening, and an automatic.

Folding knife: Classic pocket knife. Opens with a thumb stud or nail cut. Has a bias towards closed when the blade is folded close to the closed position.

Assisted opening: Similar to a folding knife. After pushing the blade beyond the limits of the bias towards closed, a tension bar flips the knife to the open position.

Automatic folder: press a button, switch, or lever and the blade springs from fully closed to fully open.

[dwa]

So stupid is the classification of an automatic knife. It's as sharp as an old-timers folding knife. Feel-good-do-gooders...

but it is designed for spray from the hip and what not, i mean the things AUTOMATIC

[1JimMarch]

Read it, wow the laws are way better for knives than guns.

Yup. You've got basically "Vermont Carry" for big (unlimited big!) folding knives. I was about ready to build a folding Katana at one point :) before moving to AZ.

Cold Steel has some superb 6" class folders at decent prices.

California's knife laws are better than MOST of the states that have shall-issue CCW. Even AZ doesn't allow concealment of megafolders unless you also have a CCW permit - which in AZ covers...well, basically anything short of nuclear/biological/chemical. Brass knuckles? Cane swords? Concealed bowie knives? Cool. When they say "weapons permit" they are NOT kidding. :)

Here's a good one for ya. You know which secured government buildings in California have consistently the BEST rules about sticking your knife in a drawer with your name on it and giving back no hassles when you leave? More or less every city/county owned security building in SAN FRANCISCO! The courthouses, city hall, police station all have the coolest metal detector rules anywhere.

Care to guess why?

It's the bicycle messengers. Without fail, EVERY one of 'em packs cutlery, no exceptions...male, female, doesn't matter. Most also have pepper spray. If they didn't, the hoards of homeless would raid them for their bikes.

And since they're frequent visitors to those public buildings......

[bodger]

Yup. You've got basically "Vermont Carry" for big (unlimited big!) folding knives. I was about ready to build a folding Katana at one point :) before moving to AZ.

Cold Steel has some superb 6" class folders at decent prices.

California's knife laws are better than MOST of the states that have shall-issue CCW. Even AZ doesn't allow concealment of megafolders unless you also have a CCW permit - which in AZ covers...well, basically anything short of nuclear/biological/chemical. Brass knuckles? Cane swords? Concealed bowie knives? Cool. When they say "weapons permit" they are NOT kidding. :)

Here's a good one for ya. You know which secured government buildings in California have consistently the BEST rules about sticking your knife in a drawer with your name on it and giving back no hassles when you leave? More or less every city/county owned security building in SAN FRANCISCO! The courthouses, city hall, police station all have the coolest metal detector rules anywhere.

Care to guess why?

It's the bicycle messengers. Without fail, EVERY one of 'em packs cutlery, no exceptions...male, female, doesn't matter. Most also have pepper spray. If they didn't, the hoards of homeless would raid them for their bikes.

And since they're frequent visitors to those public buildings......


Bike messenger in San Francisco.
Sounds like the quintessential definition of Good Cause, doesn't it?

Lord, I would not want that job without being able to pack a gat.

[Decoligny]

Read it, wow the laws are way better for knives than guns.

The main difference is that there is no State preemption with knife laws. That means that Counties and Cities can and do make their own laws in regards to knives and knife carry. You not only have to know the State laws, you have to know the local laws wherever you carry.

[Haplo]

The main difference is that there is no State preemption with knife laws. That means that Counties and Cities can and do make their own laws in regards to knives and knife carry. You not only have to know the State laws, you have to know the local laws wherever you carry.

This is where things seem to get murky to me. State law is pretty liberal, but the local laws can be different from city to city and it's almost impossible to keep track of them all.

[1JimMarch]

It's not impossible, at least not in the major towns. Look up the actual statutes. Most aren't all that bad.

Take San Francisco for instance...yeah, there's a knife ban all right, but only applies when you're also illegally loitering.

You guessed it - a "disarm the bums" law.

[dantodd]

Bike messenger in San Francisco.
Sounds like the quintessential definition of Good Cause, doesn't it?


I guess they fear that their blatant disregard for traffic laws and continued abuse of drivers is likely to eventually end them up in some sort of confrontation.

[vandal]

Loving my Benchmade Barrage. :43:

[bohoki]

GfP_Xv1AHqE

[Crawfish141]

Loving my Benchmade Barrage. :43:

Waiting for a a Benchmade stryker to show up; should be here tomorrow!:cool:

[dantodd]

My daily carry is a CRKT Rave. It's a great knife and aside from there being very limited option for assisted opening lefties they are a great way to carry.

[WeekendWarrior]

I got a bunch of assisted open knives. They're great!

[ldsnet]

This was discussed at my last Law enforecement class in November.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 3) affirmed.
In re Angel R. (June 5, 2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 905

The case involved a Juvenile and two other gangbanger juveniles tagging and drugs. The pocketknife was a folding knife that locks when opened. As originally designed and manufactured, the knife would remain in the closed position unless specific pressure was exerted on a button that was there for that purpose. However, the knife had been either intentionally modified or accidentally damaged so that the resistance mechanism did not function. As a result, the knife would open with a flick of the wrist and then lock into the opened position.

Defendant first argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his pocket knife was a “switchblade.” A switchblade is defined as a knife with a blade of two or more inches in length “and which can be released automatically by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle, flip of the wrist . . . or is released by the weight of the blade.” However, “it does not include a knife that opens . . . (by) thumb pressure applied solely to the blade . . . (so long as) the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position.”

Defendant argued that his knife didn’t fit the definition of a switchblade knife because it had a detent mechanism that provided some resistance, although maybe so slight that it could still be opened with a “strong flip of the wrist.” The Juvenile Court magistrate, however, as the “trier of fact,” found that whether the resistance mechanism was modified or just worn out, the blade opened without any built-in resistance. Absent proof to the contrary, the Appellate Court is bound by that determination. And even if there was some resistance, the statute (P.C. § 653k) does not except knives with minimal resistance.

So long as the knife can be opened with a flick of the wrist, it’s a switchblade.


I am NOT a lawyer, this is NOT legal advise. I did NOT sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. YMMV.

[Crawfish141]

Got my knife in today, I'm stoked!

[gadjeep]

Reading this makes me want to buy a new AO knife. Any online retailers you guys can recommend? I have been checking out the new zero tolerance folders and they are pretty sweet.

http://www.sonomacutlery.com/store/home.php?cat=357

[1JimMarch]

Defendant argued that his knife didn’t fit the definition of a switchblade knife because it had a detent mechanism that provided some resistance, although maybe so slight that it could still be opened with a “strong flip of the wrist.” The Juvenile Court magistrate, however, as the “trier of fact,” found that whether the resistance mechanism was modified or just worn out, the blade opened without any built-in resistance. Absent proof to the contrary, the Appellate Court is bound by that determination. And even if there was some resistance, the statute (P.C. § 653k) does not except knives with minimal resistance.

