Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Originally Posted by ldmaster
Thanks for putting it so succinctly (It's the money stupid... basically). At the end of the day it's always about the money, safety second.
It really makes me want to kick someones as..... whoops don't want to assault anybody
IDMASTER; you sound like you take your seriously, and you put a lot of thought into what you do. Thanks for the hard work
SUA SPONTE
Can I put a link?
I did put a link... Do the legwork! But you did say thanks, so.....
Sec. 38-119. - Certain knives unlawful.
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, display, use, possess, carry or transport any knife or instrument having the appearance of a pocket knife, the blade of which can be opened by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle, or other mechanical contrivance.
(b)
Any such knife is hereby declared to be a dangerous or deadly weapon within the meaning of section 38-117.
(c)
In addition to any other penalty imposed by lawful authority, every person convicted of any violation of this section shall be required to forfeit any such knife to the city.
(Code 1950, § 845.3)
And then from the dictionary, the definition of "contrivance" - "a clever plan, or trick".
I am aware of one person who was convicted of carrying his kershaw blur, notice how this section doesn't have a maximum length requirement? This means that something as small as a chive can be unlawful. His total fine was 570 bucks. He said at trial he challenged the cop to prove it was a "mechanical contrivance" and the judge ruled that the simple demonstration of one finger opening the blade was enough, that the original intent was to cover knives that were meant to be opened with one hand.
Geez, I'm going to blather on here again... hold on...
In the not too recent past, I had a conversation with a cop working vice. He had arrested a known prostitute for prostitution again, but didn't actually have any offer of sex for money occur. He did it with a MUNCIPAL CODE definition of prostitution, that defines any "act in furtherance" to be unlawful. The act she committed? She was carrying condoms. That was all. He got his conviction. Folks, like in another thread where I didn't know anything about laws against shooting trees, DOESNT mean that there aren't any laws against that, as was pointed out to me chapter and verse. Police departments call this "using a tool" when they either get a law redefined by their city council to suit their needs, or creative in using the definition to gain an arrest. Municipal code has certain vagaries inherent in it. State law considers municipal code to be somewhat less than state criminal statutes (code), the rules of evidence are basically the same, but the rules of procedure in fighting a municipal code violation are quite curtailed from a defendants point of view. Because the state considers code violations to be, essentially, "not as serious" the strict rules of procedure are "abbreviated" (their wording) to help streamline the process of prosecuting someone for them, after all, it's not like they are being accused of a CRIME, just a "code violation". Except they forget that the "code violations" still get reported to the FBI and CBI and are TREATED as a criminal violation. Oh, and it's possible that your fine will exceed 1,000 - how? When you get charged with mulitiple crimes. Like you get angry at your friend, hit him then take his cellphone to find out what text messages he's sent to your girlfriend, while telling him to sit there and not move or you'd do it again. Let's see...
1. Assault - threatened to hit him
2. Battery - hit him
3. Theft - deprived him of property
4. Misuse of a telecommunications device to intercept a call/text that was not meant for you - obvious
5. False Imprisonment - told him to not get up
That's five separate 1,000 fines. Yippee!!!
Heck, you probably would confess to all that stuff right at the scene - goes something like this: "Yeah, I hit the jerk in the face, he was banging my girlfriend! See? I have the proof! I told him if he moved, I'd kick his ass again." I haven't seen this actually happen, but I do know that training is ongoing in "creative charging". Will some of them be dropped at court? Probably/maybe, the misuse probably and the theft maybe. But I've seen someone convicted of theft for taking their girlfriends cellphone out of her hand and refusing to give it back until the police arrived, so he could "prove" she had been unfaithful.
Folks, it is a dangerous and ugly world out there just to walk about it - and I'm not talking about criminals who would do you harm, either! It's why my advice to "get out of dodge" to people who defend themselves by displaying their weapon is given. So they do the "right thing" and call 911 to report the attempted mugging or assault, tell their side, and get arrested for doing so - even without the bad-guy/victim being present. You just CONFESSED to displaying your weapon in a manner meant to place someone in fear of their life, menacing. Why not "felony menacing"? Because THAT would put your charge in district court, and they like keeping the charges municipal because they're easier to prove AND the city attorney's that prosecute these things are not an independent agency like the district court is, they are beholden to the same folks (the city) for their jobs as you are - so it's sorta cozy, aint it!
You know the process concerning getting a record sealed after a certain amount of time? Works fine for CRS violations, but wait!!! A rule change last year made municipal code violations all but impossible to have sealed. This is according to a presiding judge that I asked the direct question of.
