Ever heard of any cases of Karambit rings interpreted as brass knuckles in Cali?

[ccitizen]

I live in San Diego, CA as you might have surmised. I got myself a neat karambit and it seems that being a folding blade I'm a-ok. However after looking through the forums it may seem that the definition of "brass knuckles" is very vague and a ring on a karambit technically falls under the definition.

My question is, has anyone here ever heard of anyone getting in trouble over it?

Perhaps someone got to speak with a LEO about it? Seems to me that the purpose of the ring is to increase the purchase on the grip, but I'd rather not argue that in court.

Any help or should I just move to Texas? Love the weather here

Thanks,

A citizen

 

[zzyzzogeton]

Can't say anything for California, but the single knuckle ring would fall into the "integral knuckles" category, which was a determined in a court case a long time ago as making the knife "illegal" due to having "knuckles integral to the construction", even though the knife in question met all other requirements to be a legal knife. I can't remember where or when the case occurred, but IIRC it was back in the 70s in one of the "big" cities.

PROBABLY, most LEOs wouldn't care as long as you weren't doing something else stupid to get that got their attention in the first place, BUT it wouldn't be worth the risk, IMO.

 

[killgar]

Fellow San Diegan here. 45 years and counting.

That's an interesting question. I don't know if there is any case law. Perhaps Glistam knows (he's an encyclopedia of case law). I'm sure he'll read this thread in the near future.

Here is a link to California penal code 16920 that pertains to "metal knuckles"-.http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ionNum=16920.&highlight=true&keyword=knuckles

Although that statute specifically says "knuckles", as in plural (multiple knuckles), not singular (one ring/knuckle), the text of the definition does not specifically address how many "knuckles" there must be for the item to fall under the definition of 16920.

By reading the text of the statute, my interpretation of 16920 is that since one "knuckle" could "increase the force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving the blow", that one knuckle might very well fall under the definition of 16920.

Unless there is specific case law that provides a clearer definition of what exactly constitutes "metal knuckles" and says that one "knuckle" does NOT fall under the definition of 16920, then I would say don't risk it.

Whether or not an individual cop will care if there is a ring attached to your knife is a complete unknown. But I wouldn't take that gamble. And if you were to use that knife for self-defense, it might very well find itself in front of a prosecutor. And you most definitely don't want to bet your freedom on how a prosecutor will judge your knife, because a prosecutor will always look at a knife in a way that is least favorable to the person who used it.

On a separate note- with all due respect to members of law enforcement, I wouldn't rely on them to know every knife law. If you ask a cop about knife laws you might get the right answer, or the wrong answer (because they don't know the right answer), or you might get THEIR answer (telling you what THEY want you to do or not do). Members of law enforcement are under no obligation to provide accurate legal information to members of the public. I would not base my knife choices, and how I choose to exercise my lawful rights, based on what an LEO might say about knife laws.

On another note- perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but the line where you say "it seems that being a folding blade I'm a-ok" makes it sound like maybe you think that fixed-blades are illegal. If that's the case, let me clarify that all manner of fixed-blades (except knuckle knives) are perfectly legal in California as long as they are OPENLY carried and not concealed.

 

[glistam]

Appreciate your confidence Killgar.

Recent case law on knuckles is pretty sparse in California (and probably everywhere else since they have largely fallen out of fashion), but I did find a juvenile case called In re David V., from 2010. Now, keep in mind the statute numbers changed a year or two ago, so it might appear like it's referring a to a different law.

Young David (14 years old) was stopped for riding his bike without a helmet and consented to a search*. They found a bike foot-rest in his pocket, and his bike had no place to actually attach it. Further, the cop argued that local gangs were using them as a fistload. It's actually just a metal cylinder, with nothing that covers the knuckles. You read that right, it has no rings at all, and the cop felt it was metal knuckles.

David was convicted, but the Supreme Court of California reversed it, saying:

Therefore, notwithstanding the Legislature's use of alternative phrasing that includes not only striking implements but also those that merely reinforce the fist, we conclude that a cylindrical object that cannot be “worn … in or on the hand” does not qualify as “metal knuckles” under section 12020, subdivision (c)(7).

