Supreme Judicial Court rules possessing a switchblade knife is no longer a crime under the 2nd Amendment

[pastera]

Given that I quoted the same link in the post you responded to, I’m not sure how I could make it clearer.

Going back I see where you were responding to the post citing the 9th circuit case.
But the truth is that it doesn't matter if the case is criminal or civil - once the 2nd is implicated, the burden shifts to the government, period.
Also, the in common use test is for "lawful purpose" in general and cannot be limited to only self-defense. Even the SJC has aquiesced to SCOTUS on this.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Going back I see where you were responding to the post citing the 9th circuit case.
But the truth is that it doesn't matter if the case is criminal or civil - once the 2nd is implicated, the burden shifts to the government, period.

Despite your assertion, that's incorrect. Statutes are presumed to be valid, and the challenger bears the burden of showing that a statute is unconstitutional․

 

[pastera]

Despite your assertion, that's incorrect. Statutes are presumed to be valid, and the challenger bears the burden of showing that a statute is unconstitutional․

Have you read Heller and Bruen?
In an arms ban case under Heller once the plaintiff shows that the challenged statute implicates the 2nd, the burden then shifts to the government to show that the statute falls within the historical tradition of arms regulation.

While generally true that the petitioner has the burden of proof to show a statute is unconstitutional, Heller sets a quite different standard of review for arms bans. If it were otherwise then the SJC would have decided the switchblade case much differently.
Edit to add quote from the SJC opinion

First, we must determine whether "the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct." Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17. If the regulated conduct falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment, our analysis ends. If, on the other hand, we conclude the regulated conduct
is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, "the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," and we proceed to the second part of the analysis. Id. In the second part of the analysis, "the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of [arms] regulation."4 Id.

The plaintiff need only show that the 2nd is implicated. And the case law on showing that implication is moving quite dramatically in our favor.

 

[KBCraig]

Have you read Heller and Bruen?
In an arms ban case under Heller once the plaintiff shows that the challenged statute implicates the 2nd, the burden then shifts to the government to show that the statute falls within the historical tradition of arms regulation.

Have you read the district and circuit decisions that totally ignore Bruen and say, "Yeah, but... dangerous, so. Statute stands."

 

[pastera]

Have you read the district and circuit decisions that totally ignore Bruen and say, "Yeah, but... dangerous, so. Statute stands."

I haven't had time to read the 9th circuit decision - will be trying to get to it ASAP but life and job still go on

Just because a court goes rogue doesn't mean the correct methodology gets changed - the standard is "dangerous and unusual"
All offensive arms are dangerous simply by their nature so merely being dangerous is not enough. A weapon must be unusually dangerous to be considered outside the 2nds protection.

 

[pastera]

Have you read the district and circuit decisions that totally ignore Bruen and say, "Yeah, but... dangerous, so. Statute stands."

Just read the beginning of the decision - wow
Pretty much: Scotus said our three step process was one step too many so we'll take Bruen's first step and break it into three steps that look just like our old process.

By page 4 they have made it clear that they have zero intentions of following the Supreme Court's precedent any further than disingenuous lip service.

I go back to the Mass SJC's language as it is likely the most clear application of Heller, Cataeno and Bruen I've seen so far

First, we must determine whether "the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's
conduct." Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17. If the regulated conduct falls outside the scope of the Second Amendment, our analysis ends. If, on the other hand, we conclude the regulated conduct
is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, "the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct," and we proceed to the second part of the analysis. Id. In the second
part of the analysis, "the government must demonstrate that the
regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition
of [arms] regulation."4 Id.

2. Application. a. Step one. The defendant argues a switchblade, at root, is a type of folding pocketknife, and law-abiding citizens have possessed folding pocket knives for lawful purposes since our nation's founding, including for self-
defense.

 

[Parker Schreiber]

Have you read Heller and Bruen?

Yes, did you? You've already admitted that you haven't read the case you are arguing about. The Heller decision explicitly mentions the presumption of constitutionality. Nor did either case overrule United States v Salerno, which stated, "A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid."

Edit to add quote from the SJC opinion
The plaintiff need only show that the 2nd is implicated.

The SJC opinion does not contain the word "plaintiff." Nor would it, since it was a criminal case. Perhaps you're quoting some other case?

Quoting Bruen, "When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. " The state argued "that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of demonstrating that the challenged statutes contravene the plain text of the Second Amendment." The 9th circuit judge agreed, meaning no presumption of protection.

 

[FalArAk]

Finally going to get a Microtech.

What do you think of this?

Microtech Signature Series Combat Troodon Gen III Intercepter - Apocalyptic

Microtech Signature Series Combat Troodon Gen III Intercepter - Apocalyptic, 1217-10aps, microtech, intercepter, otf, out the front, automatic, troodon, combat troodon

www.bauer-precision.com

Great knife, just dont order it from Bauer.

