Switchblade Ban Case Could Become Next Big Second Amendment Battle

The next major Second Amendment fight in federal court may not center on pistols or rifles – it may hinge on a pocketknife. In Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta (No. 24-5536), a challenge to California’s decades-old ban on most switchblades, the Ninth Circuit asked outside groups to brief how the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test applies to “particular arms” and when courts should weigh whether those arms are in “common use” or are “dangerous and unusual.” 

A Knife Case That Could Redraw the 2A Map

According to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), which filed an amicus brief alongside the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), that invitation signals a potentially consequential ruling on how lower courts must treat knives – and other non-firearm arms – under Bruen’s framework. 

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) also weighed in with a separate amicus brief, emphasizing that switchblades qualify as “arms” at the Founding and that California lacks a historical tradition to support its ban. And from the grassroots vantage point, William of Copper Jacket TV told his audience this case is “huge,” precisely because it forces courts to apply the same constitutional rules to blades that they apply to guns.

What California Actually Bans

As NRA-ILA explains, California effectively criminalizes the possession, carry, and transfer of switchblade knives with blades two inches or longer. In practice, that sweeps in the familiar “auto” and “out-the-front” folders carried nationwide for lawful purposes – self-defense, utility, and work – distinguishing them from assisted-opening knives based largely on actuation, not lethality. The plaintiffs say that line is constitutionally irrelevant: if a tool is a “bearable arm” and commonly possessed for lawful purposes, it cannot be banned outright.

How This Case Reached the Ninth Circuit

William (Copper Jacket TV) reports the case was filed in March 2023. Both sides sought summary judgment. The district court granted judgment to the state, with the judge concluding switchblades are both “dangerous and unusual” and not in “common use for self-defense.” William criticized that framing as a misread of Supreme Court precedent, which speaks in terms of “lawful purposes (like self-defense),” not self-defense alone. After appeal, the Ninth Circuit asked for amici on how to apply Bruen’s test to the “common use” and “dangerous and unusual” inquiries – an unusual and important ask, in William’s telling, that has drawn filings from across the spectrum.

Why the Ninth Circuit Asked for Help

According to NRA-ILA, the court’s order seeks clarity on when to analyze “common use” and “dangerous and unusual” – under the plain-text step or at the historical-tradition step – and on how those concepts should be applied. That’s not a law-school nicety. If “common use” sits within the historical step, the burden remains squarely on the government to justify a modern ban with a well-established analogue. If courts instead treat it as a “threshold” filter, they risk flipping Bruen on its head, forcing citizens to prove an arm’s popularity before the state must show a tradition of regulation.

Inside the NRA-ILA/NSSF Brief

NRA-ILA says its brief makes six core points: (1) the Second Amendment’s text covers all bearable arms, which includes knives; (2) “common use” and “dangerous and unusual” are part of the historical analysis, not a pretext to dodge it; (3) “common use” includes all lawful purposes – not just self-defense; (4) the people, not the government, decide which arms are protected by choosing to acquire and carry them; (5) an arm need not be frequently used in documented defensive incidents to be “common” – ownership and lawful carriage count; and (6) the state may ban only arms that are both dangerous and unusual, a conjunctive standard many modern bans can’t meet. NRA-ILA further surveys Founding-era practice, arguing there is a robust tradition of knife possession and a conspicuous lack of historical knife prohibitions.

SAF’s Throughline: Text, History, and No Burden-Shifting

SAF’s press release underscores the same architecture. Joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Law Center, SAF’s amicus argues switchblades are plainly “arms” as the Founders used that term and that California’s ban cannot be justified by any historical analogue. SAF emphasizes that “common use” and “dangerous and unusual” belong within the historical step and warns against a “threshold inquiry” that would shift the burden away from the government. As SAF’s Kostas Moros put it, the question is whether there is a historical tradition of restricting such knives. SAF says there isn’t – and that widespread, lawful ownership today precludes an “unusual” label.

William’s View from the Grassroots

William notes that amici now supporting the challenge include groups such as NRA, NSSF, CRPA, and the Second Amendment Law Center, while national gun-control organizations back California. He also points out the Ninth Circuit’s changing composition and suggests a three-judge panel could be receptive to a straightforward Bruen analysis. His critique of the district court is memorable: by treating “self-defense” as the only lawful purpose, the court artificially shrank the “common use” inquiry and effectively erased work, utility, and other everyday reasons people carry knives. Whether you agree with his rhetoric, he’s right about the doctrinal stakes: Bruen centers burden on the government, not on citizens to tally their defensive brandishes.

