Massachusetts Switchblade Ban Overturned on Second Amendment Grounds

The Second Amendment doesn’t protect guns; it protects the human right to self-defense.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution undisputedly protects the individual right to own and carry firearms for self-defense, sport, and other uses. But the amendment actually says nothing about guns; it refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," of which firearms are just one example of what dictionaries define as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense." In Massachusetts, last week, that resulted in a decision by the state's highest court striking down a law against switchblade knives.

Protected by the Second Amendment

"We conclude switchblades are not 'dangerous and unusual' weapons falling outside the protection of the Second Amendment," wrote Justice Serge Georges Jr. for the court in an opinion in Commonwealth v. Canjura that drew heavily on two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases: Bruen (2022) and Heller (2008). The decision found the state's ban on switchblade knives unconstitutional and dismissed charges against the defendant.

The case involved a 2020 dispute between David E. Canjura and his girlfriend, during which Boston police officers found a switchblade knife on Canjura while searching him. As is often noted, "everything is illegal in Massachusetts" and "a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device" is only one of a long list of  weapons proscribed under state law. Canjura was accordingly charged.

Such absolute prohibitions on arms aren't permitted in the wake of the Heller decision, so Canjura and his public defender, Kaitlyn Gerber, challenged the ban on switchblades, citing the federal decisions. They also relied on Jorge Ramirez v. Commonwealth (2018) in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned a similar prohibition on stun guns on Second Amendment grounds.

"We now conclude that stun guns are 'arms' within the protection of the Second Amendment. Therefore, under the Second Amendment, the possession of stun guns may be regulated, but not absolutely banned," the court found in that case.

Canjura required similar analysis based on the same earlier decisions, this time with Ramirez in the mix.

The Second Amendment Protects All 'Bearable Arms'

Citing Heller, Justice Georges pointed out, "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." Importantly, though, knives and other bladed weapons have a long history, extending back well before the birth of the country.

"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," commented Georges. Folding knives, in particular, grew in popularity to the point they became "almost universal." The court saw no significant difference between the many types of folding knives used over the centuries and spring-assisted varieties developed somewhat more recently, finding "the most apt historical analogue of a modern-day switchblade is the folding pocketknife."

Bruen, the court continued, specified that Second Amendment protections extend to arms that are in "common use" and are not considered "dangerous and unusual." Given that switchblades are just variations on folding knives and that "only seven States and the District of Columbia categorically ban switchblades or other automatic knives, and only two States impose blade length restrictions of less than two inches," they're clearly in common use.

The Massachusetts justices decided, by contrast to some other courts, that "dangerous and unusual" is a separate standard from "common use" that weapons must meet to be eligible for Second Amendment protection. But they emphasized "in the most basic sense, all weapons are 'dangerous' because they are designed for the purpose of bodily assault or defense" and, as mentioned above, they concluded "switchblades are not 'dangerous and unusual' weapons falling outside the protection of the Second Amendment."

So, switchblade knives join stun guns and most firearms as weapons that Massachusetts can't outright ban. But you might expect the state's rules-happy lawmakers to try their hands at some restrictions. Note, too, that the rest of the verbiage in the affected law remains in place for now, including restrictions on many guns, knives, blowguns, blackjacks, nunchaku, brass knuckles, shuriken, and even—I kid you not—studded leather armbands. Massachusetts didn't stop being Massachusetts, it just improved a tad with this decision.

"We commend the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for its level-headed application of the law," commented Jan Billeb, executive director of the American Knife and Tool Institute (AKTI). "The ruling strengthens our position for advocating for legal ownership of automatic knives in all 50 states."

AKTI, which favors abolishing knife restrictions across the country, maintains a guide to which states do and don't restrict automatic knives, as well as a broader directory of state knife laws. These can rival firearms laws in complication, so they're worth referencing—especially if you're traveling.

Knife Rights, which also advocates for freedom when it comes to bladed tools, similarly hailed the decision. "It is extremely gratifying to see this switchblade ban struck down on Second Amendment grounds in one of the most notoriously anti-Second Amendment states," said Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter.

Still Work To Be Done

But Knife Rights emphasized that the Massachusetts decision stands in contrast to a recent federal court decision from California which concluded, oddly, that switchblades "are not bearable arms protected by the Second Amendment." Knife Rights plans to appeal the decision as it challenges California restrictions.

