Are knives “Arms” under the Second Amendment? The Massachusetts Supreme Court just ruled that they are which is no surprise since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms. In the case of Commonwealth v. David E. Canjura the court held that the state’s law prohibiting carrying of “switchblade” knives is an unconstitutional violation of the right to keep and bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had argued that “knives categorically are not protected by the Second Amendment because the definition of arms is limited to firearms.” The court refuted that nonsense, stating that “… the Second Amendment extends to all bearable arms and is not limited to firearms”, referring back to Heller.
Interestingly, the Massachusetts Court pointed out that the law (and similar laws elsewhere) was passed in response to “sensationalized portrayals (in plays, films, etc.) of switchblades as weapons solely intended for criminality.” The court noted that the government did not provide evidence that “switchblades are…more likely to be used for criminal purposes”. But even had it done so, the Bruen decision (2022) by SCOTUS “expressly” prohibits weighing the right to keep and bear arms against any perceived public benefit of a law infringing upon that right. This is an exactly correct application of the Heller/Bruen methodology for deciding Second Amendment cases. I believe the outcome of this case strongly foreshadows forthcoming rulings on similar bans or restrictions on so-called “assault weapons”.
On The Other Hand…California
In contrast to the Massachusetts decision, a federal district court judge ruled last week that California’s ban on possession of switchblade knives is constitutional. In that case, the judge declared that those knives are not protected under the Second Amendment as they are “dangerous and unusual”. The ruling is quite obviously flawed in several respects. An article in the San Diego Tribune, makes clear that the fight is not over:
Doug Ritter, the CEO and founder of Knife Rights, an Arizona-based organization that’s the lead plaintiff in the case, called Simmons’ ruling “ludicrous and irrational” and promised to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
RKBA is a natural and fundamental right that is protected from government infringement by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Sixteen years after the full-throated recognition of those facts by the Supreme Court in Heller, the state of American jurisprudence is finally coming around to acceptance of that reality.
BRUEN is the gift that keeps on giving! You may have already seen IFC’s coverage about the ruling by the U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes out of Wichita that dismissed machine gun charges in US v Tamori Morgan. This is a monster case using Bruen, Rahimi, and nowMorgan, regarding the NFA. Our fellow BOD member and past Chairman Michael Ware covers it in a detailed video here.
Second Amendment to the US Constitution text on parchment paper
SCOTUS ruled in the Bruen Case that all courts are now required to follow the historical analog that use historical precedents from the time of our nation’s founding, and not some made-up needs balancing test. That’s exactly what Judge Broomes did in the Morgan. I’ll summarize it here directly from his ruling:
“Under the Second Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. “[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008). To keep arms means, simply, to possess arms. Id. at 583. If the plain text of the Second Amendment applies to a defendant’s conduct, the government has the burden to show that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical firearm regulation tradition. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). This standard requires a “historical analogue” between the modern regulation and historical regulations, not a “historical twin.” United States v. Rahimi,”
Judge Broomes concludes with this:
“To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation. Indeed, the government has barely tried to meet that burden. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the Bruen analysis is not merely a suggestion. In Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), the Tenth Circuit side-stepped the Bruen analysis in a challenge to the prohibition against felons possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), concluding that Bruen did not abrogate the Tenth Circuit’s prior decision, United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10 th Cir. 2009), which upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) in the face of a Second Amendment challenge.. Vincent, 80 F.4th at 1202.
Nevertheless, just last month the Supreme Court vacated Vincent and remanded it for further consideration in light of Rahimi. Vincent v. Garland, No. 23-683, 2024 WL 3259668 (U.S. July 2, 2024). The court interprets that as indicating that the Supreme Court means what it says: “The constitutionality of laws regulating the possession of firearms under the Second Amendment must be evaluated under the Bruen framework.”
REACTIONS
I love what Jeff Charles pointed out in his RedState.com column on August 24, 2024. This ruling set off the anti-gun dangerous quacks in an amazing fashion;
Janet Carter, senior director of issues and appeals at Everytown Law, a leading anti-gun organization, criticized Broomes’ decision, saying it is “appalling that the District Court would so brazenly put the deadly agenda of the gun lobby over the safety of Kansans.”
