Instead of a stocking filled with joy, Trump’s Department of Justice dumped lumps of coal in Knife Rights’ stocking with their disappointing response brief continuing their Biden-like anti-Second Amendment stance defending the unconstitutional Federal Switchblade Act. Despite the administration’s lukewarm Second Amendment support in some firearms cases, Trump’s DOJ still hasn’t got the memo that “shall not be infringed” means exactly that. This administration supports the Second Amendment with one hand but attempts to strip it with the other.
The DOJ under AG Bondi and the Civil Rights Division under Harmeet Dhillon exhibit all the signs of Multiple Personality Disorder. The administration wants the 2A community’s support and votes, but it is becoming increasingly clear that they are unwilling to follow up their claims of protecting the Second Amendment with consistent pro-2A action.
The government’s response consists largely of a historical justification under the Bruen standard centered around two claims. First, the tradition of prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons somehow justifies the vastly broader prohibitions of the FSA.
Second, that the ‘relevant historical materials reveal a tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.’ According to the Feds, the ‘defining feature’ of a switchblade is that the blade is concealed in the handle up until the moment that it is used.’ This “concealability” makes it ‘particularly susceptible to criminal misuse.’ Stop laughing! Yes, they really make that absurd claim.
Here’s where the DOJ’s arguments really start to wobble. In one part of its brief, the government effectively admits that the Federal Switchblade Act shuts down ordinary commerce in automatic knives: it argues that Section 1242 “generally prohibits” interstate sales altogether and even compares the statute to “a complete ban” on one of the most common ways people acquire these knives. Yet only pages away, the DOJ insists the FSA is not a ban at all – arguing that the law merely regulates the “configuration and mode of a switchblade’s opening” because you can still carry a fixed-blade knife or a manually opening folder. That’s like claiming the government hasn’t banned a book because you can still get other books.
For knife owners, collectors, and tradespeople, the practical reality is simple: if a knife you want to buy, sell, or carry is classified as a switchblade, federal law prohibits the normal, lawful pathways that Americans use every day to acquire such knives and imposes severe penalties for violating such unconstitutional prohibitions.
The DOJ then tries to argue away the challenge to Section 1243 on a baseless procedural technicality. Because Plaintiffs challenge the statute broadly, the government argues the case must fail if it can point to any circumstance where the switchblade ban might be constitutional. And what examples does the DOJ choose? Not the everyday places where people hike, camp, travel, and live under federal or tribal jurisdiction. Instead, the DOJ points to “sensitive places” like courthouses, military bases, prisons, aircraft, and embassies.
Of course, those locations have heightened security rules – but that doesn’t justify turning a common pocketknife into contraband across one-third of the United States. In plain terms, the DOJ’s position is: if the government can ban something in a specific location, it can ban it everywhere. That would let Congress outlaw almost any everyday item nationwide and then defend the law by pointing to the handful of places where extra restrictions already exist. Such an argument is untenable to say the least.
Whatever fantasy world the DOJ is living in, reality says otherwise. New York tried to justify extraordinary restrictions by citing historical concealed carry regulations, and the Supreme Court rejected those arguments in Bruen. There is no legitimate argument that narrow historical rules about how weapons were carried can justify a sweeping federal prohibition on commerce and possession of a class of common knives.
The DOJ also never explains how a folded automatic knife is meaningfully more “concealable” than any other folding knife. In contrast, Plaintiffs offered overwhelming evidence that automatic knives are folding pocket knives that are no more dangerous or concealable than any other folding knife, including non-automatic one-hand opening folders. And when confronted with Plaintiffs’ overwhelming evidence that switchblades are in common use (e.g., not both dangerous and unusual), the government, having no contradictory evidence, essentially asks the court to ignore the evidence. The government’s baseless claims are plainly ridiculous and meritless.
Plaintiff’s attorney John Dillon said, “It is genuinely absurd for the current administration to claim they support the Second Amendment while at the same time it argues in federal court that switchblades (a mere variation of a common pocket knife)–and a weapon the government admits are arms under the Second Amendment’s plain text–are not entitled to any protection under the Second Amendment. Any objective and proper application of the Heller/Bruen standard is determined in favor of Plaintiffs in this case.”
Plaintiff’s final reply brief will be due in January 2026. After that, oral argument will be held at a date still to be determined.
Our response brief will be due early next year. Our work is far from done. Your 2025 TAX-DEDUCTIBLE donation to the Knife Rights Foundation is very much needed to continue this fight for you and the next generation. Donate to the Foundation by midnight, December 31st for your 2025 deduction.
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™.