That means there's still work to be done. But as a longtime fan of all things sharp and pointy, I see the Massachusetts decision, with its solid reasoning, as a step in the direction of more freedom, Besides, I'm Italian-American, and who else do you expect to bring a knife to a gun fight?

But Canjura isn't just a victory for people who fancy automatic knives. Building on language from Heller, standards set by Bruen, and precedent in Ramirez, the court in Massachusetts acknowledged that Americans have a right to own and carry arms, whatever forms they may take now and in the future. The Second Amendment doesn't protect guns; it protects the human right to self-defense.

Comments

[diver64]

I am a strong defender of the 2cd and peoples right to defend themselves but I have to admit I'd never thought of the 2cd Amendment in protecting all forms of weapons to defends oneself. This is interesting. I wonder how length limits on knife blades falls in this ruling.

[Longtobefree]

Length limits are an infringement.
Next question?

[diver64]

I know that. I meant I wonder how the courts will treat them.

[Rick James]

I believe that general legal doctrine is "all weapons in common use", however there are legal scholars that suggest that the public has a right to own even military grade weapons as there was no distinction in the colonial time. Especially considering there were "privateers" on the high seas which would have had all the military weapons at the time, including cannon.

[Incunabulum]

No.

The general legal doctrine, post-Bruen - is you have to justify any ban/regulation by likening it to a similar law from the Founding Era of the US. 'Common use' - for lawful purposes - is just a higher bar for justifying a ban.

[jimc5499]

Rick,
The Second Amendment definitely included "military grade" weapons. That's the reason for the mention of "the militia". Originally "the militia" was the standing army of the Country. Later when the Army came into being, the idea was to have a trained cadre of professional military. When it was necessary, "the militia" would be called out to augment the Army. This "cadre" was responsible for the training and integration of the militia. The "town square" now a symbolic area in a lot of places was where the Local Militia trained. The cannon in these squares, represent the cannon and other equipment that Cities and Towns purchased and maintained for the use of "the militia". So yes the Second Amendment was meant to include ownership of military grade weapons.

[CE]

Not "even" military grade weapons, but especially and specifically military grade weapons. That first bit about the necessity of a militia is the clue that they were protecting the right to own arms of military usefulness. At the time, these would be rifles, muskets, shotguns, knives, swords, pikes, and hatchets. Extending it today would obviously include assault weapons, including fully automatic assault weapons.

Cannons, howitzers, and other types of artillery would typically have been stored in a community armory, so maybe those aren't covered.

[B G]

I've never heard of length limits in relation to posession, only related to concealed carry. Even in CA, which has some of the most aggressively 2A infringing laws (on par with MA in most regards at least), the law only prohibits "concealed" carry of knives over a certain length, and that fixed-blade knives (and possibly folding knives with blade length of 4" or greater) be carried in a sheath unconcealed. For folding knives under 4", carrying fully inside of a pocket is illegal in many parts of CA as well, but carrying them clipped onto the side with only 1/4" of the closed knife technically exposed (as far as I'm aware, having a long shirt or jacket which covers the "exposed" part in the pocket isn't a violation.

[Use the Schwartz]

Up next, barrel length? Please?

[Longtobefree]

"The Second Amendment doesn’t protect guns; it protects the human right to self-defense."

The Second Amendment doesn’t protect guns; it protects the human right to self-defense against individuals and governments. "Bear" doesn't mean just carry on your person; it means employ, use as intended. he second amendment covers everything up to and including warships. If it could conceivably be useful to a militia unit, it is covered.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

I need to look it up, but didn't cities in MA have a ban on firing off cannons in city limits? (due to noise. You could still own a cannon)

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

If I fire it from outside city limits is it OK for the shot to land in city limits?

[Incunabulum]

I think such a ban is legal - as long as there's exceptions for self-defense. Typically all cities have bans on discharging firearms within city limits with exceptions for designated areas and self-defense.

[SRG2]

The second amendment covers everything up to and including warships

I'm not sure that it's true in practice, given the "tradition and history" argument, In theory, yes, likewise nuclear and biological weapons, assuming that one interprets 2A's "arms" to mean arms universally, as opposed to what the drafters thought of as arms at time of writing - about which there cannot be a final resolution (though they would, at least, have been aware of biological weapons).

[Squirrelloid]

And in fact, private individuals did own warships at the time of the founding. The constitution specifically provides for government recognition and cognizance of their use by private individuals in wartime - that's what a letter of marque is.

Obviously, this also means cannon were privately owned at the founding (because that's how a warship would be armed). But private cannon were not just on ships.

