The state of California's response to Knife Rights' Petition for Rehearing En Banc might best be described as "just say no." In attacking our arguments about the Court not following both Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the State twisted things 180 degrees to disingenuously claim these clear precedents somehow support the Court's absurd decision.
As sometimes happens, especially with decisions from judges ideologically opposed to constitutionally protected rights, such as the Second Amendment, we are now arguing over legal issues far removed from the merits.
At its core, the State's response leans heavily on a procedural escape hatch rather than defending the law on its actual merits. Instead of seriously grappling with whether California's sweeping ban on switchblades comports with the Second Amendment as interpreted in Heller and Bruen, the State repeatedly falls back on the misapplication of the Salerno standard for facial challenges, insisting that if the law could be constitutional in even a single hypothetical application, divorced from the law actually challenged, the entire challenge must fail. This approach allows the State to sidestep the real constitutional question: whether banning an entire class of bearable arms used by law-abiding citizens can survive under the Supreme Court's text-and-history framework. For readers familiar with Bruen, this reads less like a defense of the Constitution and more like an effort to avoid it altogether.
Even more troubling is the State's attempt to reframe the case into something far narrower than the law actually enacted. The response repeatedly characterizes the issue as a restriction on "concealed carry" of certain knives, pointing to historical analogues involving Bowie knives and other weapons. But this framing ignores the reality that California's statute goes far beyond concealed carry-it criminalizes possession, transfer, and sale. By focusing on a selectively narrowed, court-drafted version of the law, the State effectively asks the Court to uphold a modern, broad prohibition based on historical regulations that addressed only the manner of carrying weapons, not an outright ban. That sleight of hand is precisely what Bruen warned against.
Finally, the State's historical analysis reads more like a curated list than a meaningful constitutional inquiry. Rather than identifying a clear, well-established tradition of banning entire categories of commonly owned arms, the State strings together scattered examples of mid-to-late 19th-century regulations on specific weapons-many of which only addressed the limited conduct of concealed carry-to argue that categorical bans are permissible. But under Heller, the historical analysis was already conducted. Only arms that are not in common use for lawful purposes can be banned-and it is undisputed that switchblades are in common use. What the State offers instead is a patchwork of selective history, stretched well beyond its limits to justify a law that the Founders themselves would have recognized as an outright prohibition.
Now it is up to the Ninth Circuit to decide if they will accept our Petition for Rehearing or not. We'll let you know as soon as they let us know. It could be weeks or months.
The government is fighting back hard in all three of our Federal cases. Whether it's $25, $250, $2,500, or whatever you can afford today, every dollar goes directly to the legal fight. Your contribution to the 501(c)(3) Knife Rights Foundation is tax-deductible. Please support our efforts to defend your Knife Rights Rights.
Since 2010 Knife Rights' efforts have resulted in 58 bills & court decisions repealing knife bans & protecting knife owners in 36 states and over 200 cities and towns! Knife Rights is America's grassroots knife owners' organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™.