The California prohibition on the possession of switchblade knives has been challenged. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that law and petitioners are now seeking an en banc review.
Late 2025 the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta. Attorney John Dillon argued on behalf of the plaintiffs and a decision came from the court in January. On March 16, Knife Rights filed for an en banc review of the panel’s decision.
A previously reported, Dillon asserted that the court should side with the plaintiffs and stated that California’s prohibitions are unconstitutional.
“The record is clear, switchblades are unquestionably protected by the Second Amendment,” Dillon said last October. “The State entirely failed to present any evidence that switchblades are not in common use or that they are dangerous and unusual. We hope the Ninth Circuit will faithfully apply the proper standards demanded by the Supreme Court and rule in our favor.”
The panel he argued before disagreed with his assessment and upheld the lower court’s opinion on the matter. “The panel affirmed on different grounds the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the state of California in a facial Second Amendment challenge to California’s switchblade regulations brought by Knife Rights, Inc., various individuals who desire to keep and bear switchblades, and two retailers of bladed weapons, …” the opinion stated.
According to Knife Rights, “The petition argues that the panel disregarded binding U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent by transforming California’s categorical ban into a fabricated concealed-carry law, then deciding the case solely on that invented theory while ignoring the full scope of the challenged ban. It further failed to properly apply Heller and Bruen in its Second Amendment analysis.”
The filing accuses the court of rewriting law in order for it to be upheld. The observation states that via case law “a court may not ‘rewrite a … law to conform it to constitutional requirements.’”
Other flawed methodologies that the panel leaned on, according to the filing, include those in Heller where “dangerous and unusual” weapons may be banned and/or regulated. That method, which was paired with 19th Century regulations on concealed carry to serve as historic analogues, was an incorrect constitutional framework according to the petitioners.
It does not appear if the three-judge panel ever truly addressed whether or not California’s law implicates the Second Amendment and then further provided true analogues from the time of the founding. They just leaned on a strange juxtaposition of an irrelevant timeframe with irrelevant analogues.
“The Supreme Court held long ago, ‘It is the general rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below,’” the brief explains. “The panel’s opinion conflicts with this precedent because the panel’s ‘other reasons’ for affirming the district court’s decision were not raised below, nor fairly supported by the record; and the AG never argued or briefed the facial versus as-applied challenge reasoning resulting in its waiver.”
Whether or not Knife Rights and the individually named plaintiffs will be granted a panel rehearing and/or an en banc review, we’ll have to wait and see. However, what’s not controversial is the fact that knives — even switchblades — are bearable arms in common use and no such prohibitions exist in applicable analogues from the time of our founding.
For more information about the case and to follow what’s going on at Knife Rights, head over to their website: KnifeRights.org
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