Sadly this seems to leave us back where we started. In my opinion, a karambit's finger ring is unlikely to be held by a court as a metal knuckle since the object itself is a knife and the ring is easily documentable as a retention device, not a striking surface, and therefore falls outside the meaning of the statute. But that said, In re David V. shows that cops sometimes are looking for an excuse and can twist almost anything into an illegal item, and it's on you to prove your innocence in court. Assuming, as I always say, that you did something illegal/suspicious in the first place to make them want to search you.


*Like an idiot. Ok this lad gets a pass for being 14, but we older folks should know better than to consent to a search.

 

[killgar]

I read People v. David V, and that is an interesting, and disturbing case. To have to go through all that over a foot-rest. I wonder how much money the entire affair cost his parents, not to mention time and aggravation.

As far as the karambit goes, my concern would be that a karambit is specifically designed as a weapon. And having a metal ring, whose specific purpose is to have a finger pass through it when the knife is being used as a weapon, would seem to me like a gift to a prosecutor.

In the absence of a clear definition of "metal knuckles", and in the absence of any clear exemptions, I would advise against carrying a knife that is specifically designed as a weapon if it has a metal finger hole incorporated into it's design. Plenty of other knives to choose from that don't meet that description.

When the law is vague, I say- err on the side of caution.

Just one mans opinion.

 

[Jens Schuetz]

The law says anything metal worn in or on the hand. So I guess it doesn't need to be rings and the simple metal cylinder could qualify if it was worn to protect the hand in a punch or increase the punches force. Why would the court find it can not be worn in the hand? Because worn means it stays there even when the hand is open, palm facing down? Weird. Could design some open knuckles then which fall down once you open the hand.

Questions:
if it's "worn" for that purpose it's a knuckle. Does that mean that just carrying it is fine as long as you don't put it on your hand for that particular purpose?

If one metal ring which can increase damage on a target would actually qualify as knuckles then wouldn't a wedding ring fall under this as well? If they aren't specifically excempt and still legal then a single ring on a knife should be good too.


Some wedding rings even cause psychological damages to one or even both of the wearers.

 

[killgar]

The law says anything metal worn in or on the hand. So I guess it doesn't need to be rings and the simple metal cylinder could qualify if it was worn to protect the hand in a punch or increase the punches force. Why would the court find it can not be worn in the hand? Because worn means it stays there even when the hand is open, palm facing down? Weird. Could design some open knuckles then which fall down once you open the hand.

Questions:
if it's "worn" for that purpose it's a knuckle. Does that mean that just carrying it is fine as long as you don't put it on your hand for that particular purpose?

If one metal ring which can increase damage on a target would actually qualify as knuckles then wouldn't a wedding ring fall under this as well? If they aren't specifically excempt and still legal then a single ring on a knife should be good too.


Some wedding rings even cause psychological damages to one or even both of the wearers.

From my reading, "metal knuckles" do not have to be worn in order to be illegal. CA penal code 21810 specifically says that "possession" of metal knuckles is illegal- http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ionNum=21810.&highlight=true&keyword=knuckles

And there's a big difference between a wedding ring, and a ring attached to a knife that is designed specifically as a weapon (like a karambit).

As far as jewelry goes, I do believe that a single ring with a big metal spike sticking out from it would be considered a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Unlike a karambit, a wedding ring is not designed to cause injury or death, just many years of suffering .

 

[ccitizen]

Thanks for the responses guys. Dang it, I guess I have to shelf the thing for now. I was really excited about it. California is whack

 

[Jens Schuetz]

From my reading, "metal knuckles" do not have to be worn in order to be illegal. CA penal code 21810 specifically says that "possession" of metal knuckles is illegal- http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ionNum=21810.&highlight=true&keyword=knuckles

And there's a big difference between a wedding ring, and a ring attached to a knife that is designed specifically as a weapon (like a karambit).

As far as jewelry goes, I do believe that a single ring with a big metal spike sticking out from it would be considered a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Unlike a karambit, a wedding ring is not designed to cause injury or death, just many years of suffering .

