San Diego federal judge rules California's switchblade ban is lawful

SAN DIEGO — A San Diego federal judge has ruled that California’s ban on knives that automatically open is lawful, and that the weapons more commonly known as switchblades are not protected by the Second Amendment because they’re dangerous, unusual and not commonly used for self-defense.

U.S. District Judge James Simmons Jr. made the ruling Friday in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the California statutes that have outlawed most switchblades since 1957. The judge granted the state’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ same motion.

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.

“To conclude that a knife is not an ‘arm’ under the Second Amendment is a little crazy,” Ritter told the Union-Tribune on Monday, arguing the judge used unprecedented and flawed legal reasoning in his decision. “It’s hard to make the argument that a switchblade, which is typically a pocket knife, is more dangerous than a dagger, machete or bowie knife — all of which are perfectly legal (to open carry) in California.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the named defendant in the case who is responsible for defending the state law, did not respond to a request for comment.

Attorney John Dillon, who is representing Knife Rights and the other plaintiffs, confirmed that he plans to appeal the ruling.

“The district court added conditional language into the Supreme Court’s textual analysis of the Second Amendment that is not there,” Dillon wrote in a statement. “In doing so, the Court came to the shocking conclusion that … switchblades are somehow not ‘arms.’ There is no question that knives are arms under the Second Amendment. And we will prove this obvious fact on appeal.”

California is one of the last states to still outlaw switchblades, which it defines as knives with blades 2 inches or longer that open automatically by the flick of a button, flip of the wrist, pressure on the handle or by gravity. The ban dates back some 65 years when they were viewed — thanks in large part to popular culture — as particularly dangerous and the weapon of choice for menacing street gangs.

Knife Rights and the other plaintiffs, which include three state residents and two San Diego County weapons retailers, filed their legal challenge in March 2023, arguing the Second Amendment should protect the right of Californians to own and carry switchblades.

In their 2,200-page motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs argued that switchblades are “undoubtedly … in common use and protected under the plain text of the Second Amendment.” They also argued that the most relevant U.S. Supreme Court case law “made clear … that the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire, possess, and carry arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes — inside and outside the home.”

Bonta’s office argued in turn that California should be able to continue outlawing such weapons “because Plaintiffs cannot show that switchblade knives with blades two inches or longer are commonly used for lawful self-defense, and such weapons are dangerous and unusual.”

Simmons agreed with the state on both of those critical legal issues.

“The weapons at issue are not commonly used for self-defense and are dangerous and unusual,” the judge wrote. “The weapons thus fall outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.”

Ritter, the Knife Rights chairman, disagreed, pointing to the millions of switchblades produced each year and the 46 states where such knives are legal to some degree. He also contended that Simmons did not conduct the proper legal analysis established by the Supreme Court in its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Under the Bruen analysis, judges must determine whether firearms and other weapons laws are “rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.” And states defending weapons restrictions “must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

But before arriving at the history and tradition portions of the analysis, Simmons ruled that switchblades are not in common use for self-defense, and thus he didn’t need to conduct the additional analysis. Simmons wrote that if he would have reached the part of the analysis dealing with the Second Amendment’s text, history and tradition, he would have sided with the plaintiffs because the state failed to provide evidence of any historically similar laws.

“The Court determined the State failed to justify their knife ban through analogous historical restrictions,” Dillon said. “As such, we are confident moving forward on appeal and look forward to the proper application of Supreme Court precedent.”

_____