“Machine guns – guns capable of automatic firing – have been tightly regulated under federal law since the 1930s. The laws banning them are not only constitutional but crucial to public safety. These weapons of war, capable of causing irreparable harm to countless innocent people, have no place in our communities,” she added.
Of course, Ms. Carter could not explain a reasoned legal objection to the ruling, only an emotional response.
VOTE!
If you want to keep racking up these court victories we need to boot out the Obama/Biden/Harris regime. We as 2A advocates need to fight like hell this election season to ensure “Heels-Up” Harris and valor-stealing Walz do not get elected to the White House come November. Are you registered to vote?
Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today. Those small recurring monthly donations of $10, $25, or $100 make a huge difference in our ability to get the message of freedom out there.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Dave Funk Member, Board of Directors Iowa Firearms Coalition
After you’ve spent 2A Day advocating for the Second Amendment with IFC at the Iowa Capitol, you should buy a ticket to the IFC-PAC Supper with Jeff Struecker. This is a fundraiser for the IFC-PAC.
Join the Iowa Firearms Coalition for an engaging & personal evening, interacting with Major Jeff Struecker. Maj. Struecker is a retired US Army Ranger with 17 combat deployments & was portrayed in the movie Blackhawk Down, as well as a Chaplain and award-winning author. Don’t miss this unique chance to connect with a true Iowa hero while enjoying some delicious barbecue from SmokeyD’s and listening to live music from local artist Ben Puttmann.
Mike Mihalski of Sons of Liberty Gun Works? Who is he and why is he so likable? Refresh yourselves with the spirited conversation between Michael Ware of IFC and Mike Mihalski of Sons of Liberty Gun Works. GET OUT AND VOTE, by the way. TAKE OTHERS WITH YOU, by the way. Mike builds a really great AR15 and is wired right to boot! Tune in!
Last week the Supreme Court handed a big swing and a miss to the Biden/Garland (IN)Justice Department. In the case of the U.S. V Rahimi, the Garland DOJ took a terrible set of facts and tried to gut the Bruen decision, and Garland failed miserably.
“The terrible set of facts in Rahimi not [facially] 18 USC 922 G8 that says that you cannot touch a firearm, you cannot possess a firearm, if you are subject to a domestic violence restraining order while that restraining order is in effect. The Supreme Court has ruled and held that facially that law is constitutional because there are some instances where that law could beapplied consistent with the Second Amendment.”
A careful reading of the majority opinion shows 2A activists that we can challenge red flag laws, non-violent felons prohibitions, and those not under a domestic violence restraining order under due process claims. In the Rahimi case, Rahimi himself stipulated to his prohibitions, he had not litigated them.
The Buren methodology demands that the government show any restriction to 2A Rights must comply with the historical traditions known at the time of America’s Founding.
Further, an attempt by the Garland DOJ in its Ramihi arguments to infer that only “responsible citizens” have 2A Rights. But that position is an interest-balancing infringement, because who gets to determine what a “responsible citizen” is? You guessed it! It’s the same guys who have opened America’s borders, tracked your social media accounts, and propelled the FBI on Catholic faith practitioners and the parents who object at school board meetings to the radical left’s agenda.
Remember, those anti-gun dangerous quacks want as many people barred for life from having 2A rights.
History teaches us that sometimes in a war, you take a small battlefield loss to win the overall war. Unlike previous major cases that have set the stage on social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, we in the 2A defending community have not seen a major case like Roe that we have to overturn first. Even liberal SCOTUS Justices have affirmed that Bruen is the law of the land.
Undoubtedly Mark Smith is right. We are still winning and must keep fighting this war to ensure Americans do not ever have to submit to a monopoly on power by our governments. You can watch his video in its entirety on Rahimi here.
Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by donating to IFC-PAC today.
Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.
Sign up now for our e-mail alert list to stay plugged into what's going on with your 2A rights here in Iowa.
IFC will never sell, rent or share your personal information, including your e-mail address, with any third parties for any purposes without your express permission. IFC may share your personal information for the purpose of delivering our e-mail to you or as required by law.
Recent Comments