So long as the knife can be opened with a flick of the wrist, it’s a switchblade.

Which specifically goes against Karnette's letter of legislative intent.

I've now assisted several public defenders who got their clients off based on, among other things, the Karmette letter.

[Crawfish141]

Reading this makes me want to buy a new AO knife. Any online retailers you guys can recommend? I have been checking out the new zero tolerance folders and they are pretty sweet.

http://www.sonomacutlery.com/store/home.php?cat=357

I bought mine straight from Benchmade, shipped fast as hell.


On a side note, does anyone know were to get G10 handgun grips? They feel awesome on my knife, I'd love a matching set!

[Sarkoon]

So long as the knife can be opened with a flick of the wrist, it’s a switchblade.


... unless "the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position."

Almost all assisted-opening knives can be opened with a flick of the wrist if you flick hard enough, but they are not categorized as switchblades because they have a mechanism that exerts force on the blade towards a closed position that you have to overcome.

[WeekendWarrior]

I can open almost any knife with the flick of my wrist that are not assisted openers, but are just standard folding pocket knife with thumb stud (I used to dip in college, and the same motion you use to pack a tin of dip can be applied to opening a knife with slight modification to the mechanics of your wrist flick) I can do it with any CRKT knife, cheap folders, etc.

[yellowfin]

My wife loves her CRKT's and they work superbly well for as EDC's. It would be totally wrong to take them from her.

[inbox485]

I hate to throw cold water on this, but the simple answer is all AO's are switchblades in CA and have been for about a year now.

Which specifically goes against Karnette's letter of legislative intent.

I've now assisted several public defenders who got their clients off based on, among other things, the Karmette letter.

That letter is now worthless since there is an un-appealed precedent case declaring it "irrelevant". Your site really should be updated with that case. It resulted in a huge change in state law. ANY folding knife that CAN be flicked open IS a switchblade. This includes 100% of assisted opening knives and 99% of one hand opening knives (and the 1% have to be ratcheted down and secured with loctite). One judge did what the legislature didn't dare. Don't like it. Write your reps and demand an update to the law. Unfortunately you can wish case law away by cursing the judicial legislature or pointing back to a law that was twisted or a letter ruled irrelevant.

[inbox485]

... unless "the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position."

Almost all assisted-opening knives can be opened with a flick of the wrist if you flick hard enough, but they are not categorized as switchblades because they have a mechanism that exerts force on the blade towards a closed position that you have to overcome.

The case law actually ruled that if you can flick it open, any other features are irrelevant and it is a switchblade. If you notice the law doesn't say unless nor does it list knives with a thumb stud/detent/etc as exceptions to the law. It states that the thumb stud doesn't make it a switchblade as long as it has a detent. Unfortunately the judge ruled that is irrelevant if the knife can be flicked open.

[inbox485]

Crawfish, read this excelent summary on CA knife laws, http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/knifelaw.html . It covers pretty much everything you need to know. Read it and then ask more questions, if need be.

That site hasn't been updated in years. The email address is no longer valid. The laws regarding folding blades has turned upside down since. Ignore the site and any advise on it.

[1JimMarch]

That site hasn't been updated in years. The email address is no longer valid. The laws regarding folding blades has turned upside down since. Ignore the site and any advise on it.

Well I can assure you, the author can be contacted.

But that aside, I wasn't aware of this case, I've been in AZ since '06. So I'll have to take a closer look at the full ruling just for starters.

I also want to get ahold of the motions, maybe talk to the defending attorneys. My suspicion is that they didn't raise the proper issues including both Karnette's letter and a plain reading of PC653k's "safe harbor" provisions.

[1JimMarch]

OK, we're still in good shape. I found the Angel text and will post it here. And this will also mean updating my website, probably over the weekend.

Let's start with the whole text of the appellate decision. I'm going to boldface the important part:

-------------
In re Angel R. (2008)163 Cal.App.4th 905 , -- Cal.Rptr.3d --
[No. G039120. Fourth Dist., Div. Three. Jun. 5, 2008.]

In re ANGEL R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL R., Defendant and Appellant.

(Superior Court of Orange County, No. DL027581, Ronald P. Kreber, Judge.)

(Opinion by Sills, P. J., with O'Leary, J., and Moore, J., concurring.)

COUNSEL

Kurt David Hermansen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Rhonda Cartwright-Ladendorf and Deborah La Touche, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. [163 Cal.App.4th 908]

OPINION

SILLS, P. J.-

Angel R. appeals from the order of the juvenile court finding him a ward of the court and placing him on probation after sustaining a petition charging him with possessing a switchblade knife, graffiti tools and less than an ounce of marijuana. (See Pen. Code, §§ 594.2, subd. (a), 653k; Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b).) Although Angel brought a motion to suppress evidence, it was not pursued by newly appointed counsel before its hearing, an omission which Angel now characterizes as ineffective assistance of counsel. He also attacks the sufficiency of evidence to support the misdemeanor offenses of switchblade possession and graffiti tools. We affirm.

FACTS

In response to a citizen's complaint of four suspicious males displaying gang signs at an intersection, Anaheim Police Officers Salcido and Coursey proceeded to the nearby Palm Lane Park and found Angel in the company of three other young males. Salcido approached them and immediately noticed that Angel had bloodshot eyes and smelled of marijuana. When asked, Angel informed Salcido that he had some "weed" in his pocket. Salcido asked for, and received Angel's consent to search his person: The result was the discovery of a baggie of marijuana, an orange fluorescent marker and a pocketknife.

Salcido arrested Angel and took him to the police station without giving him Miranda advice. fn. 1 As the two entered the building, Salcido cautioned Angel that if he was carrying any other contraband, he would be charged with bringing contraband into the police station. fn. 2 Angel immediately replied, "It's in my shoe[,]" kicking off his left one. Inside, adhesive stickers with graffiti-style lettering and the initial of a "tagging crew" were found.

Expert testimony from a knife maker, Ronald Clark, established that the pocketknife was a "liner lock" knife: a folding knife that locks when opened. As originally designed and manufactured, a hole in the back of the blade prevented the knife from opening without specific pressure exerted on the opening button. However, the knife had been either intentionally modified or accidentally damaged so that the resistance mechanism did not function, which means this knife opens with a flick of the wrist. Nonetheless, the expert opined that this knife still did not meet the legal definition of a switchblade because it had been manufactured with a resistance mechanism, although the juvenile court concluded otherwise because of its present ability to open and lock with a mere flick of the wrist. [163 Cal.App.4th 909]

DISCUSSIONA. Ineffective Assistance

Angel's first trial counsel filed a motion to suppress the responses--both verbal and nonverbal--Angel gave to Salcido's inquiry regarding contraband because it was posed before any Miranda warning. However, subsequent counsel failed to pursue the motion by permitting the court to order it off calendar. Angel now claims this constituted ineffective representation because all evidence of the graffiti possession was found in response to Salcido's un-Mirandized warning.

