This looks like it adds some needed clarification to CA law.

"California appeals court: carrying dirk or dagger in a backpack is OK"

http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2013/04/19/keep-that-dagger-in-your-backpack-court-says/

I have never quite understood why daggers, dirks, and stilettos are considered worse than regular knives in many states.

IMPORTANT NOTE, and this is no joke, if you carry a fixed blade in your backpack, then you can safely enjoy that awesome hike through the California hills. If you happen to place that fixed blade somewhere in your clothing while in California on public land, then you are liable to spend a year in prison.

If my calculations are correct, the Appeals Court overturned his conviction AFTER he served his one-year sentence. I need to get the heck out of California.

...and I've never understood what the difference in all these things are. They are mentioned in my states laws, but never defined. Our laws do define "knife" however. It has to have a blade 3-1/2" or longer. I don't know what they call something with a 2-1/2" blade. But I think all the definitions (or lack of them) are somewhat a moot point. There is a catch-all term in our laws, can't remember exactly what it is, something like "stabbing implement" (with no minimum length designation), that they could nail you with.

Could be that they are double-edged?

"16470. As used in this part, "dirk" or "dagger" means a knife or
other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready
use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or
death. A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not
prohibited by Section 21510, or a pocketknife is capable of ready use
as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death
only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position."

No double edge needed to be a dirk/dagger. Even your open pocket knife is one it seems.

As I read the court's decision, the issue was whether the defendant carried a weapon concealed upon his person. The court held that in a backpack is not upon the person. In the final lines of the decision the court mentions that had the defendant been charged with possession of shuriken instead of dirks & daggers, the conviction may have been upheld since that is controlled by a separate part of the statute that outlaws possession of shuriken. The actual weapons found on the defendant were shuriken and not dirks or daggers.

Blogger missed some of the point of the court's decision...

Even if the weapons were swords in real life, for our purposes here, the weapons were actually dirks or daggers because that is what the lower court found. See, Appellate Opinion at page 2:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B238949.PDF

He was initially found guilty on possession of dirks or daggers. The note about how the weapons could have been shuriken is interesting but irrelevant. I suppose the weapons could have been spears. That would have been interesting too, but it doesn't matter because the courts treated the weapons as being dirks or daggers.

this is a helpful ruling from the CA court.
we don't often see common sense from them - so I am applauding this one.

although, as others have noted, it's amazing that the amateur Bruce Lee in this case got by with possessing shurikens. but that's another story.

Pete2

Can you carry a dirk or dagger out in California on your person (usually down in one of your big woolly socks) as long as you wear a knee length skirt in digital Camouflage along with some nice leather brogues?

I seem to remember Robbie the Pict used to fly to America with his big Sword and used to wear it in the aircraft cabin.

from the opinion: 'shuriken are principally used for throwing, but can be used for stabbing.' okay. methinks the edged weapons expert for the prosecution was supporting the classification of shuriken as a dirk or dagger, e.g. stabbing weapons not a thrown one. I'm no expert, but Wikipedia and about a hundred kung fu flicks show them as thrown weapons. The last line of the opinion implies that had the expert opinion been to support the use of the shuriken as primarily a throwing weapon, the conviction would have been upheld regardless where they were kept - on person or in the backpack, either way they are in possession. No dog in this hunt - but from the prosecutor's perspective, I suspect some future possession of shuriken will have an expert opinion that it is primarily a throwing weapon, not a dirk or dagger. And this case clarifies the scope of possession of dirks and daggers.

As I interpret the California law, a Boy Scout can walk down the street with a dirk or dagger holstered on his belt, in plain site. Concealing it down your sock or boot or under a shirt will get you in trouble.

Of course the Scoutmaster should snag away any dirks or daggers, since folders are deemed to be safer for young Scouts to handle. That's been our interpretation up here anyway - and only with the whittling chip...

That is my understanding. Now consider a fixed blade neck knife, of any length, worn under a shirt. Would that not be "concealed" and troublesome, as well.

In theory, yes.

In reality, I would advise the Boy Scout to have a good lawyer memorized. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." There is a reasonable chance a cop won't know, or will be unsure, about the law. There is also a decent chance the cop knows the law but interprets the particular carry as being concealed for whatever reason. There is also a good chance a cop would make the arrest because almost everybody in the general public in California would think that's illegal. I can tell you that the default here is to assume something out of the ordinary is illegal.

So conversely, if carrying a knife in a backpack is not on the person, does the same logic apply to the carrying of a handgun? This is an interesting precedent, especially when you start getting to things like whether a purse or satchel is on the person. Looks like a very slippery legal slope.
But this might prove quite interesting.

In CA even Doug's little Altoid tin knife is illegal to carry in your pocket or around your neck inside your shirt.

But now it appears okay to carry in your backpack in CA.

