As we previously noted, we were disappointed in Attorney General Pam Bondi’s final brief opposing our Federal Second Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Switchblade Act. I imagine that the DOJ and AG Bondi were celebrating the court’s decision in the case since the court seemed to lose sight of the Bruen decision and ignored its commands from the Supreme Court. Another court, another absurd stretch to avoid ruling in favor of the Second Amendment.
The animus of the judge towards us and the case can be found in his clearly grudging acceptance that most of the plaintiffs did have standing, at least in part; “Despite the Court’s inclination otherwise, the Court is bound by Umphress and, thus, must find that the Individual and Retail Plaintiffs have standing to challenge Section 1242.” So, that was at least a win.
However, the Court went off the rails, one of many such instances, by completely ignoring that one Plaintiff is a tribal member who was forced to give up his lawfully owned “switchblade” upon moving onto tribal land, saying no Plaintiff had standing to challenge Section 1243—the provision that bans possession on tribal and federal land. Few things in the lawsuit were clearer than that, except to the apparently purblind Court.
The most astonishing error in this opinion is the Court’s claim that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Second Amendment. The opinion acknowledges that knives are arms under the plain text of the Second Amendment. Yay! It also acknowledges that the Federal Switchblade Act imposes a complete ban on interstate commerce of switchblades. Yay!
Despite all of this, the Court dismissed the Second Amendment claim entirely. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to state a Second Amendment claim because, in its view, Section 1242 of the Federal Switchblade Act does not impose a de facto ban on possession or acquisition of switchblades. It reasoned that since switchblades are widely available through intrastate (within a state) commerce—and not banned entirely—Section 1242’s restriction on interstate commerce does not implicate the right to “keep and bear arms” under Bruen. To say that is a stretch is a massive understatement.
If that seems irrational to you, welcome to the club. When we started this lawsuit, in fact when we started down this Second Amendment litigation effort after Bruen, we always expected to end up on appeal with every case. That was always part of the plan. So, the fact we will end up on appeal with this idiotic decision is neither unexpected nor unplanned for, albeit disappointing.
You can read the entire absurd decision at: www.KnifeRights.org/FSA2_District_Court_Decision