>>>>>>>>>
6920.**

As used in this part, “metalknuckles” means any device or instrument made wholly or partially of metal that --is worn-- for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and that 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<<<<<<<

"is worn". Not really could be worn or designed to be worn. As long as it isn't worn during the incident in question it should be fine then.
But English is only my 3rd language and grammar isn't my strong suit to be honest.
Also if it says somewhere else that merely the possession of something designed to be worn for that purpose is illegal then wearing it or not is not important, both would be wrong.

Edit. If the ring on a knife would be illegal then the ring on the pistol for sure. The trigger guard could easily protect your finger when punching somebody. Punching somebody with the pistol worn in your hand will clearly hurt him more and you less than without the pistol and on top of that a pistol wasn't really designed to open boxes or peel apples.


Wedding rings are clearly designed to cause suffering. No maker can claim he doesn't know what happens to the wearer. It's just common knowledge.

 

[killgar]

>>>>>>>>>
6920.**

As used in this part, “metalknuckles” means any device or instrument made wholly or partially of metal that --is worn-- for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and that 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
<<<<<<<<<

English is only my 3rd language and don't get me started on grammar, thus I might be interpreting it wrong a bit.
In my opinion --is worn-- means present tense and thus relates to the incidence in question and not any potential scenario. It doesn't say could be worn or may be worn or is intended to be worn.
If it is(!) worn for offense or defense it's illegal.
If it is only intended for offense or defense but not actually worn it seems to be fine, at least according to that quoted section.

Of course if it says somewhere else simple posession of something which could be worn for offense or defense is illegal than that would overrule this -is worn- part completely and maybe I misread that part anyways.


I don't know if the maker of a wedding ring could claim that he didn't design it to cause pain and suffering. Afterall it's common knowledge what happens if you wear one.

California penal code 16920 only provides a definition of "metal knuckles", and the lawmakers didn't see fit to define what "worn" actually means in the penal code. CA penal code 21810 explains the illegalities of "metal knuckles". I guarantee you that the mere possession of "metal knuckles" is in fact a crime under CA pc 21810 even if the "metal knuckles" are in no way upon your person. They don't even need to be in your pocket.

Say for example a person were stopped for speeding in their car. The cop walks up to give them a ticket and sees a set of brass knuckles sitting on the dash board. If the car is registered to the driver, then the driver can be arrested for "possession" of "metal knuckles" under 21810, even though the knuckles are in no way touching his body. And that driver could expect to be convicted.

And now I'd like to comment on the case of David V. mentioned earlier, because it is a scary case, and it offers a good learning tool on how the criminal justice system often works, and to show how even if you are eventually exonerated you can go through a lot of hell first before you come out the other side. I'd like to break down the case into what I consider to be significant points-

1. David V. was stopped by a cop for riding his bicycle without a helmet.

Now people often like to say "Cops have better things to do than hassle you over....". But in the case of David V. the cop clearly did not have better things to do. He actually stopped his car, AND got out of his car, over nothing more than a kid riding a bike without a helmet. Lesson there is- never underestimate a cops willingness to stop you over the most minor of violations (like jaywalking. I've seen it happen).

2. David V. was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail, for possessing a bicycle foot peg (carried in his pocket).

People often say "The cops don't care what knife you're carrying as long as you aren't committing a crime with it...". But David V. was arrested for nothing more than carrying a bicycle foot peg.

3. The DA's office chose to prosecute David V. for possessing a bicycle foot peg.

Prosecutors are in the business of convicting people, not setting them free. Convictions will advance a prosecutors career. Setting people free doesn't help a prosecutor at all.

4. The judge presiding over the case allowed the charge to stand, and for the case to proceed.

Don't count on a judge dropping your charges, no matter how ridiculous those charges are.

5. The judge presiding over the case CONVICTED David V. of possessing a deadly weapon under CA pc 21810 (bicycle foot peg). Juveniles don't get jury trials.

6. After reviewing the case, the California Court of Appeals upheld David V.'s conviction.

The California Court of Appeals sucks. So don't count on them overturning your conviction.

Truly scary. And all of that over a bicycle foot peg being carried in ones pocket while riding a bike. The kid wasn't even using the peg as a weapon, nor was anyone's blood found on the peg. He was just carrying it in his pocket.

Fortunately, the California Supreme Court has some very intelligent people sitting on the bench and they overturned David V.'s conviction. But I'm sure that took a long time, and a lot of money, and caused an incredible amount of stress and aggravation for David V. and his family.

