Knife Rights has filed an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) Brief in support of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court in the case of Snope v Brown (formerly Bianchi v. Frosh). The petition seeks review of the en banc Fourth Circuit’s incredibly flawed decision that so-called “assault weapons” are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment despite being owned by millions of Americans and being the most popular rifle in the U.S. today. Knife Rights experienced a very similar outcome with the decision in our case challenging the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of California’s ban on automatically opening knives (switchblades) 2-inches and longer.
Click to read the Amicus Brief.
We have a vested interest in SCOTUS providing even clearer guidance on the issue of what arms are protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, as requested by the Petitioners. Unfortunately, courts that are unfriendly to the Second Amendment continue to tie themselves in knots to avoid the clear directives from the Bruen decision. Many, like the Fourth Circuit, are choosing to read more into the plain text of the Second Amendment than exists, adding requirements that obviously do not appear in the Second Amendment in an effort to avoid classifying their disfavored weapons as protected arms.
Knife Right Chairman, Doug Ritter, said, “An opinion on this case would likely be dispositive for our Second Amendment knife cases, doing away with these anti-2A courts’ shenanigans. In order to get to that step, SCOTUS first has to accept this case, which is what this petition for cert and ours and others’ supporting amicus briefs are all about. Otherwise, we will see a minority of courts continue to flaunt SCOTUS’ directions on 2A law, penalizing millions of law-abiding Americans, including many knife owners, with clearly unlawful rulings. It is time for SCOTUS to end this farce and this is the perfect case with which to do so.”
Knife Rights’ recent experience with two lower courts at opposite ends of the nation coming to contradictory determinations regarding switchblades as arms protected by the Second Amendment provides us a unique perspective to present to SCOTUS. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found switchblades to be arms under the plain text of the Second Amendment in a well-reasoned decision abiding by SCOTUS’ precedent. However, four days earlier, the Federal District Court in San Diego said they were not arms, adding to the plain text of the Second Amendment by requiring automatically opening knives to be “in common use for self-defense” in order to be considered arms under the ordinary meaning of the Second Amendment. Just as with the case on petition, that Court’s added requirements were both irrational and absurd (we have already filed our Notice of Appeal in that case).
Ritter continued, “The Petitioners are requesting that SCOTUS use this case to say ‘read our lips’ about what are arms covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, SCOTUS really does need to step in to close the ludicrous ‘loopholes’ these courts are concocting out of whole cloth to avoid recognizing the new reality presented by Bruen and Heller preceding it.”
Read the whole thing at KnifeRights.org.
Read the full article here