Knife Rights Sues California to End Unconstitutional “Switchblade” Ban

Critter

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Messages
1,755
[Post in General approved by Spark]

Knife Rights today filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s complete ban on common automatic knives 2-inches and greater that the State prohibits as illegal “switchblades.” Joining Knife Rights in the case are Knife Rights members James Miller, Garrison Ham, and Eliot Kaagan and knife retailer members North County Shooting Center and Poway Weapons and Gear. They are represented by attorney John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group.

Named as defendants are California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other government officials. The lawsuit, Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Click here to read the complaint.


In its complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the State’s ban is unconstitutional and said that “there can be no question that knives are “arms” protected under the plain text of the Second Amendment.…And indeed, the Supreme Court made clear in [NYSRPA v. Bruen] that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to acquire, possess, and carry arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes-inside and outside the home.” In fact, automatic knives that are banned in California are widely legally possessed in at least 43 of 50 states.

Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter said, “Under Supreme Court precedent, California’s ban on these common and constitutionally protected knives cannot pass muster and must be enjoined. Since 2010, Knife Rights has led the charge to restore the right to keep and bear these knives and successfully repealed civilian switchblade bans in 16 states. As the premier advocacy organization for the right to possess and carry knives, Knife Rights looks forward to striking down all unconstitutional knife bans throughout the United States.”

In its 2022 NYSRPA v. Bruen decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, applied against states and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” In 2021, Knife Rights filed an important amicus (friend of the court) brief in the Supreme Court that was cited in in the Bruen decision.

Attorney John Dillon said, “It’s time for California to accept reality and understand that it can no longer strip Californians of their right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by banning useful arms like automatic knives. The State’s ban has never prevented a crime, it has never saved a life, it has never helped anyone. All that it has done is prohibited peaceable people from their right to choose what they own and carry for self-defense and too often leads to unnecessary interactions with law enforcement, sometimes with tragic results.”

Please support Knife Rights’ lawsuit with a tax-deductible donation to the Knife Rights Foundation at: www.KnifeRights.org/donate (select Knife Rights Foundation)

BACKGROUND


Broadly, in NYSRPA v. Bruen the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment includes the right to be armed for self-defense at home and in public. This right can only be limited to the extent that there is a historical tradition of limitation in the period immediately prior to and around the time of the Constitution’s framing in the late 18th century up to the late 19th century. A few restrictions on knives of various sorts that are outliers from that time period do not count. Restrictions imposed later, including on switchblades in the 1950s, don’t count. Possession and carry of knives survives this constitutional test.

NYSRPA v. Bruen upheld restrictions on weapons such as machine guns that are deemed by the court to be both “dangerous and unusual.” A weapon that is either not “dangerous” or not “unusual” cannot be prohibited. Automatically opening (“switchblade”) knives and other knife designs and opening mechanisms are neither “unusual,” being legal and common in most places today, nor any more “dangerous” than other non-prohibited knives or weapons. Knife bans existent today do not pass constitutional muster after Bruen.

NYSRPA v. Bruen also emphasized emphatically from the court’s prior Second Amendment McDonald decision that “the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” Second Amendment decisions by courts must be made on the basis of strict scrutiny, just as with other rights. Intermediate scrutiny or “interest balancing” can no longer be used to decide Second Amendment cases. As such, the government can no longer defend knife bans because government doesn’t like a particular type of knife, for whatever irrational basis it comes up with.

Knife Rights (www.KnifeRights.org) is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 40 bills enacted repealing knife bans in 26 states and over 150 cities and towns since 2010.
 
i always kind of hate it when our side goes the "arms" are protected route. I like to think of autos as being very useful tools in everyday life. Calling them "arms" caves to the other side that wants to insist they are dangerous weapons no one should own.
 
i always kind of hate it when our side goes the "arms" are protected route. I like to think of autos as being very useful tools in everyday life. Calling them "arms" caves to the other side that wants to insist they are dangerous weapons no one should own.

Yeah but at the end of the day, I'll entertain most routes to freedom.

Since when is a government deciding what you can and can't have in your pocket consistent with freedom? While the spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is one of freedom and liberty, the text itself is limited. There is no general standard of freedom (or requirement to actually make sense). So tying it into a constitutionally protected right may be the only clear was to abolish a ludicrous state ban that absolutely violates the liberty of that state's residents (and totally fails to make anyone safer).
 
i always kind of hate it when our side goes the "arms" are protected route. I like to think of autos as being very useful tools in everyday life. Calling them "arms" caves to the other side that wants to insist they are dangerous weapons no one should own.

Thanks for sharing your concerns. That horse left the barn a millennia ago. Knives are one of the oldest weapons known to mankind, recognized in every state as a deadly weapon either in statute, court precedent, or when used as a deadly weapon. Moreover, after Bruen, this was inevitable. It was just a matter of time for this to end up in Federal court, and we'd rather lead than follow and end up hoping for good results.
 
