Man arrested for knife.

[Mk-211]

Santa Clarita, CA.

Man arrested for possibly carrying a dirk or dagger. We'll have to see how this story plays out.

They're illegal to carry in CA.

Deputies: 43-year-old arrested after being seen with a knife

A 43-year-old Val Verde resident was arrested on suspicion of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger on his person on Thursday, according to Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff’s Station officials. According to Deputy Kabrina Borbon, a spokeswoman for the SCV Sheriff’s Station, at approximately 7:14...

signalscv.com

 

[Jim Watson]

Depends on the definition of “dirk or dagger” doesn’t it?

 

[Mk-211]

Yes, no pictures of the knife, yet. So just going by the story so far.

 

[shoobe01]

Statutory term. "Dirk or dagger" is an offensive (people killin') knife. /Usually/ a folding pocket knife is not one, but depends if scary, etc. Concealing them is a special subset of concealed-weapons stuff. As usual, all we have is the report. If police see your concealed weapon as they approach, how concealed is it? Could easily be an excuse to get an otherwise undesirable person hauled off.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=21310

CHAPTER 4. Dirk or Dagger [21310 - 21390]​

( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

21310. ​

Except as provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who carries concealed upon the person any dirk or dagger is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

 

[JohnKSa]

TX law used to have a provision making dirks and daggers illegal. Problem was the law contained no definition of either, leaving people to speculate what was and what wasn't. They solved the problem by eliminating the law.

 

[lemaymiami]

Something to bear in mind about every news story.. In my experience on the street in police work - the news articles about any event on the street -were rarely accurate at all. I don't mean they didn't get the names right - I mean with incidents I was involved in you wondered how they got what occurred so wrong that they might have been talking about a different event entirely...
Like most I would be interested in what the facts of the case were - and an accurate description of the knife involved...

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

TX law used to have a provision making dirks and daggers illegal. Problem was the law contained no definition of either, leaving people to speculate what was and what wasn't. They solved the problem by eliminating the law.

Wasn't there also something in the Texas knife laws that made carrying a Bowie knife illegal as well?
I remember reading that and thinking it was a bit ironic...

 

[danez71]

Law section

Definition link

 

[Coyote3855]

So about any fixed blade knife fits the legal definition. I agree news stories often misreport facts. If LE could see the knife, was it concealed? Be interesting to see how this plays out. If it's ever in the news again.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

TX law used to have a provision making dirks and daggers illegal. Problem was the law contained no definition of either, leaving people to speculate what was and what wasn't. They solved the problem by eliminating the law.

As well they should have, in my opinion as a citizen in a representative republic.

Crimes should largely be defined by actions. Not by objects.

 

[JohnKSa]

Wasn't there also something in the Texas knife laws that made carrying a Bowie knife illegal as well?
I remember reading that and thinking it was a bit ironic...

There was, and it was ironic in one sense. Again, there was no definition of Bowie knife in the law which made the prohibition very open ended.

Crimes should largely be defined by actions. Not by objects.

You can find historical statutes for some states. In the case of TX, the focus on weapons/objects seems to have come about after the civil war. The most obvious explanation is that they were intended to be enforced selectively to keep the freed slaves from carrying weapons. There used to be a historical quote from a FL state supreme court justice online that flat out stated as much, but the link no longer works--here's the quote.

...Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford's concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941), in which a conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned, because the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. ​

 

[Old Dog]

Must have been a slow news day in the Santa Clarita Valley. A misdemeanor arrest, really?

If LE could see the knife, was it concealed?

That was my first thought -- as well as what the reason for the deputies to initiate contact with the man. They were patrolling in their vehicle and spotted the knife?

 

[usaral63]

There was, and it was ironic in one sense. Again, there was no definition of Bowie knife in the law which made the prohibition very open ended.

You can find historical statutes for some states. In the case of TX, the focus on weapons/objects seems to have come about after the civil war. The most obvious explanation is that they were intended to be enforced selectively to keep the freed slaves from carrying weapons. There used to be a historical quote from a FL state supreme court justice online that flat out stated as much, but the link no longer works--here's the quote.

...Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford's concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941), in which a conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned, because the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:​

​

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. ​

'That is fact, and I held several licenses under the old Ch.790, but I'm white. Even after serving over thirty years as a LEO/CLEO I can honestly state that I am unaware of any black being licensed under the old law............tho in general if you weren't misbehaving you usually had nothing to worry about simply for having a pistol on you...... Incidentally that old law only prescribed mandatory licensing for pistols/revolvers and repeating rifles. Shotguns and single bbl rifles were good to go!

Post the 87 law and the revision prohibiting open carry no long gun is legal unless in a vehicle!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Must have been a slow news day in the Santa Clarita Valley. A misdemeanor arrest, really?


That was my first thought -- as well as what the reason for the deputies to initiate contact with the man. They were patrolling in their vehicle and spotted the knife?

Like so many concealed carriers whose gun you can spot, it is concealed, mostly, but not entirely. As for the initial contact, it was reported in the story as for the reason.