[1] Angel bears the two-pronged burden of showing that his counsel's representation fell below prevailing professional norms and that he was prejudiced by that deficiency. (See Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 694.) However, a presumption in support of counsel's performance exists, forcing us to conclude that counsel's choice of actions was simply "'sound trial strategy' . . . 'unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.'" (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746; People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436-437.)

Angel replies that there could be no satisfactory explanation for failing to bring a suppression motion when his statement and gesture were "involuntary and obtained in violation of Miranda[.]" Without that statement and gesture, the graffiti stickers would never have been discovered, he argues, as they were the direct "fruit" of the inadmissible reply. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 491.) He concludes that counsel's failure to pursue the suppression resulted in the withdrawal of a potentially meritorious defense and mandates a reversal of the judgment.

[2] We need not address the merit of the suppression motion because the discovery of the stickers was inevitable in this situation: Angel would have been searched at booking as incident to his arrest (see e.g., People v. Ross (May 12, 2008, No. B201673) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2008 WL 2009868]), and the stickers would have been discovered at that point. Inevitable discovery fn. 3 of evidence is a legitimate basis for denial of a suppression motion, even one focusing on the [163 Cal.App.4th 910] involuntariness of an admission or one obtained in violation of Miranda. (E.g., Green v. Superior Court, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 136.)

(CONT.)

[1JimMarch]

C. Sufficiency of Evidence for Graffiti Tools

Angel objects to the court's finding the stickers in his shoe and the felt marker from his pocket to comprise graffiti tools proscribed by section 594.2, subdivision (a). We partially disagree.

When Salcido first searched Angel's pockets and found the marijuana, the felt marker and the knife, Angel told him that he carried the knife for protection, the stickers for "tagging" as part of a tagging crew, fn. 6 and the [163 Cal.App.4th 913] marker for tagging purposes. Angel replies that his statements are irrelevant if the items are not either listed in the statute or fall within the description of graffiti tools.

As we previously stated, we review a verdict for evidence sufficiency under the substantial evidence standard: "[A]n appellate court 'must determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.] "The court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.] We "'presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.'" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (In re Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 805, 822.)

1. The Felt Marker

[7] Section 594.2, subdivision (a), prohibits the possession of "an aerosol paint container, a felt tip marker, or any other marking substance with the intent to commit vandalism or graffiti[.]" (Italics added.) In subdivision (c)(1), a felt tip marker is further defined as "any broad-tipped marker pen with a tip exceeding three-eights of one inch in width, or any similar implement containing an ink that is not water soluble." In subdivision (c)(2), a marking substance is further defined as "any substance or implement, other than aerosol paint containers and felt tip markers, that could be used to draw, spray, paint, etch or mark." Angel contends no evidence in the record supports the finding that the orange fluorescent marker met subdivision (c)(1)'s requirements and the stickers met the definition of a marking substance. As to his first contention, he is correct. Moreover, neither evidence nor argument was ever proffered that the orange fluorescent marker was evidence of Angel violating section 594.2. However, no finding was ever made that the marker was the basis of the section 594.2 charge: The petition merely reiterated the language of the statute without delineating the objects, and the prosecutor only argued the stickers were the basis for the graffiti tool charge. The juvenile court did command the officer to leave the marker with the court, but it was never marked for identification, examined by anyone, nor admitted into evidence. Thus, the attack on the marker as a violation of section 594.2, subdivision (a) appears unnecessary because it was never the basis of the verdict. [163 Cal.App.4th 914]

(CONT.)

[1JimMarch]

2. The Stickers

[8] "It is axiomatic the prosecution bears the burden of proving each element of a criminal offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]" (In re Khamphouy S. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1134.) Angel contends the prosecution failed to show that these stickers--some of which were merely adhesive letters while others were labels with letters already marked on them--were "marking substance[s]" falling within the proscription of the statute. A marking substance is defined in section 594.2, subdivision (c)(2) as "any substance or implement, other than aerosol pain containers and felt tip markers, that could be used to draw, spray, paint, etch or mark." (Italics added.)

Angel argues that the stickers are not implements because the dictionary defines an implement as "an article (as of apparel or furniture) serving to equip . . . [or] a tool or utensil forming part of equipment for work . . ." (Webster's 3d New Internat. Dict.(1981) p. 1134.) However, the same source includes in its definition that the word, implement, "applies to anything, usually a contrivance, necessary to effect an end or perform a task." (Ibid.) Moreover, Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951) at page 888 includes within its definition of "implements" the term ". . . [w]hatever may supply wants; particularly applied to tools, utensils, vessels, . . . ." (Italics added.)

Angel maintains that an implement can only be something which retains its own existence after its use to accomplish some other task, such as a chisel, axe or pencil. He emphasizes that the sticker becomes the task itself and has no separate existence. Thus, it cannot be an implement.

We disagree. If an implement can only be something used to do something else and yet retain a separate existence, then a billboard would not be an implement of advertising. The billboard becomes the thing it was used to accomplish: advertising.

[9] Five stickers--those marked as Exhibit 2--were blue and separately marked with "black-colored graffiti style tagging" and four stickers--those marked as Exhibit 3--were adhesive-backed letters: B, W and K, the exact letters constituting the monogram of Angel's tagging crew, Buzzing With Korona. These items could be used quickly to mark the surfaces without the time expenditure that either painting or writing would require. These items could be used to "effect [the] end" of marking public surfaces or "perform the task" of publicly announcing the tagging crew's identity. (Webster's 3d New Internat. Dict., supra, at p. 1134.) They "supply [the] want" of quickly marking a surface with specific tagging signs, designs or letters. (Black's Law Dict. (4th ed. 1951), p. 888.) Thus, they fall within the definition of an implement as proscribed by statute. [163 Cal.App.4th 915]

The order of the juvenile court is affirmed.

O'Leary, J., and Moore, J., concurred.

*FN 1. See Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

*FN 2. See Penal Code sections 4573.8, 4573.9 and 4574.

*FN 3. The "doctrine of 'inevitable discovery[]' . . . [pivots on the fact that] 'there is no nexus to the illegality sufficient to provide a taint.' [Citation.]" (Green v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 126, 136-137, citing Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431, 390.) "[T]he doctrine 'is in reality an extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.'" (People v.Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 800.)

