Hey, there! Log in / Register

Second Amendment gives you the right to walk around in public with a switchblade, court rules

The Supreme Judicial Court today thew out a state law barring people from going out in public with a switchblade, concluding the knives are "arms" under the Second Amendment and that means people can legally pack them for self protection.

The ruling reverses the conviction of a man nabbed by Boston Police threatening his girlfriend with a switchblade - "an orange firearm-shaped knife with a spring-assisted blade" - on Temple Place in Downtown Crossing on July 3, 2020.

Suffolk County prosecutors had originally charged David Canjura with both possession of an illegal weapon and with domestic assault and battery, but dropped the domestic-violence charge when he agreed to plead guilty to the illegal possession charge - which he then appealed, on Second Amendment grounds.

The state's highest court concluded Canjura was right: Although most people associate the Second Amendment with guns, it refers to "arms" and that has been held to cover other weapons, including tasers.

The defendant argues a switchblade, at root, is a type of folding pocketknife, and law-abiding citizens have possessed folding pocketknives for lawful purposes since our nation's founding, including for self- defense. Therefore, notwithstanding its spring-loaded opening mechanism, a switchblade is an "arm" under the Second Amendment. The Commonwealth contends knives categorically are not protected by the Second Amendment because the definition of arms is limited to firearms. The Commonwealth is incorrect.

And like the US Supreme Court did in its ruling letting law-abiding citizens walk around in public with guns, the state SJC also reached back to the 1800s to try to figure out if the writers of the Second Amendment would have looked at switchblades, nodded their heads and gone: Second Amendment.

A review of the history of the American colonies reveals that knives were ubiquitous among colonists, who used them to defend their lives, obtain or produce food, and fashion articles from raw materials. ...

Contemporaneous sources refer to Eighteenth Century folding pocketknives as "pocket knives," "folding knives," "spring knives," "clasp knives," or "jackknives." Most were single-bladed, with or without a holding spring, and had simple metal handles. The term jackknife appears frequently in American colonial documents. See H.L. Peterson, American Knives: The First History and Collector's Guide 129 (1958). Early jackknives were large, single-bladed knives, ranging from four to six and one-half inches in length when closed. See id. at 130. A particular type of jackknife known as a Barlow knife "is mentioned in American records at least as early as 1779 and seems to have been in general usage at that time."

In short, folding pocketknives not only fit within contemporaneous dictionary definitions of arms -- which would encompass a broader category of knives that today includes switchblades --- but they also were commonly possessed by law- abiding citizens for lawful purposes around the time of the founding. Setting aside any question whether switchblades are in common use today for lawful purposes,6 we conclude switchblades are "arms" for Second Amendment purposes. Therefore, the carrying of switchblades is presumptively protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

But even the Supreme Court, so far, has said states can regulate "arms" to some extent. But taking the Supreme Court's supposed historical requirement to heart and agreeing that modern conditions be damned, the SJC said that, unlike with guns, there are no real early rules regulating switchblades in Massachusetts, and so the current law barring people from walking around in public with them is unconstitutional.

Accordingly, the Commonwealth has not met its burden of demonstrating a historical tradition justifying the regulation of switchblade knives under [the state law].

And, the court continued, prosecutors failed to show that switchblades are any more dangerous than any other weapons - one possible out for regulation:

The Commonwealth has not presented any evidence as to why a spring-operated mechanism that allows users to open switchblades with one hand makes switchblades uniquely dangerous when compared to a broader category of manual folding pocketknives. Certainly, like handguns, switchblade knives are particularly suitable for self-defense because they are "readily accessible . . . cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away . . . [are] eas[y] to use . . . [and] can be [held] with one hand while the other hand" uses a phone to summon help. Heller, 554 U.S. at 629.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete ruling111.38 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

...made this country and this Commonwealth a more dangerous place.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth says this is "a free, sovereign, and independent body politic, or state by the name of " THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ".