Now it could be said that the case of David V. is an extreme case, or maybe it's not. No one can possibly know how many people fall victim to the criminal justice system in such a manner, or worse, and the general public never hears about it. I've seen and heard (and heard from my attorney) enough horror stories over the years to convince me that such injustices, or similar, occur frequently.

Some people might think that my point of view, and my advice are overly cautious or paranoid. But I know from personal firsthand experience how the criminal justice system can screw you over, screw up your life, and cause you a great deal of pain, suffering, and financial expense. So I say- follow the law to the letter as best you can. And when the law is vague, err on the side of STAYING OUT OF JAIL. You don't want to learn the hard way how unjust the justice system can be.

And of course, when in doubt about the law consult an attorney. Don't just believe anything people say on the internet.

Peace .

 

[Jens Schuetz]

California penal code 16920 only provides a definition of "metal knuckles", and the lawmakers didn't see fit to define what "worn" actually means. CA penal code 21810 explains the illegalities of "metal knuckles". I guarantee you that the mere possession of "metal knuckles" is in fact a crime under CA pc 21810 even if the "metal knuckle" are in no way upon your person. They don't even need to be in your pocket.

Say for example a person were stopped for speeding in their car. The cop walks up to give them a ticket and sees a set of brass knuckles sitting on the dash board. If the car is registered to the driver, then the driver can be arrested for "possession" of "metal knuckles" under 21810, even though the knuckles are in no way touching his body. And that driver could expect to be convicted.

I'd like to make a few comments on the case of David V. mentioned earlier, because it is a scary one, and it offers a good learning tool on how the criminal justice system often works, and to show how even if you are eventually exonerated you can go through a lot of hell first before you come out the other side. I'd like to break down the case into what I consider to be significant points-

1. David V. was stopped by a cop for riding his bicycle without a helmet.

Now people often like to say "Cops have better things to do than hassle you over....". But in the case of David V. the cop clearly did not have better things to do. He actually stopped his car, AND got out of his car, over nothing more than a kid riding a bike without a helmet. Lesson there is- never underestimate a cops willingness to stop you over the most minor of violations.

2. David V. was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail, for possession of a bicycle foot peg (not attached to the bike).

People often say "The cops don't care what knife you're carrying as long as you aren't doing anything illegal...". But David V. was arrested for carrying nothing more than a bicycle foot peg.

3. The DA's office allowed the charge against David V. to stand. Over nothing more than a bicycle foot peg.

Don't count on your charges to be dropped, no matter how ridiculous they are. Prosecutors are in the business of getting convictions, not letting people go free.

4. The judge presiding over the case convicted David V. of possessing a deadly weapon (bicycle foot peg). Juveniles don't get jury trials.

5. The California Court of Appeals upheld David V.'s conviction.

Truly scary. And all of that over a bicycle foot peg being carried in ones pocket while riding a bike. The kid wasn't even using the peg as a weapon, nor was anyone's blood found on the peg. He was just carrying it in his pocket.

Fortunately, the California Supreme Court has some very intelligent people sitting on the bench and they overturned David V.'s conviction. But I'm sure that took a long time, and a lot of money, and caused an incredible amount of stress and aggravation for David V. and his family.

Now it could be said that the case of David V. is an extreme case, or maybe it's not. No one can possibly know how many people fall victim to the criminal justice system in such a manner, or worse, and the general public never hears about it. I've seen and heard (and heard from my attorney) enough horror stories over the years to convince me that such injustices, or similar, occur frequently.

Some people might think that my point of view, and my advice are overly cautious or paranoid. But I know from personal firsthand experience how the criminal justice system can screw you over, screw up your life, and cause you a great deal of pain, suffering, and financial expense. So I say- follow the law to the letter as best you can. And when the law is vague, err on the side of STAYING OUT OF JAIL. You don't want to learn the hard way how unjust the justice system can be.

And of course, when in doubt about the law consult an attorney. Don't just believe anything people say on the internet.

Peace .

Thank you for sharing all this. That's very interesting. When I edited my previous post I deleted some things by mistake and couldn't reverse that on my phone and retyped it.
However the original text is still in your quote which is helpful.

