Does the Law Against Carrying a Dirk or Dagger Violate My Constitutional Right to Bear Arms for Self Defense?
September 18, 2012 By Greg Hill & Associates
On September 28, 2010, a security guard removed Kenyatta Quinn Mitchell from the San Diego trolley because Mitchell did not have a ticket to ride the trolley. Another guard came to assist and noticed that Mitchell had a concealed knife sticking out from under his sweat shirt. The police were then summoned to the scene. They arrived and found Mitchell with an eleven inch knife.
Mitchell explained that he carried it for self-defense, but that he was on his way to go fishing. He said he also used it for fishing. He had no fishing gear whatsoever with him when arrested.
The case was filed and Mitchell represented himself. He was found guilty of violating the former Penal Code § 12020(a)(4), which prohibits the carrying of a concealed dirk or dragger. Section 12020(a)(4) has since been renumbered as section 21310. Mitchell was then sentenced to five years in prison. The original term was two years, but because he had a prior strike offense, the two years was doubled to four years. He also had a prison prior which added a year to the sentence.
Mitchell appealed his conviction, arguing that the statue prohibiting the carrying of a concealed dirk or dagger violated his constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.
The Fourth Appellate District, in People v. Kenyatta Quinn Mitchell (2012 DJDAR 11977), began its analysis by noting that because Mitchell failed to raise this issue at the trial court, he waived it on appeal. However, the appellate court decided to exercise its discretion to consider the issue as a pure matter of law. See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 cal. 4th 875, 880-881,887-888, fn. 7.
The appellate court noted that a dirk or dagger is defined by the statue at issue as a “knife capable of ready of use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.” It also noted that, “knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed” and thus, not illegal. The statue also has an exception for a “non switchable folding or pocket knife if the blade is not exposed or locked.”
The court then evaluated perhaps the leading U.S. Supreme Court case on the right to bear arms in self-defense. This is District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570, which characterized the right as not unlimited. Heller, at 626. It noted also that most laws prohibiting the “carrying of concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment.”
Turning next to the California statue at issue, the appellate court ruled that intermediate scrutiny was the proper level of analysis. Under this test, the court had to determine if the statute is unconstitutional for a “substantial portion of those persons to whom the statute applies.” To evaluate this, the court determined that the ban on concealed knives served an important government interest in preventing surprise attacks by people carrying such weapons as Mitchell clearly had.
Thus, the appellate ruled that the statute in question was constitutional and Mitchell’s appeal was denied. His conviction was consequently affirmed.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Greg Hill, Greg Hill and Associates
This short article was written by Greg Hill. He is an experienced criminal defense attorney in Torrance, California. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998). Greg Hill & Associates represents clients in Torrance, Long Beach and the surrounding areas in weapons offenses, as well as other crimes such as domestic violence, drug crimes, theft offenses, DUI and restraining orders, among other crimes.
Copyright Greg Hill & Associates
More information about Greg Hill & Associates
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
The case was filed and Mitchell represented himself. He was found guilty of violating the former Penal Code § 12020(a)(4), which prohibits the carrying of a concealed dirk or dragger. Section 12020(a)(4) has since been renumbered as section 21310. Mitchell was then sentenced to five years in prison. The original term was two years, but because he had a prior strike offense, the two years was doubled to four years. He also had a prison prior which added a year to the sentence.
Mitchell appealed his conviction, arguing that the statue prohibiting the carrying of a concealed dirk or dagger violated his constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.
The Fourth Appellate District, in People v. Kenyatta Quinn Mitchell (2012 DJDAR 11977), began its analysis by noting that because Mitchell failed to raise this issue at the trial court, he waived it on appeal. However, the appellate court decided to exercise its discretion to consider the issue as a pure matter of law. See In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 cal. 4th 875, 880-881,887-888, fn. 7.
The appellate court noted that a dirk or dagger is defined by the statue at issue as a “knife capable of ready of use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.” It also noted that, “knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed” and thus, not illegal. The statue also has an exception for a “non switchable folding or pocket knife if the blade is not exposed or locked.”
The court then evaluated perhaps the leading U.S. Supreme Court case on the right to bear arms in self-defense. This is District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570, which characterized the right as not unlimited. Heller, at 626. It noted also that most laws prohibiting the “carrying of concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment.”
Turning next to the California statue at issue, the appellate court ruled that intermediate scrutiny was the proper level of analysis. Under this test, the court had to determine if the statute is unconstitutional for a “substantial portion of those persons to whom the statute applies.” To evaluate this, the court determined that the ban on concealed knives served an important government interest in preventing surprise attacks by people carrying such weapons as Mitchell clearly had.
Thus, the appellate ruled that the statute in question was constitutional and Mitchell’s appeal was denied. His conviction was consequently affirmed.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Greg Hill, Greg Hill and Associates
This short article was written by Greg Hill. He is an experienced criminal defense attorney in Torrance, California. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998). Greg Hill & Associates represents clients in Torrance, Long Beach and the surrounding areas in weapons offenses, as well as other crimes such as domestic violence, drug crimes, theft offenses, DUI and restraining orders, among other crimes.
Copyright Greg Hill & Associates
More information about Greg Hill & Associates
View all articles published by Greg Hill & Associates
Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it is not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with an expert and/or lawyer. For specific technical or legal advice on the information provided and related topics, please contact the author.