The SJC should tell those jokers in Washington to go to hell.

up
Voting closed 29

I was wondering if I read all of this correctly

because my first thought was "oh boy, I can't wait for every bodega between here and Milton to sell switch blades now" because this ruling basically makes them legal and unregulated. Just makes me think people will exploit this loophole to buy/sell or possess these.

Starting to wonder if we will see rando stabbings more and more now.

up
Voting closed 32

if someone is going to stab someone, they are going to find a tool for the job. a switch blade is no more dangerous than any locking blade folding knife, a fixed blade knife or a screw driver / ice pick.

the prohibition of spring assist knives is kind of ridiculous in an age where gravity knives exist. Those have all the same functions of a stiletto style switchblade, just with no springs. Those are (generally) legal across the board.

signed,
a knife enthusiast

up
Voting closed 42

You are correct here. But its similar to the difference between a hunter who owns guns to hunt with and your run of the mill inner city criminal with a handgun. Big difference there. Same with knives or any weapon really.

if someone is going to stab someone, they are going to find a tool for the job. a switch blade is no more dangerous than any locking blade folding knife, a fixed blade knife or a screw driver / ice pick.

Yes but you can conceal a switchblade pretty easily. Plus with the amount of attacks we've seen in recent years they are targeted it. My point being is that alot more people will have access to switchblade knives than before because its alot easier to get a switchblade than a gun. So lots more stabbing going on because of that.

up
Voting closed 20

That is absurd.

Anyone who wants a switch blade could already get one, quite easily. This changes nothing, but your dog whistle racism is certainly showing here.

up
Voting closed 8

My Bazooka recoilless anti-tank rocket launcher is also considered “arms”

up
Voting closed 21

The Supreme Court has not (yet) outlawed all gun regulations (why, even under federal law, it's illegal for people with felony convictions to own a gun), which is why Massachusetts and some other states still have gun-control laws. As today's decision notes, one of the criteria for determining whether a weapon today that didn't specifically exist in the early days of the republic can be regulated is whether it's inherently way more dangerous than other weapons. So switchblades aren't any more dangerous than other knives, so legal. Automatic assault weapons? Nope, not legal. I'm no weapons or legal expert, but I'm going to hazard a guess that a bazooka would fall under the "more dangerous" category.

up
Voting closed 26

bazookaz ar rear-loaded ordannənsez; hwairaz, rokket lawnchərz hav gided mortərz propeld from ħə frunt.

up
Voting closed 16

.

up
Voting closed 11

Small government in every way except when a liberal state wants to restrict access to weaponry. What's that? You're stopping a domestic abuser who had a gun shaped switchblade (wtf?) from getting away with threatening a defenseless woman? The hell with that let him go free. To buy another switchblade for $5 and follow through on his threats.

I saw a video recently about how New Hampshire is suing us to change our concealed carry laws because their too-scared-to-go-unheeled residents have to leave their emotional support weapon at home if they want to cross a state border and it made my blood boil. how tf do they stand the hypocrisy. whatever I'm ranting at this point but it blows my mind

up
Voting closed 42

“emotional support weapon”.

Touché!

up
Voting closed 45

Do we not have states’ rights to continue to regulate aspects such as: blade length, concealment, age-restrictions, sale restrictions,..&c?

One-handed, locking flipper knives are sold ubiquitously-well at auto parts stores and bait’n tackle shops and sports stores- and are really convenient when fishing and gardening/doing yard work and they’re probably almost as easy to open as a switchblade (I’m guessing, because the only switchblade I ever saw had a comb for a blade)

P.s., UH is way ahead getting this story out. Kudos!

up
Voting closed 20

I have a locking flipper blade.

