Gun Owners Radio host Michael Schwartz opened the conversation with a simple premise: Knife Rights v. Bonta is every bit a Second Amendment case as the gun lawsuits you’re used to hearing about.
He brought on attorney John Dillon to explain why a California switchblade ban isn’t just about knives – it’s about what counts as “arms” under the Constitution.
Their discussion made one thing clear. This case could redraw the map for everyday carry laws nationwide.
Schwartz framed the stakes. Dillon supplied the law and the receipts.
What California Bans – and Why It Matters
According to John Dillon, California law bans “switchblade” knives with blades of two inches or more.
He explains that the state’s definition is broad. It covers the classic push-button side-opener, out-the-front automatics, butterfly knives (as in the Hawaii Teter case), and gravity knives.
Possession, sale, transfer, and carry are all off-limits.
By contrast, manual folders and assisted openers remain legal. As Dillon puts it, the only difference is how the blade gets open – not what the blade does once it’s open.
That distinction is the heart of the fight.
Dillon calls the logic “absurd.” A knife only cuts when the blade is exposed. Whether a spring helps you open it doesn’t change what the tool is.
The Bruen/Heller Framework Meets a Pocket Knife
Dillon walks through the legal test after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Step one is textual. Does the Second Amendment cover the conduct? He cites Heller: an “arm” is any weapon of offense or defense that you can use to hurt or defend.
By that plain meaning, a knife is an arm. Keeping, bearing, and carrying it fit the text.
That should shift the burden to the state to show a historical tradition of similar regulation.
But, Dillon says, California tried to move the goalposts.
Instead of arguing history, the state told the panel that plaintiffs had to prove switchblades are commonly used in self-defense. Not commonly owned. Not commonly carried. Commonly used.
Schwartz pushed on that point. If a ban makes an item uncommon, how can the state demand proof of common self-defensive use?
Dillon agreed. It’s a paradox the law creates and then exploits.
History, Hysteria, and West Side Story
Dillon traces the switchblade panic to the 1958 Federal Switchblade Act, which restricted interstate commerce.
He says the frenzy started with a women’s magazine article that wildly overstated youth violence and knife crime. No credentials. No real data. But it went viral for its time.
Popular culture piled on. Think West Side Story – the image of knives as gang props spread faster than facts.
States, including California, followed with bans. Dillon characterizes it as policy born from moral panic, not measurable risk.
Schwartz jokes that the timeline feels like a law “six months after West Side Story.” The joke lands because the history lines up with Dillon’s research.
The State’s Theory Falls Apart Under Questions
Dillon says one Ninth Circuit panel judge pressed the state: where in the text does it say an arm must be used in self-defense to be protected?
He reports the state had no good answer.
Worse, Dillon says the state flip-flopped during argument over whether the ban even applies inside the home. At one point, they implied it didn’t.
Then they seemed to concede it did. The statute, as Dillon reads it, does ban home possession.
That muddiness matters. A total ban – home included – is far more sweeping under Heller/Bruen.
Schwartz also notes the panel draw: one Biden appointee and two Clinton appointees. He and Dillon admit they wish politics didn’t matter, but experience suggests it often does.
Even so, Dillon believes the state’s answers didn’t satisfy the framework.
Commonality: Numbers, Duration, and Ubiquity
Dillon says the plaintiffs over-proved commonality, even though the burden should rest on the state.
He cites production numbers: in the 1950s, two U.S. manufacturers were churning out 1.2 million switchblades per year.
He also cites breadth: by his count, at least 45 states allow some form of automatic knife today or historically – evidence of widespread acceptance.
Then there’s category commonality. Pocket knives are among the most widely owned tools in America. Switchblades are not a different kind of instrument; they’re a subset defined solely by opening mechanism.
Schwartz distills the core idea: if the difference is how you open the blade, not what the blade does or who carries it, the state can’t plausibly claim a unique danger.
Why the “Used in Self-Defense” Test Breaks Everything
Dillon spells out the slippery slope. If courts required proof that an arm is commonly used in defensive incidents to be protected, then many bolt-action rifles, lever guns, or single-action revolvers could fail that test.
They’re not commonly used in defensive shootings – yet they’re clearly protected.
Schwartz pushes that logic to the real world. You don’t have to stab someone to be “using” a knife for self-defense. Carrying it is part of the defensive use. The need may never arise—and that’s the point.
Dillon’s bottom line: the state’s test isn’t in the text, isn’t in the history, and if adopted, would hollow out the Second Amendment for broad categories of lawful arms.
What Happens Next
Schwartz asks about timeline. Dillon says the next step is waiting for the panel decision.
If the panel rules against them, Dillon expects an en banc request. In his experience post-Bruen, en banc review is commonly granted in Second Amendment cases.
If they win, the state could seek en banc, too. Either way, the Ninth Circuit likely gets the full-court look.
Schwartz thanks Dillon for “fighting the fight.” Dillon closes with calm confidence: the text, the history, the facts – they’re all there.
A Tool, Not a Trope
What struck me most is how switchblades carry myth baggage that ordinary folders do not.
The blade doesn’t get sharper because a spring helps it open. The user doesn’t become more dangerous because a button replaced a thumb stud.
If lethality depends on exposure and intent, the opening mechanism is cosmetic.
That matters for constitutional analysis. If the state can rebrand a subset of common tools as scary and then ban them, category bans become a template: outlaw a feature, redefine the object, declare victory.
Bruen was supposed to end that kind of interest-balancing by moving the fight to text and tradition. This case tests whether courts will stick to it.
How “Uncommon” Gets Manufactured
Dillon’s point about manufactured uncommonness lingers.
Ban an item for decades, then say, “See? No one uses it for self-defense.” That’s not evidence. That’s a loop.
The plaintiffs’ numbers – 1.2 million a year from just two companies in the 1950s – cut through that talking point. Add in today’s permissive laws in most states, and “unusual” starts looking like a policy choice, not a fact.
Courts should be wary of tests that reward the very bans they’re meant to review.
Schwartz and Dillon make a savvy observation. Knife litigation can avoid the reflexive bias that sometimes greets gun cases in certain courts.
But the constitutional rule is the same. Heller defines “arms.” Bruen sets the method. If a court is willing to apply that cleanly to a pocket knife, it will be harder to fudge when the item is a pistol or rifle.
That’s why Knife Rights v. Bonta may punch above its weight. A principled opinion here becomes a building block for the rest of the Second Amendment.
Michael Schwartz frames the issue plainly and keeps the focus on what’s changing: a knife case that could re-define “arms” for everyone who carries.
John Dillon details the law, the history, the hearing, and the state’s shifting theories. He explains why switchblades are arms, why the self-defense use filter fails, and why history and commonality favor protection.
Their combined message is consistent and clear. If the Second Amendment protects arms, and a switchblade is just a pocket knife with a spring, California’s ban can’t rest on headlines from 1958 or fears borrowed from a musical.
It has to rest on the Constitution.
Right now, it doesn’t.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