Welcome to Colorado, where's we're trying very very hard to be JUST LIKE Kalifornia!
Last edited by ldmaster; 01-12-2011 at 14:08.
Okay. I was really worried for a moment, but this does not appear to apply to thumbholes or thumbstuds, per se. However, an "assisted opening" coil spring mechanism which is NOT considered to be a switchblade may well be prohibited under this municipal ban.
This is why you keep your damned mouth shut. I love watching all the cop shows on TV and it amazes me every time what people will freely admit to LE. Many officers are very tricky, and well trained in verbal Judo to get people to fess up to things freely. ALWAYS watch what you way when you are talking to a LEO.
Here's my thought: a lot of times we (general public) are subjected to interpretation of the laws by LEOs, which may or may not be entirely accurate. My quoted exampled from Idmaster show that he "quotes" the statute as "flick of a finger" but when he posts the actual statute, it clearly says "flick of a button, pressure on the handle or other MECHANICAL contrivance." That represents a big difference in the construction of the knife. Take my CRKT SF-13 for example. It CAN be opened with the flick of a finger, because it has a lever on the blade, which allows it to be opened with the flick of your finger, or upon pulling it out from your pocket, much like the "wave" feature on Emerson knives.
Um, yeah? I would say most LEO's do know the law as it tends to bite them in the tail end if they would do an enforcement action and be wrong. If Idmaster were to enforce his interpretation of the law (mind you, my post also discussed this point ad nauseum) and it was to be found in court to be wrong, depending upon which agency he worked, the citation would be dismissed, a letter would be sent by the D.A. to his agency (dependent upon the D.A.'s office and their relationship with his agency) and he would be open to a complaint by the citizen and possible civil remedies from a lawsuit. An officer wouldn't be covered under governmental immunity if he was plain wrong and couldn't be covered under good faith.
That's one reason why the attorney general's office and most local D.A.'s offices conduct training with law enforcement on the new statutes, changes in statute and new non-funded mandates required by statute in order to keep the majority of law enforcement out of trouble. Most good agencies will enhance that training with training of their own on a monthly basis, discussing new case law, new trends, new tactics, new municipal ordinances, etc. Continuous training is necessary in law enforcement to keep up with all the ever changing statutes, case law, circumstances, and such.
“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
That's entirely true. And I for one, know that if I was confronted by LEO about a knife that can be opened by a flick of the finger, according to Idmaster, I wouldn't be in a position to challenge his stance, and I wouldn't try. He'd be quoting case law to me, and I would be none the wiser. It would be much simpler to me to just surrender my knife, pay the citation and be on with my life. He had it right on, but the only difference in his words that I saw were "flick of a finger" vs. "flick of a button", so I guess I was thinking through my fingers, and wondering if that would open up some ground in the case of a knife like mine.
So, hypothetically, if I was confronted and had my knife confiscated and I was cited because it could be opened with the flick of a finger, but if the statute says "flick of a button", would I be let off the hook, or would the case be thrown out? I wouldn't be interested in disputing what an officer said, especially during the confrontation itself, due to his having a badge and all. But it helps to know, especially if I carry it daily.
Realize I am writing this as a LEO, but I would comply with what the officer is doing and then argue in court. It is never a good idea to argue on the street with an officer; the officer will win. Bad things will happen.
I would research the statute that I was written a citation under and see if I was in the right or wrong. In this situation we are discussing, you would discover your knife was within the legal definition and thus, not illegal (barring the length of the blade isn't an issue by the definition).
I would then bring that argument to court with me and discuss the issue with the prosecutor and want a dismissal if I am in the right and a note or letter from the prosecutor to the law enforcement agency stating it was okay to release the knife back to me and that the case was dismissed due to whatever reason. If the knife wasn't illegal, then they should be willing to return it at the end of the case, but it probably will take the letter from the DA to get it back.
Then, if you want to push the issue, you can file a complaint against the officer with his department on the argument that he wrote an unlawful citation and provide the documentation you provided to the court and whatever letter or note you obtained from the DA, if any. He wouldn't get fired for something like this, but it would be in his permanent file and most likely, he would need to show an understanding of the issue to his sergeant or lieutenant so it wouldn't happen again. The disciplinary issues are not public documents, so you may not hear the resuls of it, depending upon the agency and how transparent they are. Some are very transparent and some are very closed. Most are in the middle.
If you really want to push the issue, you can sue, but your loss is minimal and it would be difficult to get an attorney to represent you in it.
“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
THanks! It was purely hypothetical. Blade length is a non issue at 3 1/4".
Especially in Denver.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote