Two federal court decisions this week extended Second Amendment protections to switchblade knives and body armor, signaling a potential broadening of constitutional rights beyond traditional firearms as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on AR-15 bans.
Twin Rulings Set New Precedent
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down federal restrictions on interstate commerce of switchblade knives, determining they violate the Second Amendment. Simultaneously, a federal judge in the Western District of New York invalidated state restrictions on personal body armor. Both courts concluded these items qualify as constitutionally protected arms under the Second Amendment framework established by previous Supreme Court decisions.
These rulings arrive as the Supreme Court readies oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, a case examining whether AR-15-style rifles receive Second Amendment protection. The timing and legal reasoning in both lower court decisions could influence the high court’s approach to defining protected arms in modern America.
The Fifth
Historical Analysis Drives Legal Strategy
The recent decisions rely heavily on the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under this framework, courts first determine whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the item in question. If yes, governments must demonstrate their restrictions align with the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation. Both the switchblade and body armor cases failed this second test.
George Lyon, a Second Amendment attorney, explained the burden of proof now falls on government to justify restrictions. Once an item falls within the Second Amendment’s text, regulations are presumed unconstitutional unless supported by sufficient historical precedent. Neither New York nor the federal government provided adequate historical justification for their modern restrictions in these cases.
Implications for Future Challenges
National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown, whose organization filed a supporting brief in Viramontes, predicts the Supreme Court’s AR-15 ruling could reshape challenges to restrictions on ammunition magazines, automatic knives, and defensive equipment. The 2008 Heller decision recognized that arms encompass both offensive weapons and defensive armor, providing constitutional foundation for these expanding interpretations.
New York argued body armor functions merely as a tactical accessory to firearms rather than a protected arm itself. The federal court rejected this distinction, finding body armor fits within the historical definition of arms that Heller recognized. This reasoning potentially opens pathways for challenging restrictions on various defensive equipment previously considered outside Second Amendment scope.