Knives, nunchucks, brass knuckles, etc. are usually covered by state level laws, from what I've seen, and the legality varies widely. Firearms are a slightly different story, since the 2nd Amendment very specifically protects firearms ownership. So yes, it is possible that somewhere or other, a switch blade knife is illegal while an "assault rifle" is legal.
I saw "assault rifle" in quotes, because most people talking about these issues have no clue what an "assault rifle" really is, and are repeating garbage they heard from various anti-gun activist groups, who routinely use a totally bogus definition of "assault rifle" or "assault weapon". It's important to understand that owning a real assault rifle (that is, one capable of select-fire / bust-mode / fully automatic operation) IS legal but it's VERY highly regulated, VERY expensive, and you can only - as a civilian - purchase weapons manufactured before 1986.
since the 2nd Amendment very specifically protects firearms ownership
I've seen folks use that rationale, but the 2A doesn't say "firearms" it says "arms" - presumably "knives, nunchucks, brass knuckles, etc" would fall under that, although that's clearly not how it's been interpreted.
The author(s) appear to take the position that knives are protected under the 2A and that many existing laws regulating knives are probably unconstitutional. At least from the bit I've had time to read so far...
I have seen a few knife groups using this exact same reasoning - I think it just gets heard less because the firearm part of the "arms" is the hot national topic, and Congress has made very few laws that limit knives/other arms - most of those are state laws.
That's a fair point, but - for whatever reason - the way it's interpreted in practice seems to be mainly (if not exclusively) about firearms.
Come to think of it, I don't know why that is, and I'm not arguing that it's correct.
Anyway, the real point is that there seems to be a lot more variation in laws concerning the legality of owning knives, nunchucks, brass-knuckles, etc., than there is about guns. Guns may be more highly regulated in general, but I don't know of a single state where private ownership of, say, a pistol, is illegal. But I'm pretty sure there are states where switch-blade knives are. But I'm working off memory here, so maybe I'm wrong.
Before the recent set of court rulings, private ownership of a pistol was indeed completely illegal with no exceptions in Chicago and Washington, DC. Several other jurisdictions are almost as strict - as of the last time I read up on it, in NYC, it is illegal to even touch a pistol which is not registered to you, which is a lengthy and complex process.
Yes, but neither of those is a State, and as you pointed out, those restrictions have been modified by recent court rulings.
But not to quibble over details... all I was originally saying is that, for whatever reason, laws on owning certain non-firearm weapons (switchblades, nunchuka, brass knuckles, saps, etc.) seem to vary wildly, whereas in general firearms ownership is legal in the entire United States.
It is an interesting situation, to be able to own, say, an AR15 or a 1911 pistol, while simultaneously not being able to own brass knuckles.
The 2nd Amendment protects arms, not firearms specifically. I think a good argument could be made that knives should fall under its protection as well. However I'm not sure if the courts have addressed knives post Heller.
Yeah, see my other reply. You're correct in that the 2A doesn't use the term "firearm". But in practice that seems to be the interpretation. I don't actually know why.
You could probably argue that from historic context, this was most likely firearms and swords/sabres or the like, as smaller knifes were unlikely to be regulated in the middle of the wilderness and east-Asian weapons were probably unknown/unlikely to be a concern.
However, I am not an expert on your curious rules regarding the interpretation of laws, so I might very well be wrong.
I've been doing some searching on why switchblades are illegal (your post sparked my curiosity) and can't seem to find a good reason other than 'politicians are scared of whatever hollywood villifies'. It seems all the interest in switchblades faded after they became illegal, so there was no lobby to bring them back into legality.
Nunchaku and Nightsticks are also illegal in many places.
Many of the state laws are written as if the author had just watched several 1960s and 70s martial arts films and mistook them for documentaries about gang culture.
I can see some logic behind making switchblades illegal. They are easy to conceal both pre and post crime, as well as being low cost. Add to that there is no paperwork (that I'm aware of) to purchase one and you have a virtually untraceable weapon. That is hard to say about assault rifles.
Should paring and chef's knives be illegal then? They don't require opening at all, can be quite sharp, and are widely distributed. Baseball bats, tire irons, icicles: almost anything can become an untraceable weapon.
I'm not suggesting that I agree with the logic, I'm just stating I can see some logic behind the statement. However, to answer your question, it is much harder to conceal any of those items. If you carry a chefs knife and intend to use it as a weapon, you would have to be careful in how you carried the knife to and from the location of the crime so that you don't cut yourself. On top of that, a chef's knife is quite large. A switchblade can be easily concealed in ones pocket and hidden in a sleeve then used and concealed again with virtually no risk of cutting the assailant.
" Baseball bats, tire irons, icicles: almost anything can become an untraceable weapon."
Perhaps I didn't pick my words correctly. What I mean is that I could stab somebody with a switchblade without drawing any attention to themselves after the fact. Not the same can be said about bulky items such as baseball bats, tire irons or even a chef's knife.
Fair enough ... However, there are several things I could use to commit a crime and easily conceal afterwards. A paring knife in a sheath or even a USB cable could be used as a weapon and easily concealed. These two objects have very deadly potential but their primary purpose isn't to cause harm. For something that is created to cause harm, that is a different discussion. Otherwise, we would need to talk about registering your Cat 6 cables with the government and the box of cable sitting in your garage would be considered an assault weapon.
I don't buy the argument that assisted-opening knives should be more controlled because people think they were invented to hurt others. It's technology that many people have found utility in for meaningful purposes: construction workers, sailors and ships' crew, hunters and fishermen, and emergency response personnel. I think many of them would tell you it's incredibly helpful to be able to quickly open a knife with one-hand when you need it. Unfortunately, we live in a world where everyday things have inherent risks if used improperly. Sometimes they are used the wrong way with malicious intentions and the easiest way we can think to prevent trouble in the future is by regulating the objects, not the behavior.
I think switchblades fall prey to a particular stereotype, hence their "bad" nature. But, ask any diver/hunter/tactical knife wearer - they are strapped to the lower leg/calf in a holster, easily concealed under a pant leg.
That's roughly how it works in the UK: it's illegal to carry any knife besides a pocket knife in public without good reason. If you use knives at work, taking them to and from work is considered good reason.
So is a regular (or assisted) folding knife like the ones Knife Depot sells, and they are just as fast to open with a little practice. Where do we draw the line between "convenient" and "illegal"? I don't want to see a UK-style ban on pointy objects here in the states.
"they are just as fast to open with a little practice"
Agreed. I think the banning of switchblades just pushed knife manufacturers to innovate, creating opening mechanisms which are just as fast, with fewer moving parts, and are actually easier on the knife[1]. So they follow the letter of the law, but still violate its spirit. Not sure what that spirit is exactly though.
[1] In my experience, switchblades and some auto-openers open so forcefully that over time their locking mechanisms degrade.
