Colorado Concealed Weapons Case

James Mattis · Mar 13, 2000

I was looking for Gravity knife cases relevant to C.J. Buck's request for leads, and this one is not relevant to that, but it is interesting, so I'm putting it up in a separate thread.

It's a case in the Colorado Court of Appeals, on the Web at http://www.cobar.org/coappcts/ca1999/ct040115.htm - COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS April 1, 1999, No. 98CA0588, The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee,
In the Interest of A.P.E., a Child, Juvenile-Appellant.

The unidentified juvenile had attracted the attention of law enforcement by yelling obscenities at passing cars, and a search turned up this lovely object:

The arguments on whether that thing was a "concealed weapon" are presesented in the case at the above link. The judges upheld the conviction.

------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001

ChaosKitten · Mar 14, 2000

Does it bother anyone else that, according to section D there, all it takes to label a knife a concealed weapon "is that one of the uses for which the defendant intended the instrument was to employ it as a weapon." [emp added]? And that the court could INFER from the thing's appearance that one of the uses was as a weapon, rather than needing evidence that the defendent really did intend to use it as a weapon? Brrrr.

------------------
He who attacks must vanquish. He who defends need only survive.

James Mattis · Mar 14, 2000

But officer! I only carry it to open packages when I pick them up at the post office! And those pointy things on the grip are for prying those big staples!

Here is a recent California case where the guy had an SKS bayonet under his jacket, and produced witnesses to testify that he used it to bore holes in drywall when installing cable. The appellate court ruled that the CA law on concealed dirks or daggers is so broad that, to keep it constitutional, it must be construed to require the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to use it as a weapon. http://www.chaicutlery.com/knifelaw/people_v_hyun-123099.html

------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001

CJ Buck · Mar 14, 2000

I thought this was a telling statement.

To be unconstitutionally vague, a statute must forbid or require "the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application." People v. Becker, 759 P.2d 26, 31 (Colo. 1988).

I consider myself a reasonable person or at least ordinary intelligence and I do not have a clue where the line on gravity knives is drawn.

Great cases Jim

------------------
CJ Buck
Buck Knives, Inc.
AKTI Member #PR00003

James Mattis · Mar 14, 2000

On "gravity knives," the statutes are as uncertain as they come. The trouble, for people like that guy in New York, is that a trial judge is not all that likely to rule that a statute is unconstitutional, and if that happens, then the DA is almost certain to appeal. If you're the guy paying the lawyers, then even if you win you lose.

------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001

Stryver · Mar 15, 2000

I must admit, the Colorado guy tried a very interesting tack, but I can't see any court believing he intended on using that itme as anything other than a weapon. And if he did convince them he had another use for it, he deserves an Oscar.

As far as the gravity knife thing goes, most areas I've seen the laws for define it rather well. I may disagree with the definition, but that does not make it vague. To define a gravity knife as something, among other things, able to be opened with 'a flick of the wrist' implies an opening involving hand motion and no finger manipulation. This is very well described, just not soemthing I agree with.

But then I am an engineering geek, and inclined to take definitions quite literally...

Stryver

James Mattis · Mar 16, 2000

The "vagueness" comes from uncertainty. How hard a flip should it take to open it? Any "normal" folder has the blade held inside the handle by a combination of spring tension and friction, which may be overcome by with the right combination of speed and agility. The smoother the action and the more mass in the blade, the easier it is, but there's at least one guy out there who can do an evil gravity flip on a Spyderco Ladybug.

So where, between a folder you could open by clamping it onto the arm of a centrifuge just -so and spinning it very fast, and a folder that flops open so easily that it's unsafe to carry without a sheath, do you draw the line?

------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001

Jim March · Mar 17, 2000

If you follow the appeals court's logic, this critter might be illegal under California law even carried openly, if it was considered "brass knuckles". That was the basis of one of the CO charges, that it was an "illegal weapon", to wit, brass knuckles...knives aren't as flat-out illegal. And I'd have to say such a case could be made, that they're knuckles, the CO court laid that out fairly well. Then again, per Calif law, open-carry of a "readily available stabbing implement" is guaranteed LEGAL so you'd have to argue that this "overrides" any judgement that it's a brass knuck.

It'd be messy.

As a tactical aside, I'm not fond of push-daggers unless you know what you're doing. A good opponent will know that there's really just one possible attack with such a thing...I like a little more confusion on the other guy's part.

Jim

cerulean · Mar 20, 2000

Geez, what horrible news. But thanks for the heads up, James Mattis.

On the brass knuckles issue, I think the prosectution wins. The definition of brass knuckles is pretty clear.

I thought that the definition of "knife" was clear enough, but I guess not.

It is illegal to carry a concealed knife, and "knife" is defined as "any dagger, dirk, knife, or stiletto with a blade over three and one-half inches in length, or any other dangerous instrument capable of inflicting cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds..."

I had always assumed that this definition meant that a knife with a blade under 3.5" was legal. However, the prosecution argued, successfully, that the words "with a blade over three and one-half inches in length" are completely meaningless. You might as well just delete those words from the law.

The prosecution focused on the "or any other dangerous instrument capable of inflicting cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds." So basically, the law reads, "It is illegal to carry concealed a knife with a blade over 3.5 inches long, or any other knife."

What's the point of putting a specific limit in the law if it's meaningless? It's like saying, "It is illegal to drive over 65 MPH, or any other speed."

------------------
Cerulean

"Just because some folks think you make great kydex sheaths doesn't make you into some sort of mind reading psychologist." -Paracelsus