The Third Circuit ruled New Jersey's "assault firearm" and high-capacity magazine bans violate the Second Amendment. Knife Rights filed supplemental briefs in its Federal Switchblade Act and Minnesota switchblade ban challenges, citing the decision's support for their arguments that commonly-used arms deserve constitutional protection.
Knife Rights filed Notices of Supplemental Authority in three federal lawsuits challenging California's switchblade ban, Minnesota's switchblade ban, and the Federal Switchblade Act. Recent Supreme Court decisions in United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez, along with the Fifth Circuit's ruling in United States v. Comeaux, support Knife Rights' position that knives are protected arms under the Second Amendment's plain text.
Final briefs have been filed in a Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Minnesota's switchblade ban. Knife Rights argues the state failed to meet its burden under Supreme Court precedent, while defendants restated previous arguments. A hearing is scheduled before Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on April 24th at the United States District Court in Minneapolis.
Knife Rights' Second Amendment challenge to Minnesota's switchblade ban advanced at a summary judgment hearing where the court expressed skepticism of the State's arguments. Knife Rights' counsel John Dillon presented a focused constitutional framework, while the State struggled to justify its categorical ban on commonly owned switchblades that are legal in most states.
California filed opposition to Knife Rights' petition for rehearing en banc regarding a switchblade ban case. The state relied on procedural arguments rather than defending the law's merits under Second Amendment precedent established in Heller and Bruen, according to Knife Rights' analysis of the response.
Knife Rights presented oral arguments before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Federal Switchblade Act's constitutionality. The judges expressed skepticism of the government's expansive regulatory authority while questioning plaintiffs' standing, though the government conceded plaintiffs have standing and reserves enforcement rights. Daniel L. Schmutter and John Dillon represented Knife Rights in the case.
Knife Rights and fellow plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Minnesota's motion, challenging Attorney General Ellison's defense of the state's switchblade ban. The organization argues Minnesota is creating an imaginary statute that violates Second Amendment protections established in Heller and Bruen.
Knife Rights and fellow appellants filed a petition for rehearing En Banc challenging the Ninth Circuit Panel's decision on California's switchblade ban. The petition argues the panel disregarded Supreme Court precedent and failed to properly apply Heller and Bruen in its Second Amendment analysis.
Knife Rights' appeal of the District Court's decision challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Switchblade Act will have oral arguments on April 1st at 1:00 PM CDT at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Live audio will be available and archived on the 5th Circuit's Oral Argument Recordings Page.
The Ninth Circuit panel ruled against Knife Rights in their appeal challenging California's ban on switchblade knives with blades 2 inches or greater on Second Amendment grounds. Knife Rights argues the court rewrote the law to uphold an unconstitutional statute and is evaluating further review options.
Knife Rights filed an Appellants' Reply Brief challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Switchblade Act under the Second Amendment. The organization argues the DOJ's defense fails under Heller and Bruen precedents, contending switchblades are commonly used arms deserving constitutional protection and that historical analogues do not justify the broad federal ban.