*FN 4. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

*FN 5. At the initial encounter between Angel and Salcido, Angel said he knew the handle was broken.

*FN 6. Tagging is the term for marking walls and surfaces with graffiti. A tagging crew is a group of taggers formed for the specific purpose of marking surfaces with identifying letters, names or logos. Angel's tagging crew was called "Buzzing with Korona" and the stickers found in Angel's shoe had the black letters, B, W and K.
-------------

Jim again. The court didn't throw out the safe harbors ("detent or bias towards closure"), but rather found that this particular knife had broken "safe harbor features".

If you have a knife with a safe harbor feature in working order, you have nothing to fear from Angel.

[inbox485]

Well I can assure you, the author can be contacted.

But that aside, I wasn't aware of this case, I've been in AZ since '06. So I'll have to take a closer look at the full ruling just for starters.

I also want to get ahold of the motions, maybe talk to the defending attorneys. My suspicion is that they didn't raise the proper issues including both Karnette's letter and a plain reading of PC653k's "safe harbor" provisions.

I'm assuming then that you are the same Jim March. I hope you didn't take offense as none was intended. Gun owners are being targeted by any means possible by certain law enforcement agencies, and I'd hate to see a fellow gun owner in jail because they relied on old information. It is convenient that the state that would spend millions on ads to promote public awareness of the cell phone driving laws wouldn't take two seconds to make the public aware that 99.9% of one-handed pocket knives just became illegal. This case has been made very clear to law enforcement, and can be expected to be used primarily against the state's main political enemies (gangs, gun owners, and conservatives).

The case was an interesting (albeit infuriating) read. Karnette's letter was raised and ruled irrelevant citing of all things the plain reading of PC653k. The judge essentially ruled that the sky is purple because it can be even though for all intents and purposes it is blue.

If you think you can get this appealed, there are a whole lot of knife owners that would be very grateful. Otherwise the best hope for one handed folding blades in CA is changing the law to make the thumb stud and detent an explicit exception to PC635k rather than an additional requirement as it now stands. Since so many people now carry "switchblades" it is kinda like driving 5 MPH over the limit (it will only get you nailed if you do something to draw attention to yourself). Only it is a misdemeanor not a traffic infraction. I for one won't be caught dead with one around anything firearms related, or at anything "anti-government". I tightened one down, and as soon as I get around to getting a two handed folder, it too will get shelved until future notice.

Call me crazy, but I don't think I would fit in with the other inmates.

[1JimMarch]

Yeah, I'm the same guy.

Do you know for sure yet if Karnette's letter was considered in this case? (Not meant as a challenge, I'm asking.)

I'm going to try and talk to the defense attorney but at first glance, just looking at this ruling, I'm not as wound up about it as you are. The ruling clearly says that the knife was modified or broken and that therefore the safe harbor provisions didn't apply. That's not the case with any knife *I* own, for damnsure.

[inbox485]

Jim again. The court didn't throw out the safe harbors ("detent or bias towards closure"), but rather found that this particular knife had broken "safe harbor features".

If you have a knife with a safe harbor feature in working order, you have nothing to fear from Angel.

Had the judge stopped at the part about being broken therefore disabling the safe harbor, I would agree with you. The judge however continued to create a litmus test.
The lower court specifically found, as the trier of fact, that the knife opened if held "upside down with the blade facing the floor and you just drop your hand[.]" The court noted that it was "not pressing anything . . . The mechanism has been modified or worn out where the handle of the knife that covered that portion of the detent or the item that gave resistance to the blade from being opened is just not functioning. And so it does open up with just a flick of the wrist, and it does go into a locking position when the blade is opened." (Italics added.)

Then the judge went even furthur in rejecting the relevance of the legislative intent letter.
Angel maintains that, based on comments provided by the author of the amendment to the statute, even if the blade can be opened easily with but one hand, it does not constitute a switchblade as long as some resistance is provided by the detent mechanism, no matter how slight. However, the language of the statute is not ambiguous or subject to multiple interpretations. Therefore, an examination of the legislative history is unnecessary. (Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co., supra, 28 Cal.4th at 227.)

Then the judge reinforces the litmus test.
Moreover, for the amendment exemption to apply, the knife must be one that "opens with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife or a thumb stud attached to the blade" and has the detent or resistance mechanism. The knife in question was not of that type: It opened by merely a flick of the wrist, not with pressure on the blade or thumb stud. Thus, the author's statements are irrelevant in attacking the court's finding under this statute.

I find nothing in this case to suggest that it is limited to knives with altered detent. If a folder can be flicked open, it is a switchblade.

[inbox485]

Yeah, I'm the same guy.

Do you know for sure yet if Karnette's letter was considered in this case? (Not meant as a challenge, I'm asking.)

I'm going to try and talk to the defense attorney but at first glance, just looking at this ruling, I'm not as wound up about it as you are. The ruling clearly says that the knife was modified or broken and that therefore the safe harbor provisions didn't apply. That's not the case with any knife *I* own, for damnsure.

Our posts overlapped, but to clarify, yes the Karnette memo was considered and ruled on. Read my other post. If I did miss something, let me know. I'd love nothing more than to be proved wrong on this, and shrug it off as nothing more than a bad dream.

[1JimMarch]

Yeah, I see it.

I've got research to do. I still think the ruling hinges on the fact that the knife had a broken or modified "safe harbor feature". Without that part of the ruling, I strongly suspect the Karnette letter comes into play.

I'll be back, OK?

[diginit]

Any folding knife that can be opened with a flick of the wrist is considered a switchblade. But I can do this with my buck hunter and many others with a strong detent. Kind of a senseless law in my opinion. Is the law about folding blades that lock in the open position still on the books? And are switchblades under 2" in blade length still legal?
Been a while.

[cmth]

My Spyderco Endura cannot be flicked open with simple inertial force. I've tried as hard as I can and it cannot be done. The lockback spring has a strong bias towards closure, and the blade is more heavily weighted toward the pivot than the tip, so there is not enough mass in right place to carry it open. The thumbhole must be actuated during the flicking motion for the blade to open. In fact the spring is so strong that the blade must almost be at a right angle with the handle for the flicking motion to be successful. It's not a switchblade nor is it a gravity knife.

[inbox485]

Any folding knife that can be opened with a flick of the wrist is considered a switchblade. But I can do this with my buck hunter and many others with a strong detent. Kind of a senseless law in my opinion. Is the law about folding blades that lock in the open position still on the books? And are switchblades under 2" in blade length still legal?
Been a while.

You realize that you're debating senselessness in regard to judicial law in CA right? Switchblades under 2" are still okay.

