Surprising Rulings Shake Up Legal Battle Over Switchblade Rights in the U.S.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules switchblades are protected under the Second Amendment, overturning a 1957 state ban.

At a Glance

Massachusetts’ highest court declares switchblades are protected by the Second Amendment
Ruling overturns part of a 1957 state law banning certain switchblades
Decision influenced by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Second Amendment rights
Court finds switchblades are in “common use” and not “dangerous and unusual”

Massachusetts Court Upholds Second Amendment Protection for Switchblades

In a landmark decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has ruled that possession of switchblades is protected under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This ruling overturns part of a 1957 state statute that prohibited the possession of certain switchblades, marking a significant shift in the interpretation of weapon ownership rights in the state.

The case centered around David E. Canjura, who was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon after police found a switchblade on his person. Canjura argued that the switchblade ban violated his Second Amendment rights, asserting that switchblades are a type of folding pocketknife used for self-defense. The court agreed, reversing the denial of Canjura’s motion to dismiss the charges against him.

Switchblades are protected by Second Amendment, top Massachusetts court rules. https://t.co/FUiVnwqVgO #SecondAmendment

— ABA Journal (@ABAJournal) August 29, 2024

Influence of Recent Supreme Court Decisions

The SJC’s decision was heavily influenced by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, particularly the 2022 Bruen opinion and the 2008 Heller decision. These rulings emphasized the right to self-defense and extended Second Amendment protections beyond firearms. The Massachusetts court referenced these decisions in its reasoning, noting that the Second Amendment extends to all bearable arms, not just guns.

The court found that folding pocketknives, including switchblades, fit within historical definitions of “arms” and were commonly used for lawful purposes at the time of the nation’s founding. This historical context played a crucial role in the court’s decision, as it aligned with the framework set by the Bruen ruling, which requires states to show that weapon regulations are consistent with historical arms regulation.

Rejection of State’s Arguments

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts argued that knives are not protected by the Second Amendment, a stance the court firmly rejected. The state failed to prove a historical tradition justifying the prohibition of switchblades, with the court dismissing arguments based on 1950s and 1960s switchblade bans as insufficient historical evidence.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that general dangerousness is irrelevant if the weapon is commonly used for self-defense. It found no evidence that switchblades are uniquely dangerous compared to manual folding pocketknives, concluding that they are in “common use” today and are not “dangerous and unusual” weapons outside Second Amendment protection.

Implications and Scope of the Ruling

While the ruling is specific to Massachusetts, it highlights the ongoing national debate over the boundaries of constitutional rights relating to weapon ownership and regulation. The court noted that only seven states and Washington, D.C. completely ban switchblades, suggesting a broader acceptance of these tools across the country.

It’s important to note that the court left the rest of the statute intact, only severing the problematic aspects related to switchblades. This nuanced approach demonstrates the court’s attempt to balance public safety concerns with constitutional rights.

As this ruling aligns Massachusetts law more closely with recent federal interpretations of the Second Amendment, it may influence similar cases in other jurisdictions. However, the debate over the extent of Second Amendment protections for various types of weapons is likely to continue, potentially leading to further legal challenges and clarifications in the future.