It is the same with various companies selling "non-weapons" but with their logos or weapons-sounding names for these "non-weapons."
For example, with a self-defense cane it makes more sense to have a good cane that does not look like a weapon nor have a label telling everyone it is a weapon.
I remember a few people over the years selling coin pouches that were obviously intended to be used a saps.
With canes, there is a statute specifically prohibiting "leaded canes" (CA pc 16760, 22210, 22290), describing a cane "unnaturally weighted with lead". But I wouldn't be at all surprised if a prosecutor could get a judge to accept some other heavy metal besides lead, depending on the circumstances. More on canes below.
There is also a specific prohibition on "saps" (22290, 22210) I've seen those "coin saps", and I wouldn't want to get caught with one. Remember we're talking about cops, not aunt Martha, a cop is going to be able to recognize something designed as a weapon, they won't be fooled by the fact that it has coins in it. California law does not specifically define a "sap" or "blackjack" by it's internal contents, like shot, etc, so coins could just as easily qualify.
All such items (billy club, sap, blackjack, leaded cane, etc) are also on the list of "generally prohibited weapons" (CA pc 16590).
Here is a simplified breakdown of California law regarding impact weapons. It can get a little complicated because it involves not just the item itself, but also the circumstances, and the state of mind of the person possessing the item.
1. Any item specifically designed as a striking weapon is illegal to possess (with the exception of nunchucks, more on that below). How a prosecutor determines this will be based on how the item is designed, how it's marketed, and what the cops tell them.
2. An item with a legitimate purpose that is modified in a way that improves its effectiveness as a striking weapon MAY result in criminal charges, depending on the circumstances (where you are, what you are doing, is it in your car, on your person, are you carrying it, etc). Like a baseball bat cut down and the narrower end taped, or a cut down pool cue, etc.
3. Any random item capable of being used effectively as a striking weapon, or altered to make it more effective as a striking weapon MAY result in criminal charges depending on the circumstances (described above). Like a piece of pipe, metal rod, wooden pole, heavy stick, etc. Like with an improvised handle or a handle attached.
4. Being in possession of legitimate items (items not designed as weapons), MAY result in criminal charges based on the circumstances. Items for example, baseball bat, tire iron, crowbar, jack handle, wrench, etc.
And then we get into what is known as "mens rea", or "state of mind" of the person in possession of the item. And that goes like this-
5. If you ever say to a cop that you are carrying an item for use, or possible use as a striking weapon, you have just given that cop legal justification to arrest you. Like if you say you are carrying it for self-defense, or if you allude to self-defense. As far as striking weapons go (with the exception of nunchucks, more in a moment), the California courts do not recognize self-defense as a "legitimate" purpose for carrying a striking weapon.
6. If you were found in possession of ANY item capable of being used effectively as a striking weapon, either designed as a weapon, modified into a weapon, or an unmodified and totally legit item, at a political protest, or at a fight or riot, you might be charged based on your lack of a "legitimate" reason for possessing the item, and your possession of the item at a place where violence occurred or was reasonably likely to occur.
Basically, items designed, marketed, and widely recognized by law enforcement as striking weapons will get you into trouble. Carrying a striking weapon at the wrong place/wrong time/ acting suspiciously can get you into trouble, admitting to a cop that you are carrying/possessing the item as a weapon can get you into trouble.
On the other hand, merely being in possession of an item that can be used as a striking weapon should not be a problem, depending on the circumstances (place, time, what you're doing), what you say to the cops, and if you can provide a convincing, legitimate reason why you have it.
I've been asked in the past about items like fish bats and tire thumpers, which look a lot like "billy clubs", and everything I said above applies. But the reason such items are not illegal to possess in California is because they are sold (marketed) for a legitimate purpose by companies that typically sell related items.
Of course if you have one and it's "wrong place/wrong time/suspicious behavior/no clear legitimate reason", and/or you told a cop it was for self-defense or walking home at night, etc, you could be in trouble despite the item otherwise being legit.
And back to the subject of canes. The fact that a cane could be used as a striking weapon might only be a problem for a young and clearly able-bodied person (also, time/place/behavior applies). If a person has a legitimate reason to carry a cane, or it is reasonable to believe they have a legitimate reason, they should be fine, as long as they don't tell a cop that they are also carrying it as a weapon, or would use it as one.
Now as far as nunchucks go in California, they used to be illegal to possess, import, sell, etc, but in 2021 California passed a bill repealing that prohibition (California senate bill 827), and the bill actually says that people shall have the right to do those things, including carry nunchucks on their person specifically for self-defense. There are some restrictions, like felons cannot have them, and more, but I don't remember off the top of my head. Once the bill was passed the penal code was rewritten to specifically exclude nunchucks, and they were taken off the "prohibited weapons" list. Here's an example-
https://www.leginfo.legislature.ca....aySection.xhtml?sectionNum=22296.&lawCode=PEN
Well, I tried to cover the topic as thoroughly as I can before going to bed
. I hope I didn't make it too complicated. Let me make it clear that I am not a lawyer, I don't claim to be, but I have done a lot of research on the "billy club" laws of California, including researching several case laws.