Though I’ve never stabbed anyone, I can say they are not comparable.

up
Voting closed 20

Switchblades are the worse option. The blade easily collapses. They're just infamous due to popular culture (movies, etc.). Popular culture generally does a poor job of showing reality in the real world.

up
Voting closed 24

has a locking blade. Granted, it's a military knife, not some cheap import.

up
Voting closed 11

This seems like a major change in the law. Massachusetts is one of the states with the strictest regulation of weapon-like things in the country. It's illegal to own a slingshot in this state. Knife restrictions go way beyond switchblades - any double-edged blade (e.g. skinning knife), any knife with a blade longer than 1 1/2 inches... basically anything bigger than a keychain Swiss Army knife is illegal to carry.

How much of this law (and how many of these convictions) will be overturned?

up
Voting closed 19

The 1.5" blade rule is the most ridiculous. Every contractor visiting City Hall to get a permit results in a guard pulling out a ruler to measure the blade of their pocket knife to make sure it's not 1.7" long.

up
Voting closed 23

Wouldn't even let me bring in my tactical spork just because it had a three inch stainless steel blade inside. I'm glad I never showed them the fire starter,

up
Voting closed 11

I had to look this up. The law is about manufacture and sale of the items you mentioned, not about possession. Boston does have a city ordinance about larger knives, I believe.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Sect...

edit: just kidding, there are also laws about carring:
https://www.akti.org/state-knife-laws/massachusetts/
although the 1.5 inch blade thing applies only to automatic knives. Maybe.

up
Voting closed 16

although the 1.5 inch blade thing applies only to automatic knives. Maybe.

Seems likely. It's certainly easy to purchase knives with blades > 1.5 inches in MA. Just go into any outdoor store and you'll see plenty of SAKs with longer blades.

up
Voting closed 11

> "[and] can be [held] with one hand while the other hand uses a phone to summon help."

I'd pay good money to see someone actually try using a one-handed knife for self-defense, while calling someone on the phone with the other hand.

up
Voting closed 22

A well regulated Switchblade Militia, being necessary to the security of the West Side Story, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

up
Voting closed 36

The state sjc is still stretching as hard as it can to water down the in common use test. The in common use test has little to do with the 18th century.

up
Voting closed 16

...But which well regulated militia does this charmer belong to?

up
Voting closed 21

I can't even carry my VW key fob in my pocket without eventually poking myself in the thigh when the damn thing unfurls unintendedly. Do you think I'd want it to go through my femoral artery instead?!

up
Voting closed 18

just because crossbows existed in the 1780s?

up
Voting closed 22

I've long thought that the 2nd amendment should only apply to weapons that existed when when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

If someone wants to walk around with a musket, that's their constitutional right.

up
Voting closed 16

shouldn't apply to radio, TV, the Internet, or telephones since they didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified. /s

up
Voting closed 27

Modern forms of communication are far more similar to those of the past (speaking and writing remain the same) vs weaponry.

And anyway, modern forms of communication are extremely regulated as it relates to the technology.

up
Voting closed 17

let's have open carry in the supreme court, congress, gun shows, and everywhere else that supporters of this hang out. and open these spaces to the public...

up
Voting closed 23

"Suffolk County prosecutors had originally charged David Canjura with both possession of an illegal weapon and with domestic assault and battery, but dropped the domestic-violence charge when he agreed to plead guilty to the illegal possession charge - which he then appealed, on Second Amendment grounds."

It's sad that our legal system is so easy to game! I am surprised context isn't taken into account in these cases. A guy has a knife and threatens someone , his GF specifically....he gets off citing his right to protect himself with a weapon....when he is the agressor in the situation....WTF

up
Voting closed 16

Maybe they were both being equal contributors to the domestic violence but he escalated with the knife. Or she recanted her testimony to the prosecutors so they decided to bargain the charge away knowing it'd be a lot harder to prove without her testimony. Plenty of scenarios where dropping one charge to secure the other is valid law wrangling.

up
Voting closed 13

brass knuckles, blackjacks, blowguns, and manrikigusaris?

My rights are being violated!

Some of the rest of the list of banned "dangerous weapons." In quotes because that's part of the list of dangerous weapons banned in law. c269 s 10

up
Voting closed 13