New CA "Dirk or Dagger" Case

J

James Mattis

Joined
Oct 3, 1998
Messages
3,264
But see the even newer case below! - 1/5/99

The mystery deepens. I think if the Legislature makes a law that two sets of presumably sober judges can read on different ways, then the Legislature needs to go back and edit it to make its meaning clear.

I just added to my California knife law page, in my Dirk or Dagger section, the case of People v. Rubalcava.

In the case of People v. Oskins, earlier in 1999, a different appellate court said that the statute is now so broad that it must be up to the prosecution to prove unlawful intent, lest all sorts of innocent folks become felons - the essence of my rants on the subject over the last four years.

In this newest case, the court - different district - said that if the Legislature had meant to require proof of unlawful intent, it would have said so. The case involved a sharpened letter opener in the pocket of a not-so-solid citizen who was being arrested on a bench warrent and had some prior convictions for something or other.

So it goes. Will the CA Supreme Court decide what it really means? Will the Legislature? To be continued.


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


[This message has been edited by James Mattis (edited 01-05-2000).]
 
A tax client who is an attorney called me yesterday to alert me to this case. It's "good news for our side."

People v. Hyun, posted at the official California Judiciary Web page:
PDF format - http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G024340.PDF
MS Word format - http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G024340.DOC

I'll have it up on my page in .html in the near future.

A "dirk or dagger" which thou shalt not carry concealed upon thy person is a knife or other instrument, with or without a handguard, which is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon which may inflict great bodily injury or death. How about a guy carrying a triangular bayonet from an Evil Assault Rifle (SKS) under his leather jacket while jaywalking on a warm day?

Not necessarily, says the appellate court.

Read the case.

Basicically the reasoning goes like this:

If the law says that, the law is an ass.

The law is not an ass.

Therefore the law doesn't really say that.




------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001
 
excellent research Jim. I have made a copy of the opinion for our in house counsel to review.

I will also contact jan to include into the website.

good stuff!!

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


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top