[inbox485]

My Spyderco Endura cannot be flicked open with simple inertial force. I've tried as hard as I can and it cannot be done. The lockback spring has a strong bias towards closure, and the blade is more heavily weighted toward the pivot than the tip, so there is not enough mass in right place to carry it open. The thumbhole must be actuated during the flicking motion for the blade to open. In fact the spring is so strong that the blade must almost be at a right angle with the handle for the flicking motion to be successful. It's not a switchblade nor is it a gravity knife.

Some folders with tension on the spine and minimal mass in the latter 2/3 of the blade are gravity resistant enough. These are the 1% I mentioned earlier. I believe Victonox makes a one handed knife that is also good to go for the same reason.

[Dragunov]

I'm glad I don't have that worry. I open carry a fixed blade (Buck Nighthawk) in my vehicle, on my job and when I go camping/hiking.

[diginit]

You realize that you're debating senselessness in regard to judicial law in CA right? Switchblades under 2" are still okay.

I wasn't debating anything. I was answering one and asking two questions. Did you read the previous posts?
Thanks for answering the 2" question though. Laws change and I'm getting older.
I once had an officer test my blade for the gravity effect, I'm glad he didn't try to flick it....I'd would have been taken downtown.

[inbox485]

I wasn't debating anything. I was answering one and asking two questions. Did you read the previous posts?
Thanks for answering the 2" question though. Laws change and I'm getting older.
I once had an officer test my blade for the gravity effect, I'm glad he didn't try to flick it....I'd would have been taken downtown.

I wasn't really saying that you were debating, I was poking fun at the lack of logic behind CA law.

Just curious, how did you attract the attention of an officer to your knife?

[rsandovaljr]

Pretty soon we will have to start installing "bullet buttons" on our kitchen knives . LOL

[inbox485]

Pretty soon we will have to start installing "bullet buttons" on our kitchen knives . LOL

And our magazines will be limited to 10 pages. Clearly that wouldn't violate our 1A rights since we would still be free to have those ten pages. And to make sure nobody could get more than 10 pages in a magazine staples with the capacity to secure more than 5 pages would need to be banned also.

[Decoligny]

And our magazines will be limited to 10 pages. Clearly that wouldn't violate our 1A rights since we would still be free to have those ten pages. And to make sure nobody could get more than 10 pages in a magazine staples with the capacity to secure more than 5 pages would need to be banned also.

Ah, buy you could get around that by stapling 5 pages in the center of the fold, and then adding 4 more and stapling them on the outside edges of the fold attaching them to only the first page of the 5 page section.

You could even go as high as 18 pages if you did the same technique using the innermost page.

[inbox485]

Ah, buy you could get around that by stapling 5 pages in the center of the fold, and then adding 4 more and stapling them on the outside edges of the fold attaching them to only the first page of the 5 page section.

You could even go as high as 18 pages if you did the same technique using the innermost page.

I think those will be called Off List Attachments or maybe Evil Features. No magazine having stapled pages shall have any of the following features:
- dust jacket
- card stock inserts
- attached pages

It is for the children. Some magazines are hurting our children and even corrupting adults. They must be stopped if even by a little.

[Decoligny]

I think those will be called Off List Attachments or maybe Evil Features. No magazine having stapled pages shall have any of the following features:
- dust jacket
- card stock inserts
- attached pages

It is for the children. Some magazines are hurting our children and even corrupting adults. They must be stopped if even by a little.

Not to mention that any magazine with more that 10 pages could theoretically be rolled up for use in hitting dogs on the nose. Gotta prevent cruelty to animals too.

[bodger]

I'm glad I don't have that worry. I open carry a fixed blade (Buck Nighthawk) in my vehicle, on my job and when I go camping/hiking.


I would do that, but I live in Los Angeles and they have a restriction on the length of fixed blade you can open carry.

Pretty ironic, because I'm a contractor and I have many a tool next to me in the truck that could be just as deadly as a knife. My Stanley scratch awl comes to mind.

I have to say though, one of the dudes that works for me is from Mexico. He had a fixed blade that exceeded the legal limit.

We were at the catering truck one morning and two LAPD officers cruised by. They stopped, asked to see the knife, measured it, and told my guy to leave the knife on the job site, or lock it in his trunk when he was driving, but stop wearing it out in the open.

They returned his blade and went on their way.

[M9Man]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yTXCoulHxFw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yTXCoulHxFw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[cmth]

Los Angeles makes an exception in their fixed blade ban for "legitimate purposes", whatever that means. I suppose if you are a carpet installer and you have a carpet knife on your tool belt, that would be a legitimate purpose. Same if you are a fisherman/hunter with your gutting knife on your belt. I would argue that self defense is a legitimate purpose. I carry my 5-foot Scottish claymore in case the English invade again.

[paratroop]

And our magazines will be limited to 10 pages. Clearly that wouldn't violate our 1A rights since we would still be free to have those ten pages. And to make sure nobody could get more than 10 pages in a magazine staples with the capacity to secure more than 5 pages would need to be banned also.

oh, so you must be the guy who writes all the laws in california

[paratroop]

ok i just realized im a little late. everyone else wore out the joke already. my bad.

[inbox485]

oh, so you must be the guy who writes all the laws in california

I wish. Lets just say there would be no chapter 12 in the penal code. :cool2:

[Whiskey_Sauer]

I find nothing in this case to suggest that it is limited to knives with altered detent. If a folder can be flicked open, it is a switchblade.

Okay, I'm going to say that your interpretation of the Angel case is just plain wrong and you draw an unwarranted conclusion re the legality of assisted opening knives.

This is the relevant part of the opinion, which was apparently omitted from 1JimMarch's posts reciting the case (relevant parts in bold):


B. Sufficiency of Evidence for Switchblade
Angel contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain the court's finding he possessed a switchblade as that is defined under section 653k of the Penal Code.FN4 He requested that we physically examine the switchblade itself, which we subsequently received as a trial exhibit.

FN4. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Section 653k proscribes the possession of “a switchblade knife having a blade two or more inches in length....” It then defines a switchblade knife as “having the appearance of a pocketknife and includes a ... snap-blade knife, gravity knife or any other similar type knife, the blade or blades of which are two or more inches in length and which can be released automatically by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle, flip of the wrist ... or is released by the weight of the blade.... [However, it] does not include a knife that opens with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife ... provided that the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position.” (Italics added.) Angel argues that his knife “falls into the area of overlap between the definition and the exemption: It is a folding knife with a detent mechanism providing resistance to opening the blade, but the resistance is slight and therefore the knife can be opened with a strong flip of the wrist.”

