Knife Rights’ Second Amendment challenge to Minnesota’s unconstitutional switchblade ban took a significant step forward last Friday as the State faced intense scrutiny from the court during oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. From the outset, it was clear the court had serious concerns with Minnesota’s position.
Counsel for the State opened argument, but was immediately met with pointed questioning from the court, particularly regarding the State’s attempt to rewrite the Second Amendment’s “textual inquiry.” The State argued that, before a switchblade could even qualify as an “arm,” Plaintiffs must prove it is commonly used in self-defense, is not unusual, is suitable for self-defense, and is not uniquely dangerous.
The court was visibly skeptical.
The judge repeatedly pressed the State on how those requirements could possibly be part of a textual analysis. In one telling exchange, the court used so-called “Saturday night special” handguns as an example–cheap firearms that some might consider “unsuitable” for self-defense. Yet, as the court noted, no one could seriously argue that such a firearm is not an “arm” under the Second Amendment–“it’s a gun.”
That line of questioning cut to the core problem with Minnesota’s argument. It attempts to impose a series of extra-textual requirements that have no basis in Supreme Court precedent focused on the “plain text” of the Second Amendment.
After an extended and rigorous examination of the State’s textual theory, the court turned to Minnesota’s historical arguments. Once again, the State struggled to provide convincing answers. Its reliance on generalized claims about “dangerous” weapons and selective historical analogies appeared to do little to satisfy the court’s concerns under the framework established in Heller and Bruen.
In contrast, when it was Plaintiffs’ turn, Knife Rights’ counsel, John Dillon, presented a clear and focused explanation of the proper constitutional framework. He walked the court through the straightforward textual inquiry and the controlling historical analysis required by Supreme Court precedent.
In contrast to the aggressive and skeptical questioning directed at the State, the court’s tone seemed to shift. The court engaged with Plaintiffs’ argument in a measured and attentive manner, allowing counsel to fully explain why Minnesota’s categorical ban on commonly owned switchblades cannot stand.
Minnesota’s switchblade ban is among the the most extreme in the country, completely banning the possession of automatically opening knives outright in the state by anyone–even though such knives are widely owned and legal in the overwhelming majority of states.
It would appear that Minnesota faces an uphill battle defending a law that conflicts directly with the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. Having said that, we have been surprised before and until the Court hands down its decision we won’t know if our arguments carried the day.
Knife Rights remains committed to seeing these Second Amendment cases through to the end and continuing its fight to end unconstitutional knife bans nationwide.
The government is fighting back hard in all three of our Federal cases. Whether it’s $25, $250, $2,500, or whatever you can afford today, every dollar goes directly to the legal fight. Your contribution to the 501(c)(3) Knife Rights Foundation is tax-deductible. Please support our efforts to defend your Knife Rights Rights.
Since 2010 Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 58 bills & court decisions repealing knife bans & protecting knife owners in 36 states and over 200 cities and towns! Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™.