 

[jaymce]

Anyone know where to get a switchblade fixed?

My dad had one, it no longer works (thi k the spring broke), but I've never really had a chance to look at it.

BillDeShivs

BillDeShivs : - Knife Design Custom Knives Embellishment Plating Restoration Custom jewelry Museum What's new? Hubertus shellpullers Knife Repair Gun parts The Leverletto Story PLEASE READ! IMPORTANT! Miniature automatic knives! LEVERLETTO TRADEMARK Videos Italian Shell Pullers Miscellaneous...

billdeshivs.com

Does great work and reasonable turn around times. Fair and honest.

Another bad decision to allow for switchblade sales in MA. I don't think I have enough money left to start something new to collect just when I wanted to get a new gun!

Walt's 23cm Classics

latama.net

View attachment 913882

I have a few Walts Classics. They are worth the extra $. I bought an AKC to compare from PVK and sold the AKC within a month. I have an 80s or 90s Campolin and it comes close but the blade grind and details on the Latama are a bit more clean. Walts a nice guy as well.

 

[pastera]

Jared talks about this ruling and its possible impact on Commonwealth v Donnell at the state level.

He also in passing talks about a coming federal suit against the new gun bill that he claims is going to be a "doozy". I will take him at his word he has insight, more likely to have it than us.

Donnell is a licensing case not a ban case.
The Supreme Court has not actually taken a pure licensing case therefore Heller's presumption that licenses are constitutional still stands federally.
While the switchblade case will be quite informative since in discussion point 1 it not only accepts Bruen but explains in detail a correct interpretation.
If the the Court finds for Donnell given the SJC's Bruen framework, then Mass becomes the next CC state but that framework speaks to weapons bans and "common use" testing. And since the state failed to supply any analogous laws, once Breun's first step implicated the 2nd the case was won.
In Donnell, this very well could be framed as banning all modern firearms and make the state show an analogous law requiring payment to government in order to possess outside the home.

Remember, while an LTC allowed firearm carry, switchblade were still banned even with an LTC. The SJC may still twist their own logic to say that licensing is a de minimus infringement so it is acceptable unlike the complete ban on switchblade.

 

[pastera]

Yes, did you? You've already admitted that you haven't read the case you are arguing about. The Heller decision explicitly mentions the presumption of constitutionality. Nor did either case overrule United States v Salerno, which stated, "A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid."

And Bruen sets out a clear framework on piercing the presumption.
Heller stated that they didn't need any further review because of the clear infringement of the DC handgun ban.
Step one of the Bruen test is all that is necessary to remove constitutional presumption - if the object in question is a bearable arm then that item is presumed to be protected.
And given the definition of arm dictated by Heller, step one's burden is not hard to overcome.

The SJC opinion does not contain the word "plaintiff." Nor would it, since it was a criminal case. Perhaps you're quoting some other case?

I'm simply using shorthand - even the SJC doesn't refer to appellee and appellant in thier opinion choosing to use defendant and state instead.

Quoting Bruen, "When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. " The state argued "that Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of demonstrating that the challenged statutes contravene the plain text of the Second Amendment." The 9th circuit judge agreed, meaning no presumption of protection.

Just because a judge refuses to apply controlling case law doesn't mean that is truth.
The 9th did not apply Bruen or Heller but instead made up it's own test.
If one uses the Heller definition of arm that has a common lawful purpose then that item is protected, even if the lawful purpose is simply collecting.

I truly don't understand why to argue legitimacy in cases where a quick read of the just the opinion's opening shows the court is improperly applying controlling opinions.

 

[Coyote33]

if the object in question is a bearable arm then that item is presumed to be protected.

If one uses the Heller definition of arm that has a common lawful purpose then that item is protected, even if the lawful purpose is simply collecting.

These, if they were true, would open up pretty much anything, up to full auto (M16, AK, Uzi, MP5, etc.), would they not? If so, why not, or why has it not yet happened? And if not, surely semi-auto would be a step down from that and surely would have happened by now.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Anyone know where I can buy a 4.2in auto OTF dagger that actually ships to MA?

Price range <$750.

BladeHQ won’t ship it to MA:

 

[pastera]

These, if they were true, would open up pretty much anything, up to full auto (M16, AK, Uzi, MP5, etc.), would they not? If so, why not, or why has it not yet happened? And if not, surely semi-auto would be a step down from that and surely would have happened by now.

The full auto question is an issue since Alito has twice made his position clear - He is not in favor of killing the Hughes ammendment never mind the NFA itself.
Since Roberts is more interested in the public appearance of the court than the Court's adherence to the constitution, that puts any full auto challenge at an insurmountable disadvantage.

 

[pastera]

Anyone know where I can buy a 4.2in auto OTF dagger that actually ships to MA?

Price range <$750.