I agree about the hellfire one might have to go through. It's a reason not to test the law even if one may be right technically.

 

[Charlie Mike]

I've carried various kerambit type folders for the past couple years. I know a handful of police officers that I get to talk weapons with. None have ever said anything about knuckles when playing with my kerambit. I am a convicted nonviolent felon. I will continue to carry my kerambit.

 

[killgar]

Not being knowledgeable in karambit techniques I was doing some research to see if I could find any form of definitive information regarding how a karambit is meant to be used. Although I found no "Holy Bible" of the karambit, I found several sources that said the following-

The ring, with a finger through it, is used for both retention and striking. In particular, in a reverse grip, with the index finger through the ring, a karambit makes a very effective striking/punching weapon.

A folding karambit with the blade closed and finger through the ring is often recommended as a striking weapon, both the blade pivot end, and the ring.

If it is common knowledge that the ring of a karambit, with a finger through it, is intended as a striking weapon, then I'm sure that any prosecutor could find such information for themselves. Especially with all of the law enforcement resources available to them (local police, FBI).

And I doubt that a prosecutor would have any difficulty finding an "expert" to take the stand at trial and say "Yes, the ring of a karambit is designed to be used as a striking weapon with the users finger through the ring".

Personally, that's not a position I would want to be in.

I also found some interesting California case law regarding "metal knuckles" and weapons in general-

In People v. Rubalcava, it was determined that a prosecutor does not have to prove that a defendant intended to use an item as a weapon. They only need to prove that the defendant intentionally and knowingly possessed the item, and that the defendant knew that it could be used as a weapon (like if the defendant said "I carry it for self-defense").

In People v. Jones, the defendant was arrested for possessing "metal knuckles" when police, conducting a search of his home, found a set of brass knuckles in a drawer (not on his person). Mr. Jones was convicted, and his conviction was upheld on appeal.

In People v. Gaitan, the defendant was arrested and charged with possession of "metal knuckles" when a cop saw that he was wearing a three-finger gold ring on his middle, ring, and pinky fingers. Although this ring was a piece of jewelry and not designed as a weapon, and although Mr. Gaitan had not used the ring as a weapon, he was convicted of possessing metal knuckles. Mr. Gaitan appealed, but his appeal was denied and his conviction upheld.

And these were just a few cases that I happened to stumble across.

It seems to me that California is not a place to get caught with any form of "ring" that might be perceived by cops, prosecutors, or judges, as weapons.

If a guy could be convicted of wearing a gold ring, I can only wonder what might happen to someone carrying a knife, specifically designed as a weapon, with a finger ring incorporated into it's design.

 

[killgar]

I've carried various kerambit type folders for the past couple years. I know a handful of police officers that I get to talk weapons with. None have ever said anything about knuckles when playing with my kerambit. I am a convicted nonviolent felon. I will continue to carry my kerambit.

I know a few cops personally. We are on friendly terms, so much so that if they knew I was breaking the law, and as long as I wasn't hurting anyone, they would not arrest me. But that's because they know I'm a "good guy".

But I would not expect such favorable treatment from every cop. Most cops don't know I'm a good guy. And not every cop is a cool cop. Some can be very uncool. And there are LOTS of cops out there.

I'm sure you know Charlie Mike, just as I do, that as a convicted felon, if you get arrested on a weapons charge the prosecutor is going to come down on you hard with both feet. More so than if you had no record. And prosecutors don't just look at past convictions when deciding what to do with a defendant, they also consider any crime that you might have ever been charged with, and any complaints made against you to the authorities.

Something else to consider is- if you are convicted of a weapons violation, when you get out of jail, one of the conditions of your probation will be that you will be forbidden to possess any knives your PO considers to be weapons. And that includes any knives you might be making.

It just seems to me that you have a lot to lose by gambling on whether or not any cop or prosecutor will regard a karambit as an illegal weapon described in CA pc 21810.

Far be it from me to tell anyone what they should or should not carry. All I do is share my opinions and whatever penal law information I know or find. Every person must make their own decisions. Just like every person must do their own time if they get convicted of a crime.

I wish you all the best Charlie Mike. And I hope that all of your encounters with the police will be positive ones .