This may be of interest to California residents who carry folding knives.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G045929.PDF

I won't try to summarize it because the Court makes some pretty fine distinctions ...

After reading that, it's no wonder the lower courts decision was reversed. IMHO, they were so obviously ignoring the law as written that I would term what happened as "malicious prosecution" or "harassment". There should be repercussions for courts and prosecuters that so flagrantly ignore the law. How much do you think that defendent had to pay - court costs, a lawyer, personal time lost - in defending himself against that total B.S.? He should be awarded all that money back, and then some, as a penalty.

Good decision and scary,its so hard to be legal with such stuff going on.

true ... many of these knives can be opened with a flick of the wrist - if the user practices enough. But they all have positive retention of the blade ... manufacturers are not crazy enough to sell real switchblades that flip open easily. this case is mostly about ignorance of folding knives and how they work.

Pete2

this case is mostly about ignorance of folding knives and how they work.
-----------------------------------
Absolutely agree,as the testimony pointed that out clearly and the decision was reversed.

The expert witness testimony to clarify the law was very helpful,esp. for us who live in the state.

I doubt anybody here wants to break the law,intentional or otherwise.

Thank you for the up to date information and fantastic link of the actual decision and keeping us safe and legal.

Always nice to see the good guys win one. Cheers!

Considering his time, trouble and money expenses, I would not call that a win. When CA reimburses him for those expenses, he'll have a win -- not holding my breath.

And note, any length of fixed blade knife must be carried openly in CA, and not
at all in some jurisdictions. Even the little Altoids tin knife Doug sells. Carrying it in
a backpack could be a felony in some circumstances.

Well, here's a question that I have from reading the ruling. I'm not particularly a knife guy but the legal angle intrigues me. Legally, is there ever a difference between the design of a knife and the true condition of a knife?

Halfway down page 4, the court says that:

From my reading, it seems that this judge or presiding administrator could flick this knife open purely with wrist action. And earlier in the ruling, there is mention that the set screw was "a little bit wobbly".

By extension, could I make a butterfly-style knife that has some sort of stud/potrusion and retention mechanism that you are supposed to use, but if it's loose, I can it flip open despite it having some retention mechansim?

Edit: Egads, just re-reading my post, makes me sound like some teenager who is itching to find a loophole to legally carry a butterfly knife! Certainly not my intention! Just wondering about this legal gray area--at least gray to me.

Arney, you cause me to think about another situation. Imagine a folder with a screw that comes loose, causing the blade to come off from the knife. Is the blade sitting concealed in your pack a fixed blade knife at that point? If not, why not? I don't think intent is part of the law.

Not exactly arguing, just setting the facts straight. WRT the cost to the Defendant, note that the had a court appointed lawyer. Still hell to go through for no good reason.

I'm actually shocked that an Appellant had a court appointed attorney. Is that normal/common? Still, I'm sure there are expenses other than for the lawyer, but time and trouble alone take this out of the "win" column, at best he broke even.

Now for the rest of us this is definitely a win, we now have precedent that the Benchmade, Spyderco, et al one hand opening folders we own are legal. Hmm, have the assisted openers been tested in court?

I think I found an answer to my own question. I'm not sure how much weight a memo of legislative intent by the original author of California's knife law has on a DA's decisions on whether to prosecute, but I found a clarifying document at this page.

The relevant section of the memo discusses what types of knives are exempt from the category of a switchblade:

(Emphasis mine)