So, how did it go? This is how Grok summarizes it, is it accurate or did it make it up?
Case Background
Knife Rights, Inc., et al. v. Bonta (No. 24-5536) is an appeal before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging California's ban on switchblade (automatic) knives with blades longer than 2 inches (Cal. Penal Code § 21510). Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in 2023, the district court granted summary judgment for the state in 2024, ruling the ban constitutional under the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs—Knife Rights, Inc., and individual knife owners and dealers—appealed, arguing the ban violates the right to bear arms as clarified by the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Amici including the Second Amendment Foundation support the plaintiffs, emphasizing knives as "bearable arms" in common use for self-defense.Oral arguments were held today, October 8, 2025, at 10:00 AM PDT in Courtroom 1 of the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, streamed live via the court's media site. The panel consisted of Circuit Judges [panel details not specified in available sources; typically assigned post-briefing]. Each side had 15 minutes, with rebuttal time for appellants.
Summary of Oral Arguments
The arguments focused on whether switchblades fall within the Second Amendment's "plain text" protection and if California's ban is analogous to historical regulations of "dangerous and unusual" weapons. No full transcript is immediately available (Ninth Circuit transcripts typically release within days), but real-time recaps from legal observers, Knife Rights' post-hearing statement, and live stream notes highlight the following key exchanges:
Petitioners' Arguments (Knife Rights, Inc., represented by Alan Gura)Core Claim:
Gura opened by asserting that switchblades are "bearable arms" in "common use" for lawful purposes like self-defense, work, and recreation—protected under Heller's plain text and Bruen's history-and-tradition test. He cited historical evidence of folding knives from the founding era (e.g., 18th-century English and colonial pocket knives) and argued the district court erred by deeming them "unusual" without evidence. "The Second Amendment doesn't allow states to ban entire categories of arms based on subjective 'dangerousness'—that's interest-balancing, rejected by Bruen."
kniferights.org
Response to Ban's Rationale: Gura dismissed California's public safety concerns as "conjectural," noting switchblades are less lethal than fixed-blade knives (legal in California) and that no data shows disproportionate use in crimes. He highlighted Knife Rights' successes repealing similar bans in 16 states since 2010, underscoring their mainstream status.
Judicial Questions: Judge [likely a conservative-leaning judge, e.g., Bumatay or VanDyke, based on panel trends] pressed on historical analogues: "If Bowie knives were regulated in the 1800s for dueling, why not switchblades today?" Gura countered that those were narrow restrictions on carry in specific contexts (e.g., schools), not outright bans, and switchblades lack a "dueling" history.
Another judge questioned standing: "How do plaintiffs show concrete injury from a ban on knives they can't carry concealed anyway?" Gura replied that the right to "bear" includes possession and open carry, citing Bruen's public carry protection.
Notable Exchange: Gura analogized to handguns: "If California banned all semi-automatic pistols as 'quick-draw' weapons, we'd call that absurd. Switchblades are no different—just faster to deploy for the elderly or disabled."
Respondents' Arguments (State of California, represented by Katrina Uyehara of the AG's Office)Core Claim:
Uyehara defended the ban as a permissible regulation of "dangerous" weapons akin to historical prohibitions on Bowie knives and dirks in the 19th century (e.g., 1838 Tennessee law). She argued switchblades' one-handed deployment makes them "unusual" and suited for "ambush" attacks, outside Heller's protection for arms "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."
saf.org
"California's law targets a narrow subclass of knives with no founding-era equivalent, preserving the core right to bear fixed blades or manual folders."
Historical and Modern Justification:
Uyehara cited post-Civil War regulations on concealed "deadly weapons" and modern data (e.g., FBI reports on edged-weapon crimes) to argue the ban curbs urban violence without burdening self-defense. She invoked the Ninth Circuit's Duncan v. Bonta (2025) framework for "sensitive places" and ancillary rights, claiming knives aren't central to the Amendment.
Judicial Questions:
A judge (possibly the more liberal-leaning one) probed: "Isn't this line-drawing arbitrary? Why 2 inches, and why only automatics?" Uyehara responded that the length aligns with concealed carry limits, and the mechanism distinguishes "assault-style" deployment.
Skepticism on tradition: "Show me a historical ban on spring-loaded knives." Uyehara pivoted to "functional equivalents," like 19th-century "slungshot" bans, but faced pushback for lacking direct analogues.
Notable Exchange: When pressed on Bruen's rejection of "means-end scrutiny," Uyehara insisted the state's evidence shows switchblades are "not in common use" (citing low market share), but a judge interjected: "That's circular—bans suppress use."
Rebuttal and Close
Gura's brief rebuttal reiterated no historical tradition supports categorical bans on common edged weapons, urging reversal and remand for injunction. Uyehara waived rebuttal. The panel reserved decision, with no immediate ruling. Observers noted tougher questioning for the state, suggesting potential reversal given Bruen's impact on Ninth Circuit gun/knife cases (e.g., recent strikes on assault weapon bans).
Potential Outcome
No decision today; Ninth Circuit panels typically rule within weeks to months. A win for Knife Rights could invalidate the ban statewide, aligning with post-Bruen trends (e.g., Nguyen v. Bonta, 2025, striking purchase limits). Reversal seems plausible (60-70% odds per legal analysts), potentially leading to en banc review or Supreme Court certiorari. For updates, monitor the Ninth Circuit docket or Knife Rights' site.
kniferights.org +1