When I was a young scout, there weren't locking folders (at least cheap ones) so
sheath knives were considered safer to use than pocket knives. Now fixed blades are discouraged if not quite banned from scouting. And in our troop you have to pass a 2 1/2 hour class on knife, axe and saw safety and sharpening to get the tote'n-chip. The scout master first hits the blade of the axe against a rock, then the
scout has to return it to shaving sharp. We wear out a lot of axe heads by sharpening.

Another reason to avoid the left coast.

It is not the only state with a whole series of strange and confusing laws regarding tools with sharp edges.

Some of the states that are much better WRT to firearms are just as bad on edged tools as CA.

You just have to know what the rules are. Unfortunately, many states there are a whole host of local ordinances that are almost impossible to track down that you might well inadvertently violate.

In IL, it is a class A misdemeanor to have an axe or hatchet with you while camping in a state park. It is doubtful anyone has ever been charged with it, but it is still illegal.

Why I just carry a folder here,as far as I can deduce its safe and legal.

Knife laws just make no sense to me at all.

Yep, I'm also in SOCAL and have no issues with EDC of a BM 710, BM 940, Spyderco Endura or CRK Sebenza. Just don't carry it concealed, even a small fixed blade carried concealed is a no-no.

Those are all folding knives. So, what's wrong with carrying those concealed in California? Also, exactly how would open-carry them?

Presumably because they are designed as weapons rather than tools. A tool has different justifications for carry, and different implications for preventing carry.

I think some of these laws are in place 'just in case'. For example, our state parks prohibit any use of alcohol. A quick peek into the recycling bin at the end of the loop reveals a truckload of beer and wine bottles and cans. If some nutcase was terrorizing a neighboring camper by throwing or brandishing a big 'zombie killer' knife, it's nice that a LEO can put a stop to the behavior.
I don't think they are after the people who are splitting wood for the family campfire.

I think you are absolutely correct.

Well, then you described a poorly written law that creates a slippery slope. When legislators create a law that dances around the real issues (e.g., brandishing, threatening, assaulting), then we end up with all types of unintended consequences, like in the present case. What's frustrating to me is that the consequences may be unintended but are certainly foreseeable.

It's easy to write a law that cracks down hard on the unwanted behavior (e.g., brandishing) without gouging everybody's rights with respect to possession. Currently, the crime literally is concealing...dumb.

You are certainly correct in that the law probably could have been framed better. However, my last LE training made one point crystal clear - in California, the spirit of the law takes precedence over the letter of the law. Accordingly, I would not put the bracelets on some Boy Scout (or anyone else for that matter) carrying a Ritter as a neck knife, absent other relevant circumstances. I would caution them and ask them to get their vicious weapon out in the open, so that they will once again be a straight arrow citizen.

Given the state of the technology, IMHO a four inch folder can be just as effective a weapon as any non-folder.

One other point - you mention writing a law prohibiting "brandishing." I would love to see a clear, unequivocal definition of brandishing that would apply across the board. I would think we would all know what we mean by brandishing, but putting into clear language is something else. What SCOTUS judge stated that he couldn't define pornography, but he could recognize it when he saw it? This is why attorneys are so fearfully busy....

Well, good point...I'll be more thoughtful and say we don't even need a definition for brandishing. Don't even try. Instead, the laws with respect to assault and battery are good enough and sufficiently defined. If a knife or other weapon is involved in the act of assault/battery, then the sentence should carry enhancements. Not sure, but I think laws are already in place for that scenario. So, wheel invention is unnecessary.

Basically, let's get rid of the criminalization for concealing a fixed blade, especially when there is no criminalization for concealing a folder, for crying out loud.

Agreed. I doubt it would make much difference to me, my surgeon, or my family if I were to be skewered by a folder vis a vis a fixed blade.

I suppose folders are exempt because nearly everyone carries a SAK, a traditional Case, or something similar (well, except in schools, that is). I just laugh and shake my head, because back in the day, we all carried a small folder - played knife games (splits and mumbley peg) on the playground during recess in middle school. What hardened criminals were were!

We did too,That beautiful Cub Scout knife,or Dad gave you one of his....but they outlawed marbles when some parents complained their kiddies had a problem with it (Gambling or something,lost their marbles and Poof-Its Gone!)

IANAL, but "concealing" case law implies that the knife is not apparent to a "reasonable person" and is readily accessible. Since retrieving a FB from a backpack (California considers all fixed blades as dirks or daggers) requires several steps, then it is not readily accessible even through the knife is not apparent.

There was a case a while back where somebody with a Swiss Card in their wallet was tried for concealing a dirk or dagger. The judge ruled that since it took several steps (pull out wallet, open up wallet, retrieve Swiss Card, pull out knife) that it was not readily accessible, therefore not illegal. Had he been carrying the Swiss Card IWB (not apparent and readily accessible), it would have been another story.

There are statutes for brandishing, threatening, or other misbehavior with a "deadly weapon" (section 417). A ‘deadly weapon’ is ‘any object, instrument, or weapon which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury. So cracking them over the head with your skateboard is the same as pulling a Condor Combat Machete on them.