The Ninth Circuit: “DON’T do it for Johnny!”
A few weeks ago I wrote an Outsiders-themed post about switchblade knives and the Second Amendment. In that case, the government filed a brief in the Fifth Circuit defending the constitutionality of the Federal Switchblade Act.
Well here’s another one.
Last week, in a different case involving a challenge to a California law that regulates switchblade knives, the Ninth Circuit upheld the law. No surprise really.
It is well-known by now that, under Bruen and Rahimi, courts must look for relevantly similar historical analogues to the modern law in question. The lower court in this case rejected the argument that Bowie knives were relevantly similar to switchblades because Bowie knives have a fixed blade, not an automatic one.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed with that reasoning, citing many historical laws that regulated a variety of knives (including one colorfully known as an ‘Arkansas toothpick’).
The court also cited a couple of nearly 200-year old cases that I make students read in my 2A class at William S. Boyd School of Law. I’m going to mention this to them in class on Monday, to reassure them that I’m not just a history buff but that these are still relevant to legal analysis today.
You can read the opinion here.
(And yes, I know that if you watch the “Do it for Johnny” scene closely, it isn’t a switchblade that Dallas is holding; it’s a butterfly knife. But I’ve written about them before too!)
Another tip o’ the hat to Stephen Gutowski and The Reload newsletter for flagging this case.