The Department of Justice has filed its Reply Brief and Motion to Dismiss in Knife Rights’ federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of portions of the Federal Switchblade Act under the Second Amendment. The bottom line; it doesn’t look a whole lot different than the first time around, despite Plaintiffs addressing all the issues raised and the Court’s ridiculous dismissal rationale.
Beyond the same old claim that Plaintiffs have no standing because the Act is not enforced, despite our providing proof it has been, they now absurdly claim that “sales” of weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. They have also dug out old court decisions that found switchblades were dangerous and unusual.
Not only does the government ignore the fact that Heller and Bruen invalidated these old decisions, but they are in direct conflict with Supreme Court precedent. The government also again makes the claim that historical regulations support such a ban. The evidence speaks otherwise; which is supported by the fact that every court to consider this issue regarding switchblades has held that there is no historical tradition of arms regulations supporting a ban. These are just a few of the points where their brief goes off the rails.
Click to read Consolidated Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Next up is our reply to their brief and motion to dismiss. Stay tuned for the next installment of Knife Rights Unconstitutional Switchblade Bans Chronicles.
Originally enacted in 1958, the Act restricts the introduction into interstate commerce of common automatically opening (“switchblade”) knives. It also bans their possession on Native American reservations and in U.S. territories and on U.S. lands. The definition of a “switchblade knife” includes gravity knives and butterfly knives.
Joining Knife Rights in the case are members Russell Arnold, Jeffery Folloder, Evan Kaufmann, Rodney Shedd, and Adam Warden and retailer members RGA Auction Services d.b.a. Firearm Solutions and MOD Specialties. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys John W. Dillon at the Dillon Law Group and R. Brent Cooper at Cooper & Scully.
Named as defendants are Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States, and the United States Department of Justice. The lawsuit, Knife Rights, Inc. v. Garland, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fifth Circuit).
Click to read the original post that explains full details and background of the lawsuit.
Visit www.KnifeRights.org for more.
Read the full article here