What “Common Use” Really Means in Knife Cases

Here’s where the doctrine meets reality. The Supreme Court has never required a running count of defensive deployments to prove “common use.” If it did, quiet deterrence – the unreported moment a would-be aggressor chooses not to advance – would never count. NRA-ILA and SAF are aligned on a more sensible metric: lawful possession and carriage across the population. Switchblades are functionally close to other folders; their defining trait is automatic actuation, not an unusual wounding mechanism. If millions of ordinary people lawfully own analogous knives for daily tasks, it is hard to call the auto-actuation variant “unusual,” and even harder to sustain a categorical ban.

The “Dangerous and Unusual” Test Isn’t a Vibe Check

The Supreme Court’s formulation is conjunctive: dangerous and unusual. Almost every arm is “dangerous” when misused; that cannot be the whole test or the Second Amendment would be hollow. “Unusual” does the limiting work – capturing weapons that are both atypical among law-abiding citizens and closely associated with criminal misuse. NRA-ILA stresses that switchblades fail the “unusual” prong given their widespread lawful ownership and their close kinship to common folding knives. California’s argument tries to pivot on deployment speed. But “fast opening” does not equal “unusual” – and it certainly does not establish a Founding-era tradition of bans.

Historical Tradition: Knives at the Founding

On the historical record, NRA-ILA argues that knives were ubiquitous tools in colonial and Founding America – on belts, in pockets, on tables – and that broad possession went largely unregulated. The state will likely cite 19th-century Bowie-knife flare-ups and a smattering of concealed-carry restrictions. But those were typically about carry modes or specific locales – not categorical bans on ownership with the breadth of California’s statute. SAF makes the same point: Bruen demands durable analogues rooted close to 1791 (and, for state laws, 1868). A mid-to-late-19th-century outlier cannot bear the weight of a sweeping, modern prohibition.

What Happens If Plaintiffs Win?

A win would ripple well beyond California. Other states and localities with switchblade or “automatic knife” bans would face immediate pressure to repeal or defend them under the same test. More broadly, the Ninth Circuit would be clarifying that Bruen applies equally to “arms” beyond firearms – think knives, batons, and other bearable tools. That would curb the habit, seen in some lower-court opinions, of treating non-gun arms as second-class. Practically, it would also force legislatures to pivot from blanket product bans to conduct-based rules (e.g., sensitive places, misuse statutes) that are more defensible historically.

If California Prevails

If the state wins on the district court’s logic, expect more governments to argue that “common use” means “commonly used in documented self-defense,” shrinking the category to almost nothing and inviting a return to the two-step interest balancing Bruen rejected. You’d also likely see aggressive attempts to label disfavored items “dangerous and unusual” based on little more than unfamiliarity or aesthetics. That’s a playbook for renewed Supreme Court review – especially because, as SAF notes, Rahimi clarified the method, not a license to revive free-wheeling balancing. The High Court could feel compelled to police the doctrine again if the Ninth Circuit enshrines burden-shifting.

The Larger Pattern After Bruen and Rahimi

SAF explicitly frames this case as a fidelity test: will lower courts apply Bruen and Rahimi consistently to “all arms in common use,” or will they carve exceptions for unpopular tools? Rahimi upheld disarmament of specific dangerous individuals based on historical analogues; it did not bless broad product bans. The line is not “whatever the state finds scary,” but “what historical tradition actually supports.” NRA-ILA’s and SAF’s briefs both argue that knives, switchblades included, fall comfortably on the protected side of that line.

A Knife’s Edge: Why This Case Matters

Credit where due: NRA-ILA and NSSF have provided a structured map for the Ninth Circuit to follow; SAF, CRPA, and the Second Amendment Law Center have hammered home the text-and-history guardrails; and William at Copper Jacket TV has highlighted why this fight resonates with everyday carriers who use blades for work, utility, and peace-of-mind. My take: regardless of one’s politics, consistency matters. 

If the Second Amendment protects “all bearable arms” and courts must test modern laws against historical tradition, then switchblades deserve the same analysis as pistols or shotguns. The Ninth Circuit invited that conversation. Now it has to decide whether the constitutional rules are tools we only take out for certain cases – or the kit we always use.