BladeHQ won’t ship it to MA:

View attachment 914106

Send them a copy of the SJC opinion?
Probably won't work but it wouldn't hurt

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Send them a copy of the SJC opinion?
Probably won't work but it wouldn't hurt

Yeah just emailed them, fwiw.

 

[slugworth]

I got a nockoff Microtech OTF from DHGate for $40

 

[hessy]

What about local ordnances in MA? For example, in Salem, MA if you carry "any knife having any type of blade in excess of 2½ inches, except when actually engaged in hunting, fishing or other sporting activity or in going to and/or returning from such activities or in any employment which requires the use of any type of knife; or other object or tool so redesigned, fashioned, prepared or treated that such may be used to inflict bodily harm or injury to another." you will be "any person who violates this section shall be subject to arrest and a fine of not more than $50.00 for each offense."

 

[Picton]

What about local ordnances in MA? For example, in Salem, MA if you carry "any knife having any type of blade in excess of 2½ inches, except when actually engaged in hunting, fishing or other sporting activity or in going to and/or returning from such activities or in any employment which requires the use of any type of knife; or other object or tool so redesigned, fashioned, prepared or treated that such may be used to inflict bodily harm or injury to another." you will be "any person who violates this section shall be subject to arrest and a fine of not more than $50.00 for each offense."

I suspect those ordinances will remain what most of them have always been: completely unenforced, like jaywalking ordinances or bans on blowjobs.

They might stay on the books, sure, but you have nothing to fear from them.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I got a nockoff Microtech OTF from DHGate for $40

Caveat emptor

 

[Darkslide]

Anyone know where I can buy a 4.2in auto OTF dagger that actually ships to MA?

Price range <$750.

BladeHQ won’t ship it to MA:

View attachment 914106

Try Knifeworks.com | Online Knife Store | Buy Knives Online!

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Try Knifeworks.com | Online Knife Store | Buy Knives Online!

Argh, same deal. Apparently there’s federal statute that prevents shipping auto knives across state lines

Thanks RINOs

ETA: these were signed into law in 1958 where Democrats held both houses and the WH under Eisenhower. So Democrats did this.

Automatic Knife Compliance Form

knifeworks.com

FEDERAL CODES-

18 USC 1716 (G) (2) (1-4) provides this summary: Switchblade knives can be shipped to civilian and armed forces supply or procurement officers and employees of the Federal government ordering or procuring or purchasing such knives in connection with activities in the Federal government; to supply or procurement officers in the National Guard, the Air National Guard or militia of the state or territory of the District of Columbia ordering, procuring or purchasing such knives in connection with the activities of such organizations; to supply or procurement officers or employees of the municipal government of the District of Columbia or the government of any state or territory of any county, city, or other political subdivision of a state or territory ordering, procuring or purchasing such knives in connection with the activities of such government.

15 USC 1244 provides in summary: Knives can be shipped by common carrier, that sale, transportation or distribution, possession or introduction into interstate commerce of switchblade knives is authorized if it is pursuant to a contract with the armed forces or any member or employee thereof acting in the performance of his or her duty may possess switchblade knives any may have them shipped to him and sold to him or her. The possession and transportation upon his or her person of a switchblade knife or a blade 3 inches or less is authorized to any handicapped individual who has the use of only one arm.

 

[chris_1001]

Argh, same deal. Apparently there’s federal statute that prevents shipping auto knives across state lines

Thanks RINOs

Automatic Knife Compliance Form

knifeworks.com

Its not like you are lying on a 4473... There is no Knife ATF to come and shoot your dog...

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Its not like you are lying on a 4473... There is no Knife ATF to come and shoot your dog...

Yeah maybe.

Anyone know of a MA dealer that carries Microtech? I assume special order would work as it would be shipped to them.

 

[Picton]

Yeah maybe.

Anyone know of a MA dealer that carries MicrI tech? I assume special order would work as it would be shipped to them.

Might want to post something in the Knife Forum; not really a WTB, but a request for anyone who knows about these.

For some reason, the OP didn't place this one in the Knife Forum. Didn't put it in MA Laws, either; ah well.

 

[cams]

Just drive across either border and buy one. NH or RI.

 

[design]

In Donnell, this very well could be framed as banning all modern firearms and make the state show an analogous law requiring payment to government in order to possess outside the home.

Remember, while an LTC allowed firearm carry, switchblade were still banned even with an LTC. The SJC may still twist their own logic to say that licensing is a de minimus infringement so it is acceptable unlike the complete ban on switchblade.

What is interesting is there were anti-gun 4 briefs submitted (3 from MA and Giffords) where a historical analog from MA could have been highlighted. No one did, because the first licensing schemes were in the 1900's. Read Simkin's brief.

 

[bostonelli]

Double edge blade out the front ok now?

 

[chris_1001]

Double edge blade out the front ok now?

Negative.

Single edge only.