The long-running fight over automatic knives in California hit another wall yesterday, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a San Diego federal judge’s 2024 ruling that the state’s decades-old switchblade ban does not violate the Second Amendment. The three-judge panel’s decision keeps the prohibition in place for now and marks a clear setback for Knife Rights and other challengers who argued the law is an unconstitutional restriction on common automatic pocketknives.
Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, writing for the panel and joined by Judges Ronald Gould and Lucy H. Koh, concluded that the plaintiffs’ facial challenge failed because they could not show the statute is unconstitutional in every application, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. The court also deliberately avoided deciding whether switchblades qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, and instead unanimously affirmed the lower court on narrow grounds rather than issuing a sweeping constitutional pronouncement.
How the court explained its decision
In explaining that restrained approach, the judges relied on a line of historical restrictions on concealed or particularly dangerous edged weapons, citing several 19th-century statutes as analogues that could justify California’s modern prohibition under the Supreme Court’s post-Bruen text-and-history test. That focus on historical comparisons, rather than any declaration that automatic knives are categorically unprotected, is a central reason the panel characterized its holding as limited. Courthouse News Service has more on how the opinion walks that line.
What the law actually bans
Under California law, a “switchblade” is defined as a pocketknife with a blade two inches or longer that can be released automatically by a button, pressure on the handle, a flip of the wrist, inertia, gravity, or any other mechanical device. The state bars carrying such knives on the person, possessing them in the passenger area of a vehicle in public, and selling or transferring them. The statute also excludes one-hand-opening knives with a detent or other resistance, a carve-out that means many assisted-opening utility folders are not treated as switchblades under Penal Code sections 17235 and 21510. Shouse Law explains the mechanics and penalties the statute covers.
Who sued and what’s next
Knife Rights, North County Shooting Center, and individual plaintiffs filed the federal lawsuit challenging California’s ban in 2023, and the appeal is docketed in the Ninth Circuit as No. 24-5536. Court filings and reporting show plaintiffs’ attorney John W. Dillon called the decision disappointing and said challengers will seek further judicial review, while the California Attorney General’s office has defended the law and said it will continue to vigorously defend what it describes as commonsense safety rules. See Justia and the San Diego Union-Tribune for reaction and next steps.
Why this matters in California and beyond
The ruling preserves California’s ban for the time being and means prosecutors can continue bringing misdemeanors under Penal Code section 21510 when conduct falls within the statute’s reach. At the same time, the broader fight over knives and the Second Amendment is far from over. Other courts have reached different conclusions, most notably the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which struck down that state’s switchblade prohibition in 2024. The resulting tension across jurisdictions keeps the issue alive for a possible Ninth Circuit rehearing en banc or eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court, and legal analysts say that split makes the controversy unlikely to disappear. For background and the Massachusetts decision’s reasoning, Shouse Law and the Boston Bar Association provide useful context.
Legal implications
The Ninth Circuit’s narrow approach means the panel did not settle the broader question of whether automatic knives are categorically protected “arms” under the Second Amendment, leaving that debate to future panels or higher review. Observers will be watching whether Knife Rights asks the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc or files a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, and whether other appeals courts choose to follow the Ninth’s reasoning in post-Bruen litigation. Courthouse News Service is tracking those procedural possibilities.