The gatling gun was originally a wholly private invention, with no need for approval from government busy-bodies. (It's use during the civil war was limited to commanders who personally bought them. The army wouldn't begin using them officially until 1866).

[B G]

"If it could conceivably be useful to a militia unit, it is covered."

The "common sense gun safety" crowd who pretends to support individual rights, but wouldn't allow "weapons of war" both wholly agrees with and takes particular issue with this idea.

The idea that the founders never intended civilian ownership of military weapons would seem to be in direct conflict with the fact that the US Congress issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal (will into the 19th Century) to "Privateers" who were, by definition, civilian owners of multiple naval-grade cannons as well as the related equipment and ammunition required for their use.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Does that apply to rifels or guns?
Asking for my third leg

[Rick James]

Up next semi auto rifles.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Well, then, how about some common sense bans on assault knives?

Or maybe we should only protect the kinds of knives available in the 18th century, aka swords.

[diver64]

England is giving it a shot right now and it doesn't seem to be working. Germany is also going down the knife ban road which, of course, won't work. If your bent on hacking someone to death, a ban on the machete won't make any difference to you. Even if they manage to remove all sharp knives a few minutes with common tools will turn a lawnmower blade into a handy weapon and don't get me started about a grinder and circular saw blade.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

How about if we ban civilian ownership of metal?

[Longtobefree]

The end game is to ban ownership.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"Owning Nothing Makes You Free"

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Feudal lords agree!

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Janis, too.

[GroundTruth]

The endgame is death.

Or, at least, the death of all humans.

These people hate any freedom-loving individual, which means every self-aware person on the planet.

[CE]

No one needs a power saw.

[Bruce D]

...assault knives...

Actually, switchblades are far from being "assault" knives. If anything, they're defensive knives. Why? The spring-loaded push-button action allows one to open the knife more easily when one is under attack and one doesn't have time to fumble around to open it. It confers no advantage to the aggressor, who already has plenty of time to open his or her knife before mounting an attack. A switchblade gives much more comparative advantage to the defender rather than to the aggressor, who it puts at less of an advantage against a switchblade-armed defender.

[Incunabulum]

An aggressor with a bared knife is one that puts themselves at a disadvantage compared to one with a hand in a pocket and can then not alarm the target until striking.

[Zeb]

It's also really useful to have a knife that's super easy to open one handed in many non-defense situations.

[B G]

Sure, but you can prove anything with facts, when the facts are on "your side".

I do wonder if the knife involved was actually a switchblade, as most people would understand them. Knife laws restricting "switchblades" in many places (especially "deep blue" jurisdictions), are sometimes worded to try to also include "assisted open" folding knives; or in some cases maybe it's just that the local/federal law enforcement take some liberties with interpretation around that distinction.

I didin't know about the security restrictions for the Ellis Island/Liberty ferry when I was in NYC in 2004 and ended up having a Kershaw Chive (an assisted opener with a 2.25" blade which I had purchased at REI in Seattle) taken away at the security check on the way in; the Park Service Officer who confiscated it told me it was illegal to carry on the street there as well (I don't know whether that's true either now or then).

[Bruce D]

In reply to myself, there is also the case in which a fistfight or other unarmed fight escalates into a knife fight. In that case, it would be easier to escalate that fight with a switchblade than a regular folding knife. But who would more likely escalate that kind of fight – the defender or the aggressor? Without evidence, we can’t say for sure, but there’s nothing to suggest the aggressor would be more likely, except the aggressor would be more likely to be “prepared for trouble”. In that case, the defender would need to be similarly prepared by having equivalent armament or better, like a pistol. But, a switchblade would still be better than a standard folding knife in defense. And if the defender was knocked down, it would still be advantageous to have an easily opened knife.

[Liberty Yeti]

I am fairly certain that other knives existed in the 18th century and long before. Butchers have been a thing for centuries.

Even Wikipedia lists switchblades as from the "mid 18th century."

I get the point you're making, but the first machine gun dates to 1718 per the Encyclopedia Britannica online, and they had reliable ones by the American Civil War.

[CindyF]

Excellent decision.

And not just because the ban is an infringement on Constitutional Rights but also because common sense says that if you ban knives then only criminals will have knives and the law abiding will not.

Progressives think that would be a good thing because such a result would give them more power over the people but just a cursory scan of the headlines these days shows that the people's right to self-defense is more important now than ever.

