Story by Jeff Folloder: TSRA President
April 8, 2026
The Fifth Circuit judges hearing Knife Rights Inc. v. Bondi on Wednesday, April 1, had pointed questions for both sides of the argument. But, while they expressed concerns over the scope of the plaintiffs' challenge and their standing to bring the case, the three judges were downright hostile toward the government's expansive reading of its authority to regulate–or even outright ban–knives under the Second Amendment.
Arguments started with the judges questioning whether Knife Rights and its co-plaintiffs should really be able to challenge the Federal Switchblade Act (FSA), especially given how rarely it is enforced in practice. The judges seemed skeptical that there was a real threat to their rights at play. They also appeared skeptical that there was enough to justify a suit seeking to block enforcement of the entire law.
"That's just it. 1,242 convictions or prosecutions are the ones that you all cite, but they're at a minimum, 10 plus years old, and you've got three or four or five in the first decade of the century, something like that," one judge asked. "But where's the case law that says that's enough for a credible fear of enforcement going forward, pre-enforcement, facial challenge?"
While the judges spent most of their questioning of the plaintiffs focused on those two issues, the government seemed willing to concede both points during its argument. First, it said it has not ceded the authority to enforce any part of the FSA, even though it hasn't actively pursued many cases in recent years. Then, it explicitly agreed the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the law.
"We have certainly not disavowed charging them," the government said. "We think we could charge them. We think that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs have standing."
Those were the only points of agreement between the government and the plaintiffs, though, because the government took a very expansive view of its power to regulate knives. It argued that there are three principles underpinning its authority to regulate switchblades.
"First, we have the very well-grounded historical principle that states government may regulate concealed and therefore inherently concealable weapons like the automatic switchblades at issue in this case," the government said. "Second is the similarly well-grounded principle that the Second Amendment does not extend to weapons that are adapted for criminal misuse. And then third is the principle that I think miles restrictions, such as those on the manner and mode of operation of weapons, do not reflect the infringement of the Second Amendment right."
The judges seemed highly skeptical of that formulation. One asked whether the government was trying to argue automatic knives aren't protected by the text of the Second Amendment under the Bruen test or whether it was trying to argue they are but there's a historical tradition of banning them. When the government responded it didn't think the distinction mattered, the judge followed up by asking just how broad the government believed its authority to regulate knives was.
"Can the government ban all knives?" the judge asked.
"I think it may well not be a Second Amendment problem to ban knives," the government said. "It may well be a silly law, for a lot of other reasons."
"How could it not be a Second Amendment problem to ban all knives?" another judge interrupted.
"I think we have this very clear historical tradition, including all sorts of of knives, small--not swords, which I think are protected--but sort of dirks, daggers, Bowie knives," the government replied.
That also led to several questions about the historical support for the government's argument. The government declined to take a firm position on whether laws from the mid-to-late 19th Century should have the same weight in a Bruen analysis as those from the Founding. It was also unable to identify state laws that banned the possession of automatic knives from the Founding Era.
Beyond the merits, where the judges seem consistently skeptical of the government's broad claims of authority, the judges also asked several times whether they should just remand the case back down to the lower court to reconsider the merits. One judge also asked whether ruling against the government would create a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit, which recently upheld a state knife carry ban. But they seemed satisfied that it wouldn't, since the law at issue in this case is federal.
Knife Rights Inc. v. Bondi was filed on June 17, 2025, and has since gained support from organizations such as the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and Mountain States Legal Foundation. The case is utilizing the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen argument that an individual has the right to bear arms for self-defense in public. TSRA President Jeff Folloder is a lead plaintiff in this case.
