PDA

View Full Version : legality of a key chain steel ball


RP1911
07-11-2011, 9:27 PM
Is this legal to own and carry?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Self-Defense-Paracord-Monkey-Fist-key-chain-1-1-8-Ball-/120650177051?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c174f9a1b

yelohamr
07-11-2011, 9:36 PM
Probably not. It could be considered a sap or something of that sort.


22210. Except as provided in Section 22215 and Chapter 1
(commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person
in this state who 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 leaded cane, or any instrument or
weapon of the kind commonly known as a billy, blackjack, sandbag,
sandclub, sap, or slungshot, is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison.

bob7122
07-11-2011, 9:38 PM
not legal, but i have nothing to back it up with. sorry :no::shrug:

swilson
07-11-2011, 9:54 PM
Is there a legal definition for a sap? And what the hell is a slungshot?

Coded-Dude
07-11-2011, 9:56 PM
are yo ukidding...only criminals would need such a device. why else would there be a law! /sarcasm

mossy
07-11-2011, 10:01 PM
no, any thing that can be used to harm a criminal or save your life is illegal or heavily regulated here in CA lol. i think those fall under 12020 PC.

OutlawDon
07-11-2011, 10:03 PM
No, not legal.

But I carry these...

http://www.trueswords.com/polished-brass-balls-chain-ring-p-5048.html

Decoligny
07-11-2011, 10:04 PM
That particular item is called a "slungshot" and is illegal.

RP1911
07-11-2011, 10:16 PM
Thanks for the responses.

Ok how about a yawara?

Stonewalker
07-11-2011, 10:26 PM
CA PC outlaws "billies". That is, anything that is designed with the sole purpose of striking someone. Felony to posses, felony carry, felony to carry concealed. Basically any of those fun (and useful) self-defense items you see all around the internet are illegal in CA. At least we aren't as bad as NY. It's felony to posses pepper-spray in NY. WTF!!! How anti-self-defense can you be? As if criminals ever use pepper spray.

Of course, carrying a loaded, concealed handgun against the law in CA is only a misdemeanor (wobbler). Figure that.

blazeaglory
07-11-2011, 10:30 PM
Might as well do it right
http://www.silvermane.com/images/KE-2608.jpg

andytothemax
07-11-2011, 11:08 PM
Might as well do it right
http://www.silvermane.com/images/KE-2608.jpg

That's the funny thing- a "mace" isn't named in the statute! The irony kills me. Maybe their rationale is that a mace isn't concealable because it's *****ly.

stitchnicklas
07-11-2011, 11:24 PM
i have a spike ball and chain.....hanging on a complete shield set,no carry though..:eek:

winxp_man
07-11-2011, 11:57 PM
^^

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKxHCpAtsjRVtwnxuEKh0Mw2_ee2_ED-pmRPkmU9dMQmkOMPdMjA


This would incorporate the Ops post and the mace :D

Munk
07-12-2011, 12:29 AM
Thanks for the responses.

Ok how about a yawara?

Yawaras are very close to kubotans, and some people have gotten into trouble for certain models of kobatan that had spike protrusions and ran afoul of the brass knuckle laws.

As for the OP, the item being sold is specifically a "slungshot" (a piece of "shot" on a "sling"). They call it a monkey's fist, which is just another name for a slungshot. It's in the list of banned smacking items. It's also probably one of the more dangerous.

aklover_91
07-12-2011, 4:15 AM
A roll of quarters makes a wonderful fist pack/weight and a good sturdy pen is a perfectly usable impact weapon.

Just food for thought.

SanPedroShooter
07-12-2011, 5:54 AM
What about an actual monkeys fist used for line throwing? I wonder if its like the bat + glove = ok. Bat alone = billyclub... Maybe if you carried 50 ft of line with you, you could carry one...

How about this http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/Wild-Kat-Keychains-p-16464.html

paradox
07-12-2011, 6:36 AM
Here's my standard case law response to such questions:

People v. Grubb

Thus we hold that the statute embraces instruments other than those specially created or manufactured for criminal purposes; it specifically includes those objects "of the kind commonly known as a billy." The concomitant circumstances may well proclaim the danger of even the innocent-appearing utensil. The Legislature thus decrees as criminal the possession of ordinarily harmless objects when the circumstances of possession demonstrate an immediate atmosphere of danger. Accordingly the statute would encompass the possession of a table leg, in one sense an obviously useful item, when it is detached from the table and carried at night in a "tough" neighborhood to the scene of a riot. On the other hand the section would not penalize the Little Leaguer at bat in a baseball game.

