SAF Files Brief on California ‘Switchblade’ Ban Challenge

While we tend to talk about guns in relation to the Second Amendment, that’s not explicitly stated in the text. It’s not “the right to keep and bear guns,” but “the right to keep and bear arms.” At the time of the nation’s founding, the term “arms” included a lot of things, including artillery. It also included bladed weapons. Swords were still used on the battlefield, for example, and many people carried knives and tomahawks into Revolutionary War combat.

The Second Amendment was never intended to just protect guns.

And the Second Amendment Foundation recognizes that. They just filed an amicus brief in a challenge to California’s “switchblade” ban.

From a press release:

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting the plaintiffs-appellants in Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s ban on switchblades.

SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and Second Amendment Law Center. 

“The Ninth Circuit invited amicus briefs to address key questions about the application of Bruen’s framework to California’s switchblade ban,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Our brief explains that switchblades are plainly ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment’s text, as they fit the Founding-era definitions of that term. The ban must therefore be justified by a historical tradition of restricting such arms, which does not exist. California’s law unconstitutionally disarms law-abiding citizens of a common tool, and we hope the court upholds the right to keep and bear arms as the Supreme Court intended.”

The brief argues that the Second Amendment’s plain text covers all bearable arms, including switchblades, and that any restriction must align with historical tradition rather than a distorted “threshold inquiry” that shifts the burden away from the government. It emphasizes that “common use” and “dangerous and unusual” are part of the historical analysis, and highlights how switchblades’ widespread ownership for lawful purposes precludes them from being banned.

“This case is vital because it tests whether lower courts will faithfully apply Bruen and Rahimi to protect all arms in common use, including knives that millions of Americans rely on for self-defense and other lawful purposes,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

I’ve routinely used an automatic knife anytime I’ve had to cut something while also having one hand occupied, which happens more often than you might realize. I’ve never knifed anyone in my life, though, except for myself when I was being an idiot. That was educational, though.

While criminals might like the scary “switchblade” knives, simply because flicking one open can be intimidating to some, the reality is that criminals who regularly get their hands on firearms have even less difficulty getting around a knife ban. They’re unserialized, require no background check anywhere they’re legal, and there aren’t really issues with mailing one to someone.

The ban doesn’t stop criminals.

But, as noted earlier, they’re still arms under the Second Amendment. They’re useful for self-defense–a thug flipping his open tends to look at you differently when you flick yours open, after all–and they’re handy tools in everyday life. There’s literally no scenario where a properly functioning automatic knife is a hindrance.

And, as Kostas Moros notes in the press release, there’s simply no historical analog for such a ban.

My hope is that California recognizes this and abandons this folly. They won’t, but a guy can dream, can’t he?