As a 53 year resident of California I'm all in favor of any California knife law being repealed, but it's already legal to possess switchblades in California (the lawsuit implies that they are prohibited). It's only illegal to carry them on one's person, or have them in the driver or passenger area of a vehicle in a public place, sell them, transfer them, etc if the blade is 2" or longer (CA pc 21510) link- https://www.leginfo.legislature.ca....aySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21510.&lawCode=PEN

But again, I'm all in favor of any knife law being repealed. It would be nice if it were legal to carry a switchblade with a blade 2" or longer.

Personally though, I'd much rather have the legal right to carry a concealed fixed-blade. Not that I necessarily want to carry a concealed fixed-blade, but I'd like to carry a fixed-blade on my belt without having to worry about my jacket covering it.

Good luck in your suit. Although I wont get my hopes up, I've been surprised before. After all, they did repeal the prohibition on the possession of nunchucks here in California at the beginning of 2022, and even made it legal to carry them for self-defense.
 
Last edited:
As a 53 year resident of California I'm all in favor of any California knife law being repealed, but it's already legal to possess switchblades in California (the lawsuit implies that they are prohibited). It's only illegal to carry them on one's person, or have them in the driver or passenger area of a vehicle in a public place, sell them, transfer them, etc if the blade is 2" or longer (CA pc 21510) link- https://www.leginfo.legislature.ca....aySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21510.&lawCode=PEN

But again, I'm all in favor of any knife law being repealed. It would be nice if it were legal to carry a switchblade with a blade 2" or longer.

Personally though, I'd much rather have the legal right to carry a concealed fixed-blade. Not that I necessarily want to carry a concealed fixed-blade, but I'd like to carry a fixed-blade on my belt without having to worry about my jacket covering it.

Good luck in your suit. Although I wont get my hopes up, I've been surprised before. After all, they did repeal the prohibition on the possession of nunchucks here in California at the beginning of 2022, and even made it legal to carry them for self-defense.
With all respect, your interpretation of the law and that of a California Court of Appeal's interpretation are at odds, and it is the court's interpretation that counts. I refer you to the complaint and the cited case.
 
With all respect, your interpretation of the law and that of a California Court of Appeal's interpretation are at odds, and it is the court's interpretation that counts. I refer you to the complaint and the cited case.

Could you be more specific? Which part of my "interpretation" is wrong? According to my reading of the information on the Kniferights knife laws app, it indicates that the possession of switchblades is legal (green on the color coded chart below).

Are you referring to NYSRPA V Bruen? Because that appears to be a case challenging New York law, not a California law.

For my own education, and to correct what is widely believed by many, can you specifically cite what law, or what court decision in California prohibits the mere possession of switchblades? I'm not talking about carrying a switchblade, I'm talking specifically about mere possession (like having it in ones home).

California penal code 21590 refers to "unlawful possession" of a switchblade, but does not specify what that means. If there is a court decision that provides a more detailed definition of "unlawful possession", I'd very much like to read it. I will re-read your brief.

21590- https://www.leginfo.legislature.ca....aySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21590.&lawCode=PEN

EDIT: So I found the case, In People v SC 2009, a juvenile was arrested at a private residence and found to have a switchblade in his pocket (upon his person). CA pc 21510 specifically says "carries the knife upon the person", with no exception for being on private property. But since he had the knife on his person, that would be a direct violation of 21510.


A screen shot of the Kniferights law app regarding California (far right, red arrow points to automatics/switchblades).

tkDBt4n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thank you Doug!!!!

Question would this suit affect other Ca Penal Code sections such as 21310 PC the infamous dirk or dagger prohibition that has evolved into any fixed blade no matter how small and how much is covered is now a violation? Examples:

Mild mannered cattle ranchers carrying tools of the trade needed on a daily basis:

zI559mn.jpg


np7mQhr.jpg


Now possible felons because its getting late in the afternoon and cooling off:

huzvH0G.jpg


B5QRSrr.jpg


Same tools, needed for the same jobs:

nCzilv1.jpg


QIxIZzy.jpg


But sometimes it can be pretty darn cold and we still have work to do:

eNNOrdZ.jpg


It would seem to my non legally educated mind that this PC section would not stand the light of Bruen either
 
Are you referring to NYSRPA V Bruen? Because that appears to be a case challenging New York law, not a California law.
Doesn't matter.....It was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court that set a legal precedent which has far reaching implications, especially for the left wing agendas.....
Decisions handed down by the SCOTUS aren't restricted to the originating state. Roe v Wade for example was a challenge of Texas law, and it was the basis for striking down similar laws across the nation.
 
Doesn't matter.....It was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court that set a legal precedent which has far reaching implications, especially for the left wing agendas.....
Decisions handed down by the SCOTUS aren't restricted to the originating state. Roe v Wade for example was a challenge of Texas law, and it was the basis for striking down similar laws across the nation.

I'm specifically asking about what law or court case makes the mere possession of a switchblade illegal in California. Not the issue of the right to bear arms. I know that Supreme Court rulings apply to every state.
 