THE PEOPLE, v. SEAN KING

First, the prosecution must prove that the item had the necessary
characteristic to fall within the statutory description. It must also prove that the
defendant knew of the characteristic. That is, it must prove that a defendant
charged with possession of a short-barreled rifle knew the rifle was unusually
short, but the defendant need not know the rifle’s actual dimensions. Similarly, a
defendant charged with illegally possessing a cane sword must know that the cane
contained a sword, and a defendant charged with possessing a writing pen knife
must know that the pen contained a stabbing instrument. Knowledge can, of
course, be proved circumstantially. Further, the prosecution need not prove that
the defendant knew there was a law against possessing the item, nor that the
defendant intended to break or violate the law.

THE PEOPLE v. ERNESTO ARNOLDO RUBALCAVA

the Legislature recognized that the new definition may criminalize the “innocent” carrying of legal instruments such as steak knives, scissors and metal knitting needles, but concluded “there is no need to carry such items concealed in public.” As a result, the Legislature made “[t]he unlawful concealed carrying of a dirk or dagger in Section 12020 . . . a general intent crime” and expressly stated that “[n]o intent for unlawful use would be required for violations of the prohibition on the concealed possession upon the person of an otherwise lawful dirk or dagger.”

Thus, the legislative history is clear and unequivocal: the intent to use the concealed instrument as a stabbing instrument is not an element of the crime of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. Indeed, the offense has never had such an intent requirement, and we find nothing suggesting an intent by the Legislature to alter this established rule.
...

As an initial matter, we dispel a misconception fostered by Oskins and repeated by Rubalcava: the absence of a specific intent requirement does not make the carrying of a concealed dirk or dagger a strict liability offense. Strict liability offenses eliminate the “requirement of mens rea; that is, the requirement of a ‘guilty mind’ with respect to an element of a crime.” As such, a defendant may be guilty of a strict liability offense even if he does not know “the facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense.” By declining to make defendant’s intended use of the instrument an element of the offense, we do not eliminate the mens rea requirement. Because the dirk or dagger portion of section 12020 criminalizes “ ‘traditionally lawful conduct,’ ” we construe the statute to contain a “knowledge” element. Thus, to commit the offense, a defendant must still have the requisite guilty mind: that is, the defendant must knowingly and intentionally carry concealed upon his or her person an instrument “that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon.” A defendant who does not know that he is carrying the weapon or that the concealed instrument may be used as a stabbing weapon is therefore not guilty of violating section 12020.6

...

Even though section 12020 may seem overbroad as a matter of common sense, we will not find it unconstitutionally overbroad without some concrete impairment of constitutionally protected conduct.

Although we conclude that section 12020 is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, we echo the concerns over the breadth of the statute raised by Rubalcava. As written, section 12020, subdivisions (a) and (c)(24) may criminalize seemingly innocent conduct. Consequently, the statute may invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement not due to any vagueness in the statutory language but due to the wide range of otherwise innocent conduct it proscribes. Indeed, the Legislature suggested this very possibility. “Proponents of this bill would possibly suggest that everyone—peace officers, prosecutors, judges, and juries—knows what is considered ‘bad’ carrying of a concealed dirk or dagger, cite Grubb (supra), and argue that is the protection against possibly overzealous use of the Penal Code proscriptions on such conduct?”

THE PEOPLE v. JOHNNY RALPH FANNIN,

Here we consider whether a bicycle lock on a chain may be a “slungshot” within the scope of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law. (Pen. Code, § 12000 et seq.) We conclude that it may be, if the evidence proves the defendant carried it as a weapon.

...

