DOJ moves to defend federal knife ban

Attorney Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, opened his latest video with what he called “major breaking news”: the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief defending the federal law that bans or restricts automatic switchblades.

Mark’s immediate reaction wasn’t subtle. He said the brief is “full of errors,” and he sounded genuinely baffled that a DOJ led by Pam Bondi under President Donald Trump would choose to defend this kind of restriction the way it did.

He also framed this as more than a knife case. In Mark’s telling, it’s another example of the DOJ filing arguments that don’t sound consistent with the Second Amendment, at least on the surface.

And that’s where his video goes next: what’s actually going on, and why would the DOJ do this at all?

The Case In The Fifth Circuit And The Switchblade Law

Mark said the brief was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and he pointed viewers to the case name: Knife Rights, Inc. v. Pam Bondi.

In Mark’s summary, Knife Rights is challenging the federal restriction on the sale and possession of automatic switchblades. He described switchblades as “just knives,” with a mechanism that allows the blade to deploy quickly compared to other folding knives.

Mark also reminded viewers that the federal switchblade law was sold in the name of “public safety,” which is exactly the phrase he said the DOJ put front and center.

And to Mark, that opening move matters. He argued that leading with “we’re doing this to save lives” is the wrong way to argue a Second Amendment case, because it leans on emotion and social cost instead of the constitutional framework the Supreme Court has demanded.

He made a broader point that rings familiar to anyone who follows Bill of Rights cases: if “public safety” is the only measuring stick, you could justify wiping out all kinds of rights that make the government’s job harder.

Mark’s message was that the Constitution is supposed to be a set of roadblocks against that kind of thinking, not a list of suggestions that vanish when officials claim a crisis.

Mark’s Main Complaint: The Brief’s “Concealable Weapon” Logic

Mark said the strangest part of the DOJ’s argument is its repeated reliance on a claimed historical tradition of restricting concealed weapons.

He highlighted how the DOJ brief, as he read it, leans on the idea that legislatures historically had broad authority to prohibit concealed weapons, and then tries to apply that concept to automatic switchblades.

Mark’s problem is simple: he says that line of reasoning crashes into modern Supreme Court precedent.

He brought up District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and emphasized what he says is the central reality of that case: the Supreme Court said the government cannot ban handguns, even though handguns are highly concealable and commonly used in crimes.

Then Mark stacked two more cases on top of that. He pointed to McDonald, which applied the handgun protection against state and local governments, and Bruen, which he described as recognizing a right to carry firearms in public, including concealed carry.

In Mark’s view, you can’t honestly argue “concealable weapons can be banned” while those decisions remain the law of the land.

He quoted the DOJ brief’s language as especially wild on this point, including a claim that there is “no constitutional right” to “inherently concealed weapons,” and he treated it like a jaw-dropping statement to put in a Second Amendment brief.

Mark’s criticism wasn’t just that the DOJ might lose. He argued the methodology is wrong, because it treats concealability like a cheat code for prohibition.

If a principle doesn’t work for handguns – Mark’s example of the most obvious concealable weapon – he says it shouldn’t magically work for knives.

The 1958 “Juvenile Delinquency” Story And Mark’s Skepticism

Mark also spent time on the history section the DOJ leaned on.

He said the brief begins by describing the Federal Switchblade Act as enacted in 1958 after a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee studied juvenile delinquency and focused on switchblade use by juveniles.

Mark mocked how dated the framing felt, joking about snapping fingers like West Side Story when hearing “1958” and “juvenile delinquency” used as a modern constitutional anchor.

But his deeper criticism wasn’t just the age of the history. It was the sources.

Mark said the subcommittee “concluded” switchblades were often used by juveniles based on interactions with police chiefs, and he didn’t treat that as neutral expertise. He argued police chiefs are often political appointees or politically dependent figures, especially in large “deep blue” cities.

In Mark’s telling, that makes them predictable voices for restrictions, because they answer to political leadership that wants restrictions.

Even if someone thinks that’s overstated, his larger point lands: a “police chiefs told us so” narrative is not the same thing as the Supreme Court’s demanded test for restricting constitutional rights.

Mark kept circling back to a theme: you don’t balance away enumerated rights because officials claim a weapon is scary or misused.

Why Would A Trump DOJ Defend This?

This is where Mark shifted from outrage to diagnosis.

He said it’s hard to reconcile a DOJ that files strong pro-Second Amendment briefs in some places while defending federal restrictions in others. And he gave examples of what he considers “good” DOJ behavior, alongside this switchblade defense.

Mark pointed to the DOJ’s involvement in fights over AR-15 bans, naming cases and venues like Cheeseman out of New Jersey and Barnett out of Illinois.

He also mentioned the DOJ suing Washington, D.C. over a semi-automatic rifle ban, and he cited a fight with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office for slow-walking concealed carry permits.

Mark also referenced the DOJ supporting Second Amendment claimants in Wolford, which he called the Hawaii “vampire rule” case, and he said the DOJ has argued that suppressors and magazines can qualify as protected “arms.”

So why defend a federal switchblade ban at the same time?

Mark offered a strategic theory: the executive branch has a deep institutional habit of defending federal laws because of the president’s Article II duty to “take care” that laws are faithfully executed.

In Mark Smith’s view, it’s rare for the DOJ to fully flip and argue a federal statute is unconstitutional early in a case, and he described that kind of late-stage flip as a “Windsor” scenario.

Then Mark laid out what he thinks is the chess move.

He suggested the DOJ believes the current Supreme Court is more willing to strike outlier state gun laws than to strike federal gun laws outright, especially with what he called more “institutionalist” justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

So, Mark’s guess is the DOJ is choosing to defend federal laws in a technically compliant, not-too-aggressive way – enough to satisfy the tradition of defending statutes – while going after state restrictions “relentlessly” to build strong precedent.

Mark openly admitted he has no inside information. He described it as reading the “tea leaves” by watching patterns in what the DOJ fights hard for and what it defends with arguments he thinks “should not fly.”

My own reaction to Mark’s theory is that it’s plausible in a cold, institutional way, even if it’s frustrating. If the DOJ thinks it can rack up wins by crushing extreme state laws first, it may be trying to play the long game rather than risking a federal loss that creates ugly precedent.

But the danger is obvious too: if the DOJ normalizes weak defenses of rights at the federal level, those briefs don’t vanish into a drawer. Courts cite them, opponents copy them, and the “bad” reasoning can leak into the wider legal bloodstream.

What Mark Smith Wants Viewers To Take From This

Mark Smith ended with a tone that felt less like panic and more like a warning to stay sharp.

He doesn’t want people to pretend the DOJ brief makes sense. He insisted it doesn’t, especially where it tries to treat concealability as a reason to ban a weapon class while modern Second Amendment cases protect concealable firearms.

At the same time, he urged viewers to consider that DOJ lawyers may be trying to navigate competing priorities: defending federal statutes as an institution, while building strong Second Amendment precedent by targeting state laws first.

Whether you agree with Mark’s reading or not, his core message is that this switchblade brief matters because it shows what arguments the federal government is willing to put its name on.

And once the government starts saying “there’s no right to inherently concealed weapons” in one context, Mark’s worry is that the logic won’t stay neatly trapped inside a knife case.