Does Section 12022.5(a) of the California Criminal Code apply to a defendant who, as a result of an assault, was carrying a knife?

Contrary to defendant's contentions, the logical necessity of distinguishing "use" from "arming" supplies no basis for imposing the kind of categorical extrastatutory limitations defendant proposes. The litmus test for the distinction is functional: did the defendant take some action with the gun in furtherance of the commission of the crime? If so the gun was "used," and the more severe penalty of section 12022.5(a) applies. If, on the other hand, the defendant engaged in no weapons-related conduct, or such conduct was incidental and unrelated to the offense, no "use" occurred, and only the lesser enhancement of section 12022(a) applies. (See People v. Elliott (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 984, 988, 139 Cal.Rptr. 205 [defendant carried knife in holster]; People v. James, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d 1155, 1163, 256 Cal.Rptr. 661 [defendant had knife, but no evidence that he did anything with it].)