We believe the tension must be resolved as follows. Intent to use a weapon is not an element of the crime of weapon possession. “Proof of possession alone is sufficient.” (People v. McKinney, supra, 9 Cal.App.2d at p. 525.) However, if the object is not a weapon per se, but an instrument with ordinary innocent uses, the prosecution must prove that the object was possessed as a weapon. The only way to meet that burden is by evidence “indicat[ing] that the possessor would use the object for a dangerous, not harmless, purpose.” (Grubb, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 620-621, italics added.) The evidence may be circumstantial, and may be rebutted by the defendant with evidence of “innocent usage.” (Id. at p. 621.) The prosecution may not, however, merely show that the defendant had a table leg in his car while driving through a dangerous neighborhood, and require him to prove that he did not carry it as a weapon. Such a rule would turn the presumption of innocence on its head. Intended use is not an element of weapon possession, but the prosecution always bears the burden of proving that the defendant possessed a weapon. This interpretation of Grubb puts to rest the constitutional challenges raised by Fannin.

...

Like the Rubalcava court, we accept the Legislature’s determination to criminalize possession of a broad range of “instruments and weapons.” However, the Legislature has treated dirks and daggers differently than slungshots. Penal Code section 12020 does not proscribe possession of any object “capable of ready use” as a slungshot. Nor does any legislative history reflect a desire to broadly prohibit the possession of heavy objects affixed to flexible handles regardless of the possessor’s purpose. The statute proscribes possessing “any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a . . . slungshot” (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)), and the judicially adopted definition specifies that a slungshot is a device “used as a weapon” (Williams, supra, 100 Cal.App. at p. 151). Therefore, when the prosecution contends an ordinary object like a bicycle lock is a kind of slungshot, it must prove the defendant possessed the object as a slungshot. On the other hand, when the defendant is charged with possessing a slungshot like the rawhide and metal device described in Mulherin, which had no conceivable innocent function, proof of mere possession is sufficient.

Fannin told Officer Oglesby that he carried the chain and padlock for self-defense. That statement identified the bicycle lock as a weapon, and brought it within the class of objects prohibited by Penal Code section 12020.

The weighted monkey fist is highly illegal, but the spiked mace might fit under the definition of a dirk or dagger and thus be legal so long as you don't conceal it.

Never carry a bludgeoning self defense tool in California: it is probably a felony in the making. Knives, pepper spray, tazer, hell even guns won't get you into as hot of water.

PC§12020 has to go.

Peter.Steele
07-12-2011, 7:59 AM
What about an actual monkeys fist used for line throwing? I wonder if its like the bat + glove = ok. Bat alone = billyclub... Maybe if you carried 50 ft of line with you, you could carry one...

How about this http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/Wild-Kat-Keychains-p-16464.html



Those are flat-out illegal. Classified as brass knuckles.

Decoligny
07-12-2011, 9:27 AM
Those are flat-out illegal. Classified as brass knuckles.

They are classified as either "metal knuckles" or "composite knuckles" depending upon the material they are made of.

Both are pretty much the same offense and are equally illegal.

otalps
07-12-2011, 9:32 AM
How about this http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/Wild-Kat-Keychains-p-16464.html

They used to sell those at a nearby gas station, I had one a long time ago. Wonder how many they sold and how many people were walking around with felonies in their pocket.

spddrcr
07-12-2011, 1:01 PM
monkey balls (paracord wrapped marbles or steel bearing) are all the rage at the local gun shows lately. it seemed most of the knife booths were selling them as well as some of the gun booths. funny though I didn't hear any one yelling profanities about those booths causing felonies:rolleyes:

HowardW56
07-12-2011, 3:57 PM
My daughter carried one of those from the time she could drive until she was out of college... It made an excellent key chain.... It looked like a black & white soccer ball...

She never had an issue with it...

Stonewalker
07-12-2011, 4:07 PM
My daughter carried one of those from the time she could drive until she was out of college... It made an excellent key chain.... It looked like a black & white soccer ball...

She never had an issue with it...

My friend used to make these, only he didn't wrap the parachord around anything, just around itself. You wind up with a length of chord andd a little ball and a that is a gives you a nice grip around it. Attached to a keychain, it can create a lot of force if used to swing the keys at a bad guy's face. I don't think you will run afoul of the law with such an item attached to you keychain.

paradox
07-12-2011, 4:13 PM
My daughter carried one of those from the time she could drive until she was out of college... It made an excellent key chain.... It looked like a black & white soccer ball...

