Two federal court rulings Wednesday extending Second Amendment protections to switchblade knives and body armor have fueled optimism among gun-rights advocates ahead of a major Supreme Court showdown over bans on AR-15-style rifles. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal law restricting the interstate commerce of switchblade knives violated the Second Amendment, while a federal judge in the Western District of New York struck down New York’s restrictions on personal body armor. In both cases, the courts determined that switchblades and body armor qualify as constitutionally protected "arms." The twin rulings 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 qualify as "arms" protected by the Second Amendment. National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown, whose organization filed an amicus brief in Viramontes, said a Supreme Court ruling against AR-15 bans could influence future legal challenges to restrictions on ammunition magazines, automatic knives, body armor and other defensive equipment. "The interesting thing about both of these cases is that they’re both going to be really decided by the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Viramontes decision," Brown told Fox News Digital. SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY LIMITS USE OF GUN LAW USED TO PROSECUTE HUNTER BIDEN The recent rulings rely 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 review of AR-15-style rifle bans. In its 2008 decision in Heller, the Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protects an 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 acknowledging a longstanding tradition of restricting "dangerous and unusual" weapons.
Heller recognized that the term "arms" encompasses both offensive weapons and defensive armor. The decision did not address switchblades or body armor directly but the recent rulings relied on its broader understanding of what may qualify as an arm. The decisions also reveal how Bruen ’s text-and-history test could shape the Supreme Court’s review of bans on AR-15-style rifles.
Under Bruen, courts first determine whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the weapon or conduct at issue. Because both courts answered that question affirmatively, the burden shifted to the governments to show that the restrictions were consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation. George Lyon, a Second Amendment attorney, said the governments in both cases failed to identify sufficiently similar historical laws justifying the modern restrictions.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