I'm specifically asking about what law or court case makes the mere possession of a switchblade illegal in California. Not the issue of the right to bear arms.
Reread my post. It was an answer to a specific question you asked about jurisdiction, ie California law vs NY law.
 
Could you be more specific? Which part of my "interpretation" is wrong? According to my reading of the information on the Kniferights knife laws app, it indicates that the possession of switchblades is legal (green on the color coded chart below).

Are you referring to NYSRPA V Bruen? Because that appears to be a case challenging New York law, not a California law.

For my own education, and to correct what is widely believed by many, can you specifically cite what law, or what court decision in California prohibits the mere possession of switchblades? I'm not talking about carrying a switchblade, I'm talking specifically about mere possession (like having it in ones home).

California penal code 21590 refers to "unlawful possession" of a switchblade, but does not specify what that means. If there is a court decision that provides a more detailed definition of "unlawful possession", I'd very much like to read it. I will re-read your brief.

21590- https://www.leginfo.legislature.ca....aySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21590.&lawCode=PEN

EDIT: So I found the case, In SC v SC 2009, a juvenile was arrested in a private residence and found to have a switchblade in his pocket (upon his person). CA pc 21510 specifically says "carries the knife upon the person", with no exception for being on private property. But since he had the knife on his person, that would be a direct violation of 21510.


A screen shot of the Kniferights law app regarding California (far right, red arrow points to automatics/switchblades).

tkDBt4n.jpg
Well, my version of the app an yours differ. See para 23 in the complaint. Goota go. early flight to TX tomorrow.
 
Reread my post. It was an answer to a specific question you asked about jurisdiction, ie California law vs NY law.


You misinterpreted my question. Reread my post (post #7, where I quoted Critter) I was specifically asking Critter which court case in California banned the possession of switchblades. He recommended that I read the case cited in the Kniferights suit, I was asking him if it was NYSRPA v Bruen, it was not, he was referring to People v SC (California 2009). That is the answer to the question I was asking Critter.

Speaking of which, here is a link to that case, People v SC (a juvenile case, so no name). I see no reference in that case to the mere possession of switchblades in ones home being illegal, it does however indicate that possessing a switchblade on ones person in ones own home is illegal, and on ones person is an important distinction as as there is a big difference between a knife in ones pocket, and say, a knife in a sock drawer . This is an interesting detail which makes it illegal for a person to carry a switchblade on their own property, but again, I see no mention of a blanket prohibition on mere possession.

In any event, if kniferights suit can make it legal to carry a switchblade on ones own property, or the private property of another, as someone who is directly affected by California knife laws I'm all in favor of it.

 
Last edited:
Well, my version of the app an yours differ. See para 23 in the complaint. Goota go. early flight to TX tomorrow.

I found the case, People v SC 2009, linked in my last post.

In any event, as a resident of California who owns, builds, and loves switchblades, I hope you prevail :) .
 
Last edited:
i always kind of hate it when our side goes the "arms" are protected route. I like to think of autos as being very useful tools in everyday life. Calling them "arms" caves to the other side that wants to insist they are dangerous weapons no one should own.

The right to bear “arms”—and only arms—is protected by the Second Amendment. If knives are not consider arms, then they’re not constitutionally protected. A state or federal legislature could conceivably ban forks tomorrow, because forks are not arms.

So characterizing knives as such in a legal challenge to a statute such as this one is actually really important. This point has been brought up by legal scholars in law review articles on the topic. One great article is called “Knives and the Second Amendment” if you’d like to read more.
 
K killgar You are absolutely correct. The California Penal code prohibits the carrying of a “switchblade” (a defined term) on one’s person, not mere possession or ownership (but see subsection (a) below regarding cars). The statute (the numbering of which has changed since that juvenile case) reads as follows:

Penal Code Section 21510.

Every person who does any of the following with a switchblade knife having a blade two or more inches in length is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(a) Possesses the knife in the passenger’s or driver’s area of any motor vehicle in any public place or place open to the public.

(b) Carries the knife upon the person.

(c) Sells, offers for sale, exposes for sale, loans, transfers, or gives the knife to any other person.

I think the complaint’s misconstrual of S.C. v. S.C. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1436 and suggestion that California (through statute, case law or otherwise) prohibits mere ownership of switchblades may cause problems later on down the road in the litigation.
 
Last edited:
The case cited: In re S.C. v. S.C., 179 Cal.App.4th 1436 (2009), involved a juvenile who had a "Switchblade" in his possession, on the porch of his house, which could be construed as a "Public place" however, that was not contested. Instead, under the old Penal Code section 653k, the Appelate Court ruled that the possession of a Switchblade in a private place, only applied to having possession of a switchblade in a vehicle, that was parked in a private place. It is a poorly written statute, and that's obvious, as their is no other case law defining the possession portion of 21510PC (which superceded 653k PC). For reference, the Calcrim Jury instructions for a trial involving 21510PC: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2500/2502/
 
Last edited:
More things to worry about there than knives.

How about the tent city on the sidewalks? Urine, Feces, used needles, drugs, on and on and on.

Never been to Cali and have no desire to see it
 
Back
Top