She never had an issue with it...

Did she ever tell a cop it was for defense or did she ever actually use it for defense?

aklover_91
07-12-2011, 4:20 PM
My friend used to make these, only he didn't wrap the parachord around anything, just around itself. You wind up with a length of chord andd a little ball and a that is a gives you a nice grip around it. Attached to a keychain, it can create a lot of force if used to swing the keys at a bad guy's face. I don't think you will run afoul of the law with such an item attached to you keychain.

A lanyard can do that too, and not even look like something that'll get you locked up.

craneman
07-12-2011, 4:26 PM
Carry a hickory cane. If questioned, develope a limp, and look puzzled while saying "whatever do you mean"? You get more range with it too.

HowardW56
07-12-2011, 4:41 PM
Did she ever tell a cop it was for defense or did she ever actually use it for defense?

She was never asked, and never had cause to tell anyone... When receiving a citation once she told me that the police officer stared at it, hanging from her key in the ignition, through the open passenger window for several seconds when asking for her license...

paradox
07-12-2011, 4:52 PM
She was never asked, and never had cause to tell anyone... When receiving a citation once she told me that the police officer stared at it, hanging from her key in the ignition, through the open passenger window for several seconds when asking for her license...

If Fannin could go to prison for sitting at a bus stop with a bike lock on his lap, she could've been thrown in the slammer if the cop was in a bad mood. Though I bet she is cuter than Fannin so it would have to be a really bad day.

gun toting monkeyboy
07-12-2011, 5:22 PM
Is there a legal definition for a sap? And what the hell is a slungshot?

That is slung shot. It is illegal as it was all the rage with sailors and other ne'er-do-wells of the late 19th century. It has been around forever, but it picked up the same kind of reputation back then that switchblades did in the 1950s. Something only lower class crooks and punks would use. The main reason it is still illegal is because many of the laws on the books are carry-overs from way back when. And because, believe it or not, it is a very nasty weapon. It was common to carry one on several feet of cord, wrapped around the waist like a belt. If the need arose, you pulled out a couple of feet of cord and threw it at the other guy's face. Then you could retreave it and use it like a flail to pound him while he writhed around on the ground clutching his shattered facial bones. Like I said, those things are nasty. The other popular thing to do was make a wrist loop, and use a heavier piece of shot (like a pound instead of just a few ounces) to make a cheap ball and chain kind of weapon. These were common on non-military craft for dealing with boarders. Nothing says "Welcome Aboard!" like a pound or two of lead cracking into your skull as soon as it clears the railing.

-Mb

bob7122
07-12-2011, 6:25 PM
Yawaras are very close to kubotans, and some people have gotten into trouble for certain models of kobatan that had spike protrusions and ran afoul of the brass knuckle laws.

As for the OP, the item being sold is specifically a "slungshot" (a piece of "shot" on a "sling"). They call it a monkey's fist, which is just another name for a slungshot. It's in the list of banned smacking items. It's also probably one of the more dangerous.

so is a kubaton like this illegal then?:confused:


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDbQ27n2ey042IduPXJ_dKfbbnLq_j7 1HRKGjaAQvlF927LPywKg

andytothemax
07-12-2011, 6:35 PM
so is a kubaton like this illegal then?:confused:


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDbQ27n2ey042IduPXJ_dKfbbnLq_j7 1HRKGjaAQvlF927LPywKg

Qualifies as a "billy" therefore illegal.

hornswaggled
07-12-2011, 8:01 PM
Wow good thing we have these laws. Otherwise there'd be countless 19th century street toughs looking to bash people with shelilehs and shanghai them to the orient for illegal spice trade.

Ford8N
07-12-2011, 8:56 PM
Nanny laws

Welcome to California.

jdberger
07-12-2011, 9:10 PM
so is a kubaton like this illegal then?:confused:


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDbQ27n2ey042IduPXJ_dKfbbnLq_j7 1HRKGjaAQvlF927LPywKg

Honestly, you're better off with a Surefire 6P.

mdimeo
07-12-2011, 9:21 PM
A roll of quarters makes a wonderful fist pack/weight

I've concluded that a roll of quarters qualifies as a "metal knuckle" under California law:

” . . .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.”

