NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Two federal court rulings Wednesday extending Second Amendment protections to switchblade knives and body armor fueled optimism among gun rights advocates ahead of a major showdown at the Supreme Court over a ban on AR-15-style rifles.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal law restricting interstate commerce in switchblade knives violated the Second Amendment, while a federal judge in the Western District of New York struck down New York state’s restrictions on personal body armor. In both cases, the courts determined that switchblades and body armor qualified as constitutionally protected “weapons.”
Both decisions come as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, a case that could determine whether AR-15-style rifles are considered “weapons” protected by the Second Amendment.
National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown, whose organization filed an amicus brief to Viramontes, said a Supreme Court ruling against the AR-15 ban could influence future legal challenges to restrictions on ammunition magazines, automatic knives, body armor and other defensive equipment.
“What’s interesting about these two cases is that they will both actually be decided by the United States Supreme Court in the Viramontes decision,” Brown told Fox News Digital.
National Gun Rights Association President Dudley Brown holds a switchblade as he describes the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that knives are protected by the Second Amendment. (Fox News Digital | Elaine Mallon)
SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY LIMITS USE OF GUN LAW USED TO PROSECUTE HUNTER BIDEN
The recent rulings build on two major Supreme Court decisions defining the scope of the Second Amendment: District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen – both of which will play a key role in the Supreme Court’s consideration of bans on AR-15-style rifles.
In its 2008 decision in Heller, the Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. The Court also ruled that the amendment protects weapons in lawful common use while recognizing a long tradition of restricting “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
Heller recognized that the term “weapons” encompasses both offensive weapons and defensive armor. The ruling did not directly address switchblades or body armor, but recent rulings have been based on a broader understanding of what can be considered a weapon.
The rulings also reveal how Bruen’s textual and historical test could shape the Supreme Court’s consideration of bans on AR-15-style rifles.
Under Bruen, courts first determine whether the text of the Second Amendment covers the weapon or conduct at issue. Because both courts answered this question in the affirmative, the burden shifted to governments to demonstrate that the restrictions were consistent with the country’s historical tradition of arms regulation.
George Lyon, a Second Amendment lawyer, said the governments in both cases failed to identify sufficiently similar historical laws justifying the modern restrictions.
AR-15 style rifles are displayed for sale at the Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Virginia, January 9, 2015. (Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
ATF SUSPENDS FEDERAL REGISTRATION AND APPROVAL RULES FOR CERTAIN FIREARMS
“Once it’s shown that what you want to do is within the text of the Second Amendment, the presumption is that the regulation is unconstitutional,” Lyon said.
The Fifth Circuit found that switchblades are commonly used “weapons” protected by the Second Amendment, citing their historical use for defense and everyday purposes. It then ruled that the government failed to identify sufficient historical tradition for the Federal Switchblade Act’s specific restrictions on interstate commerce, which regulated switchblades in a manner different from historical laws.
In the New York decision, the state argued that body armor was a tactical accessory to a firearm rather than a “weapon” protected by the Second Amendment. The judge rejected this argument, finding that body armor falls within the historical definition of weapons recognized in Heller. The court then concluded that New York State had not demonstrated sufficient historical tradition to justify its ban on civil purchases.
This reasoning could become important in the Viramontes case, where the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether AR-15-style rifles fall within the definition of protected weapons recognized in the Heller decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to continue third-country deportations while judges consider challenging the policy in court. (Getty Images)
GUN RIGHTS GROUPS CAPITALIZE AFTER JUDGE REVERSES DECADES-OLD RESTRICTIONS: “MONUMENTAL”
The case stems from a challenge to Cook County’s assault weapons ban. The Seventh Circuit concluded that AR-15-style rifles were comparable to machine guns and therefore did not fall within the category of weapons protected by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether this reasoning is consistent with that of Heller and Bruen.
Lyon said the Seventh Circuit wrongly treated AR-15-style rifles as comparable to machine guns.
“The current case before the Supreme Court, Viramontes, will address this issue because the Seventh Circuit had taken the position that because AR-15s are ‘like machine guns,’ they do not constitute a weapon in the Heller sense,” Lyon said. “It was just completely wrong in my opinion.”
Justin Davis, public affairs director for the National Rifle Association, said the dispute over AR-15-style rifles is part of a broader legal fight over what is considered a “weapon” under the Second Amendment.
“There is a major debate going on in the courts about what does and does not constitute weapons,” Davis said.
Davis pointed to litigation involving suppressors, ammunition magazines, stun guns, pepper spray and other equipment used for self-defense.
“They say the Second Amendment only applied to muskets because that’s what existed in the Founders’ time, but we don’t apply the First Amendment only to newspapers or books or speeches in public forums,” Davis said. “Social media, texting and phones didn’t exist back then either.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“The world changes, but basic human rights never change,” Davis continued.
Gn usa
