Canid is a sad panda.

[canid]

Sorry or the rant, but I'm annoyed today as I was ordered by a certain large internet commerce site to stop selling my (slightly) popular design of bo-shuriken and had my listings pulled, citing CA PC section 22410, but plainly ignoring the definition. I understand their position and recognize their right to limit activities even if they are lawful, but I can't see the point in having policies in the first place if you can't apply them consistently or rationally. This is costing me grocery money because one well meaning lady can't read.

[Rick]

Actually, that's kinda weird. Maybe if you re-named the product for their site. They are not always consistent or deal with an even hand. Kinda depends on who you deal with I think. I've had some excellent support and some not so excellent. I think I'd relist it with a different name and see what happens. Maybe something generic like "throwing knife"?

[canid]

If I omitted the term bo-shuriken I don't think there would be any further issue, except that they have instructed me specifically not to sell this item, and while their determination was factually incorrect, I can't risk the standing of my account over the issue.

[Rick]

Well, I can't argue with that. They have page after page of throwing knives and some are eerily similar in design to the bo-shuriken. However, they don't have any listed by that name. That's why I thought it may just be a semantics issue.

[wilderness medic]

It sucks but are you surprised? I'm surprised you risked selling those here in the first place.

[canid]

There is no risk beyond the site not allowing me to continue doing so. The state was even uncharacteristically exact and specific in defining what is and isn't a shuriken under the penal code.

[LowKey]

You confused them with a word. They probably search every once in a while for prohibited items using a word. They probably didn't even look at the product.

[canid]

They did not when they pulled the listing, but they did when I got them on the phone.

[wilderness medic]

Looking up the penal code it looks like throwing knives aren't illegal here? Why won't anyone ship to CA? I can't find any laws regarding it, which makes sense....what makes a throwing knife different from any other knife, just the intent??

Otherwise they seem to have a pretty clear cut definition of shuriken, and bo shuriken do no fit that definition.

[canid]

for buying, selling and manufacture the only relevant to my knowledge are statutes are PC sects. 22410 (manufacturing, import, sale), 22490 (referring to sentencing) and for the scope of the whole part of the PC, 17200 (definition, which is limited to throwing stars having no handle, 3 or more points and one or more sharpened edges).

[wilderness medic]

That's pretty close to what I found. Since there isn't 3 points this would mean all bo shuriken (minus double edged daggers) are not illegal. As well as knives in the same fashion? Even the double ended tacticool "throwing spikes". Wonder why all those cheap 3 pack throwing knife sets are not sold and supposedly illegal here. It's just a small fixed blade knife blank...nothing illegal about that.

[canid]

It meas exactly that, yes. even a double ended thrower which has two points, even if it has a sharpened edge at both ends and might be argued to have no handle can not be a shuriken without a third point. a single ended bo-shuriken even if it had a sharpened edge has only one point, which can not be radially arranged and is almost the definition of a knife or throwing knife but can not be a shuriken even allowing for dispute over the definition of a handle.

It can easily be a dirk or dagger and can nob be carried concealed upon the person in a public place but is as legal to manufacture and sell as a butter knife or a lace doily.

[canid]

Of course this is a state where a jury concluded that an SAK with the non-locking blade opened met the definition for a dirk/dagger, and the 4th appellate had to overturn.

[wilderness medic]

Wtf...? Even a locking knife is still...a folder...not a fixed blade dirk/dagger...

[canid]

That's what the appellate told the court that convicted the gentleman when they overturned the jury ruling. You'd think it would have been as simple as being able to read plain english in the first place, but what can you do? I understand there may be room for interpratation where the law is written vaguely, but when it is not vague I am not the sort to feel that there is the least room for interpretation of legislative intent. Ok, I'm also not the sort to feel that a law should stand where it's wording is vague, but that's a separate matter.