Assisted Opening Knives

[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.

[M9Man]

[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.

[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.

notonly 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

[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]

notonly 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

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.