Second Amendment fight moves beyond guns with Supreme Court poised for big ruling
Two federal court rulings have extended Second Amendment protections to switchblade knives and body armor, setting the stage for a major Supreme Court case on AR-15-style rifle bans.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal law restricting the interstate commerce of switchblade knives violated the Second Amendment, while a federal judge in the Western District of New York struck down New York's restrictions on personal body armor. Both courts determined that these items qualify as constitutionally protected 'arms.'
These twin rulings come as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, a case that could determine whether AR-15-style rifles qualify as 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment. The decisions have fueled optimism among gun-rights advocates ahead of this major showdown.
Legal Precedents
The recent rulings rely on two major Supreme Court decisions defining the scope of the Second Amendment: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Heller, the Court established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and that it protects weapons in lawful common use while acknowledging restrictions on 'dangerous and unusual' weapons.
Heller recognized that the term 'arms' encompasses both offensive weapons and defensive armor. The Bruen decision introduced a text-and-history test that courts now apply to Second Amendment cases, requiring governments to show that restrictions are consistent with the nation's historical tradition of arms regulation.
Once what you want to do is shown to come within the text of the Second Amendment, the presumption is that the regulation is unconstitutional.
Court Reasoning
The Fifth Circuit found that switchblades are commonly used 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment, citing their historical use for defense and everyday purposes. The court ruled that the government had failed to identify a sufficient historical tradition for the Federal Switchblade Act's specific restrictions on interstate commerce.
In the New York body armor case, the state argued that body armor was a tactical accessory to a firearm rather than an 'arm' protected by the Second Amendment. The judge rejected that argument, finding that body armor falls within the historical definition of arms recognized in Heller.
Broader Implications
National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown noted that a Supreme Court ruling against AR-15 bans could influence future legal challenges to restrictions on ammunition magazines, automatic knives, body armor and other defensive equipment. 'The interesting thing about both of these cases is they're both going to be really decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Viramontes decision,' Brown said.
The Viramontes case challenges Cook County's assault-weapons ban. The Seventh Circuit had concluded that AR-15-style rifles were comparable to machine guns and therefore fell outside the category of arms protected by the Second Amendment. George Lyon criticized this reasoning, saying the Seventh Circuit improperly treated AR-15s as comparable to machine guns.
Justin Davis, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, emphasized the broader legal fight over what qualifies as an 'arm' under the Second Amendment, pointing to litigation involving suppressors, ammunition magazines, stun guns, pepper spray and other self-defense equipment. 'The world evolves, but the core fundamental rights never change,' Davis said.
Related