It has gotten to the point that the law-abiding are beginning to think it's best to ignore the bans on self-defense and take the chance on being judged by twelve rather than carried by six.

[sarcasmic]

common sense says that if you ban knives then only criminals will have knives and the law abiding will not

I don’t know how many times I’ve tried to explain this to no avail. Some people really believe that laws are magic. These people have substituted law for their moral sense, and law guides them in everything. They don't understand that some people never had a moral sense at all, so morality and law mean nothing to them. They also don't understand that for others of us, when faced with law and morality conflicting with each other, chose morality, and laws became suggestions.

[n00bdragon]

Because when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. Politicians can't do anything to actually stop someone in a dark alley from shooting/stabbing you, but they can make a law. And when the laws don't work well... they can make more laws.

[Henry]

Worse, Massachusetts Democrat legislators don't seem to be able to write literate laws, especially when it comes to weapons. In the past couple decades, they've passed laws that outlawed veterans groups from marching in parades with their rifles -- even school marching bands with dummy rifles; required a trigger lock to be installed on Capt. John Parker's musket, hung high above the Senate chambers (until it was apparently permanently "removed for renovations" in 2018, a fitting admission); and -- my favorite of all -- demanded that no pistol could be sold in the state unless it had FAILED the new drop-safety test prescribed in the new law.

If Massachusetts Democratic legislators were coders, we'd all be dead.

[NoVaNick]

One of many reasons I’m glad I left Mass. 20 plus years ago. The progs started to ruin it under Dukakis with their petty laws to ban everything that hurts their feelz because “ think of the children!”

[defaultdotxbe]

Went through this directly about a year ago. There was a big push in my town to crack down in teens vaping, about a week after a new ordinance to address it was passed several teens were arrested for vaping in a park. I noticed several of the people reacting negatively to the arrests were the same who were in favor of new laws to address the issue a week earlier. When I asked what they expected to happen when the new law was enforced they seemed confused as to why they should have expected teenagers to be arrested and said they should be fined or ticketed. Of course that was what the new ordinance does, but these people had never considered that those who choose to disobey the law might also refuse lawful orders from cops to throw out their vapes, and subsequently get arrested for resisting.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

I have to wonder how many of the nannytarian types think that vaping is more dangerous than cigarettes.

[B G]

Technically, if carrying knives were to be banned, then anyone continuing to do so would be made a criminal regardless of their disposition toward violent aggression.

There are a lot of people who obey such laws out of a desire to just not be arrested in order to make a point about some "principal", especially in places where the courts tend to side with "City Hall" in all matters, and the jury pool is generally made up of leftist authoritarians. It's more a matter of pragmatism than of "substituting law for morality". Not to mention that the areas where law enforcement is more aggressive with "stop and frisk" policies (not that I happen to fit any profile that such efforts tend to target) are also the areas where someone not looking to commit a crime is most likely to be pressed into a confrontation where self-defense would become necessary.

I live in L.A. and have carried some manner of folding knife almost every day of the last 12+ years, but have never once needed to utilize one for the purpose of self-defense. I also own several concealable handguns, but don't carry those since I haven't yet taken advantage of the change in the laws to get a CCW permit and would be far more put out by the penalties if I were to get searched for some reason and found to be carrying illegally. The issue isn't that I agree with the restrictive CCW policies which had been in place for most of my time living in CA, or that I consider carrying a firearm to be somehow "immoral", it's that I'm not allowed to carry at my office, and in other places I go to frequently, it just wouldn't be worth the potential trouble that could arise if even a legally carried weapon were to "print" on my clothing and become less concealed.

Sort of like when an officer from the city PD which my unincorporated neighborhood shares a zip code with confronted me in my own driveway and ultimately asked to see my ID to prove that I wasn't the person he was looking for (I didn't even recognize the name); he could have just as easily run the license plate of the car I'd just got out of and got my name and confirmation that the address was my home, but he didn't. I know that he was outside of his authority and that I would have been within my rights to refuse the request, but in that moment I chose not to fight through the months of court proceedings that would have been involved in proving that after being improperly detained, and possibly taken into custody, so I just showed the cop my license and went on with my day.

[Ajsloss]

"any knife having an automatic spring release device"

They're coming for your Pez dispensers next.

[SRG2]

If Pez dispensers are illegal, only criminals will have Pez dispensers.

[Truthteller1]

Democrats are breathtakingly stupid and gullible.

[Henry]

"They also relied on Jorge Ramirez v. Commonwealth (2018) in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned a similar prohibition on stun guns on Second Amendment grounds."