The standard of review is well established: We “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment and presume in favor of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. To be sufficient, evidence of each of the essential elements of the crime must be substantial and we must resolve the question of sufficiency in light of the record as a whole.' [Citation.]” ( People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 387, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708.) Angel acknowledges this rule but argues that it is the lower court's interpretation of the statute that is in question-and refers us to **910 People v. Goldberg (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1202, at page 1206, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 192-thus permitting us to review the entire issue de novo.

The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous; nothing in the record indicates the lower court was confused, misled, or unclear as to the terms or language of the statute. When the language of a specific statute has “ ‘no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs.’ [Citation.]” ( Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 222, 227, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 795, 47 P.3d 639.) By analogy, when the language of the statute is clear, we do not review a factual finding under it de novo.

*912 The lower court specifically found, as the trier of fact, that the knife opened if held “upside down with the blade facing the floor and you just drop your hand[.]” The court noted that it was “not pressing anything ... The mechanism has been modified or worn out where the handle of the knife that covered that portion of the detent or the item that gave resistance to the blade from being opened is just not functioning. And so it does open up with just a flick of the wrist, and it does go into a locking position when the blade is opened.” (Italics added.) The court accepted the expert's “credentials and experience, but I do think the broken part of the handle on this knife has altered the knife[,]” FN5 a point specifically rejected by the expert who emphasized that this knife was designed and manufactured with a detent. Therefore, in the expert's opinion, even if it had been intentionally altered to eliminate the resistance mechanism, it would never constitute a switchblade.

FN5. At the initial encounter between Angel and Salcido, Angel said he knew the handle was broken.

Angel maintains that, based on comments provided by the author of the amendment to the statute, even if the blade can be opened easily with but one hand, it does not constitute a switchblade as long as some resistance is provided by the detent mechanism, no matter how slight. However, the language of the statute is not ambiguous or subject to multiple interpretations. Therefore, an examination of the legislative history is unnecessary. ( Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co., supra, 28 Cal.4th at 227, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 795, 47 P.3d 639.) Moreover, for the amendment exemption to apply, the knife must be one that “opens with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife or a thumb stud attached to the blade” and has the detent or resistance mechanism. The knife in question was not of that type: It opened by merely a flick of the wrist, not with pressure on the blade or thumb stud. Thus, the author's statements are irrelevant in attacking the court's finding under this statute.

The finding is sustained.

The holding of this case is that a knife that can be opened with only a flick of the wrist is a prohibited weapon under PC § 653k. This case does not hold, as suggested, that assisted-opening knives are switchblades under § 653k. The key fact here, as the trial court found, is that the knife had been specifically modified, so that it could be opened only with a mere flick of the wrist. The fact that a detent did provide slight resistance was therefore irrelevant, because it could be opened solely with a flick of the wrist.

Based upon the language of the statute, this is the correct ruling. And it was completely correct for the trial court to consider legislative intent irrelevant here, where the language of the statute was clear and unambiguous.

Before you pooh-pooh this idea, remember this: those of us who rely on the plain and unambiguous wording of PC § 12276.1(a)(1) (particularly the word "and") in holding onto our OLLs remain thankful each and every day that the plain and unambiguous language of the statute trumps the legislative intent of banning so-called "assault weapons," including all AR-type rifles.

[ZRX61]

I hate to throw cold water on this, but the simple answer is all AO's are switchblades in CA and have been for about a year now.



That letter is now worthless since there is an un-appealed precedent case declaring it "irrelevant". Your site really should be updated with that case. It resulted in a huge change in state law. ANY folding knife that CAN be flicked open IS a switchblade. This includes 100% of assisted opening knives and 99% of one hand opening knives (and the 1% have to be ratcheted down and secured with loctite). One judge did what the legislature didn't dare. Don't like it. Write your reps and demand an update to the law. Unfortunately you can wish case law away by cursing the judicial legislature or pointing back to a law that was twisted or a letter ruled irrelevant.
I could probably get off on a "switchblade" charge because of "entrapment"...
Friend of mine is a (recently) retired Fresno Leo & is a knife dealer on the side. He actually gave me at least 4 or 5 AO knives for free.. :)

[jeffb502]

I have several real loose standard folders that can be opened with a flick of the wrist, but my Kershaw Leek assisted opener will NOT open with a simple flick of the wrist- I have to put direct pressure on the blade with the little index finger opening thingy or the thumb stud.

I guess that means I should carry the Leek and not carry the non-assisted ones that can be opened with a flick of the wrist?

[inbox485]

Okay, I'm going to say that your interpretation of the Angel case is just plain wrong and you draw an unwarranted conclusion re the legality of assisted opening knives.

This is the relevant part of the opinion, which was apparently omitted from 1JimMarch's posts reciting the case (relevant parts in bold):

The holding of this case is that a knife that can be opened with only a flick of the wrist is a prohibited weapon under PC § 653k. This case does not hold, as suggested, that assisted-opening knives are switchblades under § 653k. The key fact here, as the trial court found, is that the knife had been specifically modified, so that it could be opened only with a mere flick of the wrist. The fact that a detent did provide slight resistance was therefore irrelevant, because it could be opened solely with a flick of the wrist.

Based upon the language of the statute, this is the correct ruling. And it was completely correct for the trial court to consider legislative intent irrelevant here, where the language of the statute was clear and unambiguous.

Before you pooh-pooh this idea, remember this: those of us who rely on the plain and unambiguous wording of PC § 12276.1(a)(1) (particularly the word "and") in holding onto our OLLs remain thankful each and every day that the plain and unambiguous language of the statute trumps the legislative intent of banning so-called "assault weapons," including all AR-type rifles.

I never said that AO's were switchblades because they were AO's. I said that AO's were switchblades because I have yet to ever see one (including the Kershaw Leek that somebody mentioned) that I could not open with "solely with a flick of the wrist." I also have never seen a one hand opening knife without a spine lock that I couldn't flick open.

As far as the "plain and unambiguous language of the statute" the part of 653k which states ""Switchblade knife" does not include a knife that opens with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife or a thumb stud attached to the blade, provided that the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position." is quite plain and unambiguous. That the court acknowledged that the knife had some resistance to being opened, and still seemed confused about the "plain and unambiguous language of the statute", yet felt the legislative intent was irrelevant makes it hard to not label this decision as judicial activism.

[inbox485]

I have several real loose standard folders that can be opened with a flick of the wrist, but my Kershaw Leek assisted opener will NOT open with a simple flick of the wrist- I have to put direct pressure on the blade with the little index finger opening thingy or the thumb stud.

I guess that means I should carry the Leek and not carry the non-assisted ones that can be opened with a flick of the wrist?

