The recent pro-Second Amendment decision by a panel of the Eighth Circuit in Worth v. Jacobson bears on our lawsuit challenging California’s ban on switchblade (automatic) knives with a blade 2-inches and greater on Second Amendment grounds. Plaintiffs have filed a second Notice of Supplemental Authority with the District Court hearing the case.

As with our first Notice of Supplemental Authority, this one deals with the key issue raised by the State, and which was a focus of the Court during the hearing, the baseless argument that in interpreting the plain text of the Second Amendment’s “the right to keep and bear arms,” the term “arms” somehow is limited to only arms “commonly used for self-defense” as opposed to all bearable arms.

In the Notice, Plaintiffs’ attorney, John Dillon, notes, among four points, that, “the Eighth Circuit reiterated that, ‘[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.'”

The Notice concludes that, “Each of the above points in Worth address issues squarely presented in the pending cross-motions for summary judgment, including, among other issues: (i) how Bruen’s textual analysis is centered on the plain text of the Second Amendment…” As we have noted previously, simply put, neither the State nor the Court, can read additional conditions and qualifications into the Second Amendment’s plain text that are not there.

Stay tuned for the next installment of Knife Rights Unconstitutional Switchblade Bans Chronicles.