Not Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)?

"and even—I kid you not—studded leather armbands."

Don't forget -- and I also kid you not -- "bean-blowers."

[jack murphy]

bean blowers? is that prostitutes in mexico?

[markm23]

I guess these are what we called peashooters - drink straws. You find a projectile that will fit loosely in the straw and blow.

[Uncle Jay]

"Massachusetts Switchblade Ban Overturned on Second Amendment Grounds."

Next up on the MA legislature agenda: Should the commonwealth of Massivetaxes ban toenail clippers?
Oh, wait.
I shouldn't give them any ideas.

[Rick James]

The case involved a 2020 dispute between David E. Canjura and his girlfriend, during which Boston police officers found a switchblade knife on Canjura while searching him. As is often noted, "everything is illegal in Massachusetts" and "a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device" is only one of a long list of weapons proscribed under state law. Canjura was accordingly charged.

FYI, I'm going to research after posting this comment, but I believe there are very few states in the union that allow auto-opening (aka, switchblade) knives. I know some do because you can purchase them, but I'm guessing that most coastal states-- aka, the most populated states, don't allow them.

[Rick James]

Well heck, I may be wrong about that. It's kind of a mixed bag. According to this source, they're legal in some surprising states, like California.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Whatever, in Texas you can open carry a sword.

[Zeb]

NH too. A while ago they repealed pretty much all restrictions on bladed weapons. I kind of want to get a sword cane.

[Grifhunter]

Your link to a 2016 dated site is unreliable. Switchblades have been legal to own/buy in New York for decades so long as you have a hunting or fishing license and possess for use while doing these activities.

[Incunabulum]

Arizona used to not but now switchblades, 'gravity knives', etc are all legal. I mean, its not like you couldn't buy them all over the place and anyone who wanted one had one in violation of the law anyway.

And we all have guns here so . . . go ahead and make my day, punk;)

[MK Ultra]

Jets and Sharks dancing in celebration.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Gays should be allowed to carry blades.

[jack murphy]

is that why they called zorro the gay blade? now we know!

[Flaco]

How can a state that values LGBTQ+ rights as much as Mass have a ban on studded leather armbands?

[Henry]

"It's a trap!"

[Liberty_Belle]

This is my self defense Abrams M1 .

[VULGAR MADMAN]

I think you deserve one more than Ukraine.

[Dude 2]

"The Second Amendment doesn't protect guns" Correct.
"it protects the human right to self-defense" Incorrect, mostly.
The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" and nothing more.
The ability to defend one's self may naturally follow, but self defense, national defense, tradition, historical regulation, and even militias don't matter under the Second Amendment. Even if the acts of keeping and bearing arms endangers one's self, even if they endanger the country, even if they violate every tradition and regulation in the nation's history, the Second Amendment mandates only refraining from infringing the people's right to keep and bear arms.

[NoVaNick]

Some other things banned in Mass.

Fireworks of any kind including sparklers
Happy hour drink specials
Menthol cigs and flavored vapes
Some towns have banned sale of any tobacco to anyone born after 2000. Which means the whole state probably will in a couple of years

[Incunabulum]

We couldn't find a picture of an actual switchblade for the article?

Not even an AI-generated one?

[Henry]

Hey! At least it has a helpful hover caption in case you've never seen a knife or a tree before.

[Zeb]

It could be an automatic knife. I don't see any opening studs or liner lock mechanism.

[Incunabulum]

>"We conclude switchblades are not 'dangerous and unusual' weapons falling outside the protection of the Second Amendment," wrote Justice Serge Georges Jr.

*OOF!*

Judge doesn't know what Bruen means. 'Dangerous and unusual weapons' do not lose 2nd amendment protection, yer honor.

[SRG2]

TBH I thought the whole point of weapons is that they be dangerous.

[zooneedles]

My spouse managed to scratch herself with what is arguably among the safest pocket knives in existence, a double action OTF. She tried to fold it closed. No blood involved but she screamed like a banshee. “I didn’t know it didn’t close like that” she bellowed.

[lobosolo]

A bayonet is nothing more than a knife that fits on a rifle ... part of the weapon. Reckon that means they can't ban bayonet lugs any more.

[fredgrosso]

I think your rights under the 2nd Amendment depend on you being a member of a militia.

[markm23]

The last time Congress defined "militia", it included all able-bodied male citizens except children and old men. Apply the anti-discrimination principles that have been developed since then, and it's all adult citizens.