Introduction
Can the government block Americans from acquiring a common, useful self-defense tool simply because it disapproves of it?
That’s the question before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bondi, a case challenging the Federal Switchblade Act, a decades-old law that bans the interstate sale, transport, or distribution of switchblade knives.
Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms (CKBA) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the court to strike down the ban and uphold a simple truth: You can’t “keep and bear” arms if you’re forbidden from acquiring them in the first place.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
Case Background
Congress passed the Federal Switchblade Act of 1958 during a wave of moral panic over youth crime and Hollywood’s portrayal of “switchblades.” The law made it illegal to sell or transport these knives across state lines.
But today, many states have repealed switchblade bans, recognizing them as ordinary tools used by hunters, tradesmen, first responders, and everyday citizens. Despite this, the federal ban still stands, blocking lawful Americans from acquiring or selling these knives through normal commercial channels.
When challengers brought this issue to federal court, the District Court dismissed the case, holding that the Act doesn’t even implicate the Second Amendment because it only restricts “distribution,” not actual “keeping or bearing.”
That reasoning, CKBA argues, misses the point entirely.
What the Case is About
The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen transformed how courts must analyze regulations which impact the keeping and bearing of arms.
Under Bruen, courts must ask:
- Does the Second Amendment’s text cover the individual’s conduct?
- If yes, can the government prove that the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation?
Only if the conduct is not protected by the Second Amendment can a court stop at step one.
In the Knife Rights case, the lower court never reached step two. Instead, the district court decided that laws restricting the acquisition of arms do not even fall under the Second Amendment – because those laws do not directly relate to the keeping and bearing of arms. CKBA’s brief argues this was a clear legal error: “You cannot ‘keep and bear’ an arm you’re not allowed to obtain.”
MSLF’s Argument
MSLF’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms explains that the Federal Switchblade Act regulates conduct covered by the plain text of the Constitution.
MSLF’s CKBA’s brief makes three key points:
- The right to acquire is inherent in the right to keep and bear.
Just as the freedom of the press implies the right to buy ink and paper, the Second Amendment protects the right to obtain the tools necessary for self-defense.
- Switchblades are “arms.”
Knives have been used by ordinary citizens for lawful purposes since the Founding Era. Courts across the country have long recognized that knives—switchblades included—fall under the Second Amendment’s protection of “arms.”
- The government can’t sidestep the Constitution through clever wordplay.
Calling a restriction a “distribution ban” doesn’t change the reality that it prevents people from acquiring arms altogether.
MSLF’s CKBA also highlighted recent decisions from across the country, like Beckwith v. Frey (striking down Maine’s waiting period) and Reese v. ATF, that reaffirm the same principle: the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them.
What’s at Stake?
If the lower court’s decision stands, the federal government could use similar logic to ban nearly any class of arms, not just switchblades, by cutting off access to them at the point of purchase.
That would make the Second Amendment a “second-class right”, contrary to the Supreme Court’s repeated warning in Bruen and McDonald v. Chicago.
A victory here would reaffirm that Constitutional rights don’t stop at the store counter. The Second Amendment protects not just the keeping and bearing of arms, but also the ability of Americans to lawfully obtain those arms in the first place.
Ultimately, the Federal Switchblade Act is unconstitutional. By preventing law-abiding citizens from acquiring a common tool used for lawful purposes, it undermines both the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.
MSLF’s CKBA’s fight in this case is part of a larger effort to ensure that courts apply the Bruen standard faithfully and that the government cannot hollow out fundamental rights through regulation and semantics.
Case Timeline
- October 1, 2025: Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms filed its amicus curiae brief, urging the Court of Appeals to reverse the District Court’s decision and uphold the Constitutional right to acquire, keep, and bear arms.
