Two federal court rulings this week extended Second Amendment protections to switchblade knives and body armor, setting the stage for a Supreme Court decision that could reshape constitutional rights far beyond firearms.
Federal Courts Rule on Knives and Body Armor
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down federal restrictions on interstate commerce of switchblade knives, determining that such weapons qualify as constitutionally protected arms. Simultaneously, a federal judge in the Western District of New York invalidated state restrictions on personal body armor. Both courts applied the same constitutional framework that will guide the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of AR-15-style rifle bans in Viramontes v. Cook County.
National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown told Fox News Digital that these rulings ultimately depend on the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision. The organization filed an amicus brief in Viramontes, arguing that a ruling against AR-15 bans could open challenges to restrictions on ammunition magazines, automatic knives, body armor, and other defensive equipment.
How Legal Precedent Drives Current Cases
The recent decisions rely heavily on two landmark Supreme Court rulings. The 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and recognized that arms encompass both offensive weapons and defensive armor. The 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision created a text-and-history test for evaluating gun restrictions.
Under the Bruen framework, courts first determine whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the weapon in question. If so, the burden shifts to government to prove the restrictions align with historical tradition. Second Amendment attorney George Lyon explained that once conduct falls within the amendment’s text, regulations are presumed unconstitutional unless justified by historical precedent.
What the Rulings Mean for Constitutional Rights
The Fifth Circuit found that switchblades have been commonly used for defense and everyday purposes throughout American history. The government failed to identify historical laws supporting the Federal Switchblade Act’s specific interstate commerce restrictions. In New York, the state argued body armor was merely a tactical accessory rather than a protected arm. The judge rejected this interpretation, citing Heller’s recognition that arms include defensive armor. New York could not demonstrate sufficient historical tradition for its civilian restrictions.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Viramontes could establish whether millions of commonly owned AR-15-style rifles receive constitutional protection, potentially affecting restrictions on various defensive equipment nationwide. Oral arguments are scheduled for the current term.