In layman’s terms: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struggles with the Bruen analysis and ultimately upholds California’s ban on switchblade knives.
On Friday, January 30, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in a case challenging California’s ban on switchblades, upholding the lower circuit’s summary judgment in favor of the state in 2024.
“Our Nation’s historical tradition supports California’s prohibition against the concealed carry of switchblades…” concluded Judge Wardlaw, writing for the three-judge panel in the 31-page decision.
Knife Rights v. Bonta was brought on March 15, 2023 as a facial challenge to California’s ban on switchblade knives. Oral arguments in the appeal took place in October of last year, with the Pam Bondi Justice Department weighing in with a brief that argued that “automatic switchblades like those regulated by the Federal Switchblade Act are not entitled to Second Amendment protection,” guidance the appeals court seems to have taken to heart.
Although the decision would fail under an honest assessment of Supreme Court precedent, and the fact that the Second Amendment protects ALL arms, the decision was not unexpected.
The appeals court arrived at the same ultimate conclusion as the district court, but applied the Bruen analysis differently and claimed that many courts don’t understand how to properly apply Bruen, writing, “We simply join the growing chorus of courts acknowledging uncertainties in Bruen‘s methodological framework.”
As opposed to the district court’s ruling which concluded the challenge failed to pass the Bruen test at step one, and decided “the Court need not proceed to step two…,” the appeals court demurred: “We assume without deciding that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers Plaintiffs’ proposed course of conduct.”
Proceeding to step two, the appeals court held that switchblades are “relevantly similar” to historically regulated weapons like Bowie knives. Based on this logic, the panel concluded, “Our holding today is narrow: Plaintiffs’ facial challenge fails because they cannot establish that California’s switchblade regulations are unconstitutional in every one of their applications.”
