seth
05-11-2001, 12:00 AM
I'm fortunate to have an experienced attorney as a lifelong friend. She is a deputy DA in a northern California jurisdiction. Together, we viewed Bram's tapes and talked over device enhanced self-defense. I won't go into heavy detail regarding the discussion, but there are a few interesting highlights:
The Black G is within the blade length restrictions of the major municipality of her district, which is three inches. Of course, many folders are not, yet they are legal per state code. The local police selectively enforce this ordinance, but it is on the books. Know the local knife laws in the jurisdiction in which you carry. More cities may adopt blade lenght limits unless citizens object.
She liked Bram's presentation regarding the G's escalation of force and armed defense. If she was a defense counsel in a civil case, defending legitimate use of an closed or opened Gunting, she would present the training materials and courses as evidence of the plantiff's responsible preparation. It would set well with the jury. She noted that in officer invovled lethal force cases, training methodology is a major focus. Attitudes and phases like "better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six" and "killing is the only option" draw greater scrutiny from the DA's office. In legitimate self-defense, the result maybe death, but that should not be the single goal of the defender. That single goal and "intent" can generate further interest from the DA. Self-defense cases where there is no lethal outcome and defense cases involving death are worlds apart in her office.
Her and her husband had a debate about the CRMIPT. He's also a lawyer (corporate type). He was arguing that since the CRMIPT had no edge, it was not a knife, and thus and no utility as a common tool. Moreover, it was designed solely as a impact weapon, and under state code could be classified as a dangerous weapon; restricted much like collapsible batons (a felony in Calif. for citizens). He did'nt like my training drone as well, but I think there's some personal stuff here.
She simply said, "My husband is a slimely, stuffed-shirt, cheese ball lawyer, who's never seen a real courtroom. But, his argument might hold water with some judges." I countered his argument with the "what-if concept" Rescue Gunting, with partial serrations, blunt tip and stamped "Rescue Tool". I got him there.
The point here is; Calif.(if not all) weapon laws are poorly written and wide-open to interpretation. Covening authorities will have varied intrepretations of both state codified and district policy laws.
Just some thoughts.
None of these comments constitute legal advice. - Written under recommendation of counsel...
"Everybody hates lawyers, with the possible exception of their own attorney."
The Black G is within the blade length restrictions of the major municipality of her district, which is three inches. Of course, many folders are not, yet they are legal per state code. The local police selectively enforce this ordinance, but it is on the books. Know the local knife laws in the jurisdiction in which you carry. More cities may adopt blade lenght limits unless citizens object.
She liked Bram's presentation regarding the G's escalation of force and armed defense. If she was a defense counsel in a civil case, defending legitimate use of an closed or opened Gunting, she would present the training materials and courses as evidence of the plantiff's responsible preparation. It would set well with the jury. She noted that in officer invovled lethal force cases, training methodology is a major focus. Attitudes and phases like "better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six" and "killing is the only option" draw greater scrutiny from the DA's office. In legitimate self-defense, the result maybe death, but that should not be the single goal of the defender. That single goal and "intent" can generate further interest from the DA. Self-defense cases where there is no lethal outcome and defense cases involving death are worlds apart in her office.
Her and her husband had a debate about the CRMIPT. He's also a lawyer (corporate type). He was arguing that since the CRMIPT had no edge, it was not a knife, and thus and no utility as a common tool. Moreover, it was designed solely as a impact weapon, and under state code could be classified as a dangerous weapon; restricted much like collapsible batons (a felony in Calif. for citizens). He did'nt like my training drone as well, but I think there's some personal stuff here.
She simply said, "My husband is a slimely, stuffed-shirt, cheese ball lawyer, who's never seen a real courtroom. But, his argument might hold water with some judges." I countered his argument with the "what-if concept" Rescue Gunting, with partial serrations, blunt tip and stamped "Rescue Tool". I got him there.
The point here is; Calif.(if not all) weapon laws are poorly written and wide-open to interpretation. Covening authorities will have varied intrepretations of both state codified and district policy laws.
Just some thoughts.
None of these comments constitute legal advice. - Written under recommendation of counsel...
"Everybody hates lawyers, with the possible exception of their own attorney."