The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today ruled against a Hawaii state law banning the possession, manufacture, and sale in the state. Bloomberg Law reports the appeals court:
instructed the lower court to continue proceedings in compliance with its determination that butterfly knifes are protected by the Second Amendment.
A butterfly knife, whose blade is encased in a split handle that manually unfolds, is commonly owned for law-abiding purposes, Judge Carlos T. Bea said.
“Aside from these conclusory legislative statements, Hawaii has submitted no evidence that butterfly knives are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for self-defense,” Bea said.
State officials said the ban was analogous to statutes dating back to 1837, which regulated bladed weapons like Bowie knives, “Arkansas Toothpicks,” metal knuckles, sword-canes, and other weapons. But the panel disagreed, pointing out that Hawaii hadn’t cited any statute which “categorically banned the possession of any type of pocketknife.”
Hawaii first criminalized carrying a butterfly knife in 1993...
A few comments on the case:
First, any real respect for federalism would preclude federal courts ruling on state laws. The Second Amendment—like the Bill of Rights overall—was written to limit only federal restrictions on weapons. Federal judges should not be ruling on local laws about knives any more than federal judges should be ruling on local laws prohibiting abortion or “gender reassignment” surgery. Abolishing state laws against certain knives is a matter for state legislators. (This was indeed the case in 2017 when the Colorado Legislature legalized the possession of switchblades, overturning a 1963 law.)
Nevertheless, the federal appeals court makes at least two helpful observations. For one, the court is right that butterfly knives are pocket knives, and it’s silly to support the idea that nineteenth-century restrictions on swords ought to be applied to butterfly knives. Moreover, the court is right that the state of Hawaii presented no evidence that restricting butterfly knives has any discernable effect on criminal behavior or on public safety.
Indeed, it’s all just another case where legislators have violated property rights in the name of pandering to certain special interests.
Such violations are hardly limited to Hawaii, however. Here at mises.org we have covered similar bans in the past, and such bans have never had anything to do with any evidence or data showing the possession of switchblades, butterfly knives, or so-called “gravity knives” actually improve public safety or address any legitimate concerns about criminal activity. Bans on these knives—many of which date from the mid-twentieth century—are often just the result of various moral panics that took place in the 1950s and 1960s.
All the more absurd is the federal statute banning the use of switchblades. Violations of this act can bring thousands of dollars in fines and years in prison. The federal ban on switchblades clearly is a violation of the Second Amendment, and if federal judges are looking for ways to overturn bad laws controlling the use of knives, the federal Switchblade Act would be a great place to start.
READ MORE:
- “The Right to Own and Bear Switchblades“ by Ryan McMaken
- “The Consequences of Prohibition (of Knives)“ by Ryan McMaken
- “Rothbard: Gun Regulation Explained“ by Murray Rothbard