I tested a Kershaw Leek out of the box and had no problem flicking it open. Yours may be different, but the real question isn't if you can whip it open, it's if a DA can find anybody who can. Given the long standing LE tradition of modifying firearms to get convictions, you run the risk of your knife being loosened up for trial.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

I never said that AO's were switchblades because they were AO's. I said that AO's were switchblades because I have yet to ever see one (including the Kershaw Leek that somebody mentioned) that I could not open with "solely with a flick of the wrist." I also have never seen a one hand opening knife without a spine lock that I couldn't flick open.

If a knife can be opened solely with a flick of the wrist, without applying any pressure to the thumbstud whatsoever, then yes, it is a prohibited weapon under PC § 653k. Are you saying that each and every AO knife you've ever operated could be opened without applying any force whatsoever to the thumbstud?

As far as the "plain and unambiguous language of the statute" the part of 653k which states ""Switchblade knife" does not include a knife that opens with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife or a thumb stud attached to the blade, provided that the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position." is quite plain and unambiguous. That the court acknowledged that the knife had some resistance to being opened, and still seemed confused about the "plain and unambiguous language of the statute", yet felt the legislative intent was irrelevant makes it hard to not label this decision as judicial activism.

The entire statute, read in its entirety, is plain and ambiguous, and examination of legislative intent was therefore not necessary. If it can be opened with a mere flick of the wrist, then it is a prohibited weapon. In the Angel case, the detent or other mechanism did not provide resistance that must have been overcome in order to open the blade. Read the opinion again, specifically with regard to the trial court's findings. The court said that the detent's resistance did not prevent opening the blade by a flick of the wrist. "The [trial] court noted that it was 'not pressing anything ... The mechanism has been modified or worn out where the handle of the knife that covered that portion of the detent or the item that gave resistance to the blade from being opened is just not functioning. And so it does open up with just a flick of the wrist, and it does go into a locking position when the blade is opened.'" 163 Cal.App.4th at 912.

"Judicial activism"? Hardly. "Litmus test?" Not.

Given the long standing LE tradition of modifying firearms to get convictions, you run the risk of your knife being loosened up for trial.

Can you provide examples of this "long standing LE tradition," please?

[7x57]

I carry my 5-foot Scottish claymore in case the English invade again.

:rofl:

I like the way you roll. Perhaps I need a bill in case the Scots come raiding and pillaging?

7x57

[sspen003]

Sog Trident... I have to recommend it.

Even though one time it opened in my pocket while I was in the locker room at the gym. Dont take off you pants, fold them and expect it to be in place.

Freaked me out.

[till44]

Many assisted opener are faster than autos. I'm amazed CA hasn't made some statute to screw us over yet with assisted openinig knives.

[bodger]

I've got a Benchmade Griptilian Tanto. It has a thumb stud. But when it's closed, if I pull back on the thumb slide that is supposed to release the blade when it's locked open, I can flick it with no trouble at all. In fact, with the knife closed, pulling back on the slides de-activates the friction from the thumbstud entirely and the blade swings freely.

Could this get me a bust?

[inbox485]

If a knife can be opened solely with a flick of the wrist, without applying any pressure to the thumbstud whatsoever, then yes, it is a prohibited weapon under PC § 653k. Are you saying that each and every AO knife you've ever operated could be opened without applying any force whatsoever to the thumbstud?

That is exactly what I am saying. I've tried dozens of assisted open and standard one handed folding knives. Haven't found one I couldn't flick open out of the box, and by the time AO's are tight enough that I can't flick them open, the spring won't open them either.

The entire statute, read in its entirety, is plain and ambiguous, and examination of legislative intent was therefore not necessary. If it can be opened with a mere flick of the wrist, then it is a prohibited weapon. In the Angel case, the detent or other mechanism did not provide resistance that must have been overcome in order to open the blade. Read the opinion again, specifically with regard to the trial court's findings. The court said that the detent's resistance did not prevent opening the blade by a flick of the wrist. "The [trial] court noted that it was 'not pressing anything ... The mechanism has been modified or worn out where the handle of the knife that covered that portion of the detent or the item that gave resistance to the blade from being opened is just not functioning. And so it does open up with just a flick of the wrist, and it does go into a locking position when the blade is opened.'" 163 Cal.App.4th at 912.

"Judicial activism"? Hardly. "Litmus test?" Not.

I'm not sure when I used the words "Litmus test" (it isn't nice to misquote people), but...

The entire statute describes a switchblade, provides penalties, and then continues to state in no uncertain terms that ""Switchblade knife" does not include a knife that opens with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife or a thumb stud attached to the blade, provided that the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position."

If the knife couldn't be flicked open, the detent exception would be irrelevant. I can't think of any other time when an exception to a statute was ruled irrelevant just because the original definition of the statute was met. That is what the exception was written for.

Can you provide examples of this "long standing LE tradition," please?

If you are really interested, JPFO at least used to have a number of documented example where the ATF rigged guns with zip ties, did custom welding and you name it what else to get a gun to fire in full auto. I also came across a thread where LE removed a magazine lock to separate the magazine from the gun and then charged the owner with having a detachable magazine. I don't have the links handy, but Google is your friend.

[dantodd]

I never said that AO's were switchblades because they were AO's. I said that AO's were switchblades because I have yet to ever see one (including the Kershaw Leek that somebody mentioned) that I could not open with "solely with a flick of the wrist." I also have never seen a one hand opening knife without a spine lock that I couldn't flick open.

You cannot open my assisted opening CRKT Rave with the flick of your wrist: http://www.crkt.com/Gallagher-Rave-Fire-Safe-OutBurst-Micarta-Handle-Razor-Sharp-Edge

[inbox485]

You cannot open my assisted opening CRKT Rave with the flick of your wrist: http://www.crkt.com/Gallagher-Rave-Fire-Safe-OutBurst-Micarta-Handle-Razor-Sharp-Edge

Thanks. I hadn't seen that type of safety before. Other blade retention devices I've seen can be left in the off position.

How do you like it? Is it intuitive? Have you had issues with pressing the button as you open the blade and cutting yourself by following it?

[dantodd]

Thanks. I hadn't seen that type of safety before. Other blade retention devices I've seen can be left in the off position.

How do you like it? Is it intuitive? Have you had issues with pressing the button as you open the blade and cutting yourself by following it?

The safety is built into the stud and the stud is like just about any other, it's much closer to the spine than the edge and the assist spring it pretty quick once you hit the tipping point so there is very little risk of cutting yourself opening the knife. Opening is not completely intuitive as I've had to instruct anyone I've lent the knife to. However; once you learn how to use it you will not "forget" in a stressful situation, it is a natural and fast movement. I am left handed and the knife is only available in a right handed model so I am at an automatic disadvantage but even with my off hand it is open before I get my hand clear of my body.

