Laws of mathematics, not of men

[Sandy Sandfort]

Tim May wrote:

> I know of many arguments that a
> knife can be gotten into a fight
> and used effectively _faster_
> than a gun can, especially in
> very close quarters.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but why not carry both then?  A legal knife and a
illegal (misdemeanor) gun rather than just your illegal (felony) knife?

> The knife Sandy saw was not even
> concealed: it was a single-edged
> Cold Steel Safe-Keeper, in a belt
> sheath. _Some_ prosecutors might
> claim it was a "push knife," but:
>
> a) Push knives are not banned,
> even by California's bizarre laws.

Actually they were previously banned in California (at the time you were
carrying it) as dirks, or daggers.  Since then the legal definitions have
change and a push dagger, open worn is just dandy.  Which only goes to
support my point that one should know which laws one is obeying (or not).
Obviously, you have wised up on this issue because you are now quoting
chapter and verse:

> (A useful reference is
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jkmtsm/calaw.html,
> which also has links to the relevant
> California codes.)
>
> b) California changed its laws
> about concealment of knives to
> allow _far_ more deadly knives
> to be freely carried, even
> concealed...

> c) Even with the old laws, when
> was the last time there was a
> knife prosecution, as opposed to
> busting someone for unlicensed
> carry of a handgun? The latter
> outnumber the former by probably
> 1000-to-1...

Whoa, I'd like to see a citation on that one.  What really usually happens
in California is that the cops "confiscate" the gun and cut the detainee
loose.  Why?  Hey, a free gun is a free gun.  And they are particularly
useful to loan to guys you shoot who forgot to bring their own.  :'D

> ...even though carry of knives
> in various "concealed" ways...
> probably outnumbers concealed
> carry of handguns by a factor
> of 100-to-1. Do the math.

I did.  It only takes one.

> d) The encounter Sandy describes
> took place in a conference room
> inside Cygnus Support offices in
> an office complex. Last I checked,
> this was not public property, not
> even by today's liberal standards.

You didn't teleport there Tim; quit quibbling.

> e) Most cops would rather have
> people carrying concealed knives,
> a la folders, than wearing knives
> on their belts.

If you want to please the cops, then carry a concealed folder.  Perfectly
legal under most circumstances.  Remember, that's what I was arguing
about--knowing the laws you are obeying (or not).

> Now, would I carry a knife into
> one of the Del Torto Cypherpunks
> meetings held (foolishly) inside
> a San Francisco police training
> facility? No.

Good.  I'm glad to see you are now thinking about the legal issues that you
previously eschewed.

> But carrying a perfectly legal knife in a perfectly legal way (open
> carry, unconcealed) on private property, displaying no "intent" to
> use it illegally (*)...what does Sandy have to complain about?

Assuming facts not in evidence.  I am not, nor did I complain about your
carrying of an illegal (then) knife.  I tried to tell you that it could get
you into trouble--unnecessarily--when there were better options available.
Your full response was, "I don't care what the law says, I'll do what I
want."

Since you have apparently decided to care what the law says, I have no
current beef.  What annoyed me way back when was your militant ignorance.
If you are ready to put that aside and listen to what Unicorn and others
tell you about your potential legal exposure, more power to you.

> For Sandy to attempt to bring me
> to the attention of the cops
> remains despicable.

Tim, are you on crack or what?  Where do you come off suggesting that I have
brought you to the attention of the cops?  Check the archives of what you
have written and then tell me with a straight face that, but for my
reference to an incident years past, the cops would not have any attention
directed towards you.


 S a n d y