A roll of quarters is:

made partially of metal
worn "in" the hand "for purposes of offense or defense" and "increases the force of impact"
The metal helps "support the hand or fist".

The only iffy thing there is whether it's "worn in or on the hand", but I bet if you found yourself in a fistfight with unfriendly witnesses saying you started it, a prosecutor could make it stick. So I wouldn't go there.

mdimeo
07-12-2011, 9:36 PM
I've concluded that a roll of quarters qualifies as a "metal knuckle" under California law:

Sorry to reply to my own post. I just looked back at the law to refresh my memory, and I had a wacky idea.

Metal knuckles are illegal.
Composite knuckles are also, separately illegal (presumably that means plastic), and the same law bans hard wooden knuckles; the definitions are essentially the same as those I gave for metal knuckles in my previous post.

It occurred to me that a material that wouldn't fall under those definitions would be leather, specifically boiled leather like they used to make armor out of (cuir bouilli). The stuff is pretty hard and can be molded to whatever shape and layered. I wouldn't want to be punched with it.

I think you'd be safe from the metal knuckle laws. Anyone see any other laws that would violate?

Just a thought experiment; I'm not a fistfighter :)

s4alex
07-12-2011, 9:51 PM
So, this gets me thinking, I know.. Bad idea.

I ride a motorcycle, I wear full gear. I wear gauntlet gloves, with hard carbon fibre knuckle guards. Would those be considered brass knuckles of some sort illegal? Can I technically be busted by some Leo on a bad mood day?

Heck, I even have some construction gloves I got at home depot that have carbon fibre knucles.

mdimeo
07-12-2011, 10:48 PM
So, this gets me thinking, I know.. Bad idea.

I ride a motorcycle, I wear full gear. I wear gauntlet gloves, with hard carbon fibre knuckle guards. Would those be considered brass knuckles of some sort illegal? Can I technically be busted by some Leo on a bad mood day?

Heck, I even have some construction gloves I got at home depot that have carbon fibre knucles.

By a literal reading of the law, I'd say yes, they'd qualify as composite knuckles. I'm guessing it's not a big legal risk, though. Take 'em off if you're planning any fistfights.

ETA - actually, if you're not wearing them for the purpose of offense or defense, you might be ok. Probably depend on caselaw.

Deamer
07-12-2011, 11:06 PM
monkey balls (paracord wrapped marbles or steel bearing) are all the rage at the local gun shows lately. it seemed most of the knife booths were selling them as well as some of the gun booths. funny though I didn't hear any one yelling profanities about those booths causing felonies:rolleyes:

Maybe those were "California Safe" monkey balls. Instead of a marble or ball bearing they have a rubber superball in them.:)

Packy14
07-12-2011, 11:36 PM
how about self defense pens?

jdberger
07-13-2011, 12:48 AM
Depends on how zealous a prosecutor.

caoboy
07-13-2011, 1:21 AM
What about a kubotan without the spike? Or a length of rod used as a key holder? This state is fun, not knowing which felonies you might be committing, it's like a game sometimes!

cdtx2001
07-13-2011, 6:11 AM
Wow good thing we have these laws. Otherwise there'd be countless 19th century street toughs looking to bash people with shelilehs and shanghai them to the orient for illegal spice trade.

And the only way to defend ourselves from such ruffians and riff raff would be to don our suits of metal and carry a broad sword shield. CA would then promptly make wearing such defensive armor illegal and a crime punishable by burning at the stake or being drawn and quartered.

But look at the bright side of being drawn and quartered in CA today, the drawing would be done by attaching 4 hybrid Prius cars to your limbs and the quartering would be done by slicing you with an axe made of 95% post consumer recycled steel.

caoboy
07-13-2011, 10:46 AM
That wouldnt happen because of cruel and unusual punishment. You'd be tickled to death.

ZombieTactics
07-13-2011, 12:35 PM
Many flashlights, constructed of various metals, being of particular size and weight, are readily attachable to key rings, lanyards, etc.

Flashlights aren't illegal to own. They aren't "weapons" per se until used as such. If it becomes necessary to use one as a weapon, necessity is its own defense.

RP1911
07-13-2011, 5:05 PM
So technically this could be illegal also

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=106342&stc=1&d=1310605442