The way it works is very much like a stiff thumb stud but you have to push down on the top of the stud simultaneously. The need for simultaneous pressure both down and out makes it necessary to be shown once or twice, people want to push down then out which usually means they release the safety before pushing the stud out, or they push too hard out before pushing in on the safety making it difficult to push the locking leaf away with the button. (It's much less difficult that my description makes it sound.)

[Whiskey_Sauer]

That is exactly what I am saying. I've tried dozens of assisted open and standard one handed folding knives. Haven't found one I couldn't flick open out of the box, and by the time AO's are tight enough that I can't flick them open, the spring won't open them either.


Tell you what, why don't you take some simple demonstration videos of yourself going into REI, or any other retailer that sells assisted opening knives, and tape yourself taking these knives right out of the retailer's demonstration case and opening them with just a flick of the wrist, i.e., without any pressure being applied to the thumbstud whatsover. Otherwise, I've never seen an out-of-the-box assisted opening knife that could be opened merely with a flick of the wrist. And yes, if it could, by the plain words of the statute, it would be a prohibited weapon under PC § 653k.

That's not to say that the torque screw on a knife such as a Benchmade could not be loosened to adjust the blade tension to a point where it could be opened with a mere flick of the wrist, but that's not the way they come out of the box.

I'm not sure when I used the words "Litmus test" (it isn't nice to misquote people), but...

[Post #38] Had the judge stopped at the part about being broken therefore disabling the safe harbor, I would agree with you. The judge however continued to create a litmus test.

[...]

Then the judge reinforces the litmus test.



If you are really interested, JPFO at least used to have a number of documented example where the ATF rigged guns with zip ties, did custom welding and you name it what else to get a gun to fire in full auto. I also came across a thread where LE removed a magazine lock to separate the magazine from the gun and then charged the owner with having a detachable magazine. I don't have the links handy, but Google is your friend.

No, thanks. You are the proponent of a proposition that altering weapons in order to obtain convictions rises to the level of a "long standing LE tradition." Just wondering if you can cite at least one example, before we begin the process of determining that there is such a "long standing LE tradition." I'm not particularly interested in doing your homework for you.

[pullnshoot25]

Tell you what, why don't you take some simple demonstration videos of yourself going into REI, or any other retailer that sells assisted opening knives, and tape yourself taking these knives right out of the retailer's demonstration case and opening them with just a flick of the wrist, i.e., without any pressure being applied to the thumbstud whatsover. Otherwise, I've never seen an out-of-the-box assisted opening knife that could be opened merely with a flick of the wrist. And yes, if it could, by the plain words of the statute, it would be a prohibited weapon under PC § 653k.

I did it once with a CRKT Hissatsu. Damn near threw my shoulder out doing it though.

[AEC1]

So where does the Emerson Wave fit into all of this?

[dantodd]

I did it once with a CRKT Hissatsu. Damn near threw my shoulder out doing it though.

throwing shoulder out != "mere" flick of the wrist.

[pullnshoot25]

So where does the Emerson Wave fit into all of this?

Nowhere. Totally legal.

Waved knives are rad. Spyderco Endura Wave 4=my favorite.

[woodsman]

Saturday I purchase a Buck Sirus from the OSH sidewalk sale. It is an assisted opening blade that can be easily opened with a flick of the wrist. It does have a lock on it that must be disengaged before you can open the blade.

http://www.buckknives.com/index.cfm?event=product.detail&productid=3107

[inbox485]

You were correct about the "litmus test" quote, and I stand by what I said in that earlier post about the case creating a litmus test. My apologies for claiming that you misquoted me - I had forgotten about that post when I responded.

Tell you what, why don't you take some simple demonstration videos of yourself going into REI, or any other retailer that sells assisted opening knives, and tape yourself taking these knives right out of the retailer's demonstration case and opening them with just a flick of the wrist, i.e., without any pressure being applied to the thumbstud whatsover. Otherwise, I've never seen an out-of-the-box assisted opening knife that could be opened merely with a flick of the wrist. And yes, if it could, by the plain words of the statute, it would be a prohibited weapon under PC § 653k.

Not real high on my to do list, but if I get around to it, I'll let you know. I have owned three assisted opening knives. For each of them, I was unable to adjust the tension screw tight enough to prevent flipping it open without preventing the spring from opening the knife completely. For obvious reasons I don't have them with me any more. Back when Walmart had their knives in boxes rather than shrink wrap I tried several AO knives and could flip all of them open.

That's not to say that the torque screw on a knife such as a Benchmade could not be loosened to adjust the blade tension to a point where it could be opened with a mere flick of the wrist, but that's not the way they come out of the box.

That's also not to say that the screw couldn't be loosened prior to being entered as evidence.

No, thanks. You are the proponent of a proposition that altering weapons in order to obtain convictions rises to the level of a "long standing LE tradition." Just wondering if you can cite at least one example, before we begin the process of determining that there is such a "long standing LE tradition." I'm not particularly interested in doing your homework for you.

I will partially concede on this point. It was not right for me to use the phrase "long standing LE tradition" as it paints with a broad brush. What I will say is that I have come across a number of articles in the past that centered on allegations that a weapon or other pieces of evidence were modified in order to convict people.

Here is one example of what the ATF claimed was a machine gun (the modifications shouldn't take long to spot):
http://www.jpfo.org/images02/BM3000.jpg

[inbox485]

Saturday I purchase a Buck Sirus from the OSH sidewalk sale. It is an assisted opening blade that can be easily opened with a flick of the wrist. It does have a lock on it that must be disengaged before you can open the blade.

http://www.buckknives.com/index.cfm?event=product.detail&productid=3107

Since the lock can be easily left off, I wouldn't count on that helping you one bit in court.

[Beelzy]

Ahem.....as long as a folding knife has a "tendency" to stay closed (detent
ball) it is legal, no matter how easy it is to flick open.

CRKT had a shipment of knives halted at Customs a few years back when the
Feds tried that "Flick 'O' the Wrist" baloney. They lost.

Besides that, it's all about intent anymore. Look dangerous with a Cross pen and you're going downtown.

[inbox485]

Ahem.....as long as a folding knife has a "tendency" to stay closed (detent
ball) it is legal, no matter how easy it is to flick open.

CRKT had a shipment of knives halted at Customs a few years back when the
Feds tried that "Flick 'O' the Wrist" baloney. They lost.

Besides that, it's all about intent anymore. Look dangerous with a Cross pen and you're going downtown.

Under federal law, you are correct. Under CA law as written you are also correct. But under CA law as applied in CA court, not so much. If you can flick it open without simultaneously holding any buttons or levers or whatnot, it is a switchblade in CA. The fact that Walmart still sells several prepackaged felonies is irrelevant.