Massachusetts Supreme Court Overturns Switchblade Knife Ban

Switchblade Ban Found Unconstitutional

On August 27, the Massachusetts Supreme Court invalidated the state's prohibition against carrying switchblade knives, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case was initiated by David Canjura, who was apprehended in 2020 following a domestic disagreement and charged with possessing a dangerous weapon in violation of the switchblade ban. Despite being aware that carrying the knife was illegal, Canjura moved to dismiss the charge, asserting that the ban infringed upon his Second Amendment right to bear arms. After a judge rejected his motion, the case was escalated to the state's supreme court.

Historical Precedents and the Second Amendment

In their ruling, the justices noted that Massachusetts officials failed to identify any historical bans on switchblades or their historical equivalent, pocketknives. This indicates that the ban does not pass muster under a test established in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. Justice Serge Georges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, writing for the unanimous court, stated, “The commonwealth has not met its burden of demonstrating a historical tradition justifying the regulation of switchblade knives.” The Second Amendment asserts, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The U.S. Supreme Court has also determined that the right to bear arms encompasses items such as stun guns. In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the justices clarified that “arms” refers to “weapons of offense, or armor of defense” and “any thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.”

Knives and the Second Amendment

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that knives are covered by the Second Amendment, referencing their historical use for defense in U.S. history. Justice Georges stated, “We conclude switchblades are ‘arms’ for Second Amendment purposes. Therefore, the carrying of switchblades is presumptively protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” Under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, government officials must demonstrate that a regulation that impacts the Second Amendment is in line with the nation's history of restrictions. Massachusetts officials cited three 1800s cases that upheld restrictions on certain types of knives, including a Tennessee ruling that upheld a prohibition on bowie knives. However, none of these cases involved pocketknives, which the justices identified as the closest historical analog to switchblades. The justices also disputed the assertion by Massachusetts lawyers that switchblades are both not commonly used in modern times and are dangerous and unusual. The justices inferred that switchblades are commonly used today based on the fact that only seven states ban them. They also found nothing “uniquely dangerous” about the knives.

Responses to the Ruling

As of the time of publication, prosecutors and Canjura's attorney had not responded to requests for comments.

Bottom Line

This ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court highlights the ongoing debate about the scope of the Second Amendment and what constitutes an "arm." It also raises questions about the historical precedents used to justify modern regulations. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you agree with the court's decision? Share this article with your friends and let them know your views. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.