Second Amendment Implications on Overturning Switchblade Prohibitions in Massachusetts
By Samantha Genzer (COM ’27)
On August 27, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state’s long-standing ban on switchblades violates the Second Amendment. This decision invalidates a 67-year-old state law and opens the door to reevaluating other restrictions on “bearable arms.” 1 Justice Serge Georges’ unanimous opinion highlights a significant shift in the interpretation of the Second Amendment, extending its protections beyond traditional firearms.
The ruling reflects a broader shift in Second Amendment jurisprudence, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller affirming an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. 2 This momentum continued with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established a two-part test for assessing regulations on arms: whether the weapon falls under the Second Amendment and whether the regulation aligns with historical arms traditions. 3 In applying this framework, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was compelled to assess whether switchblade knives qualify as “arms” and whether banning them aligns with historical practices. The ruling centers on David Canjura, whom the state charged with two counts of assault and battery on a family member on July 6, 2021. During the arrest, officers found a “spring-assisted blade” on Canjura and charged him with carrying a dangerous weapon. 4 The court reviewed the case and applied the two-part test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. First, the court determined that switchblades qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment. 5 Justice Georges concluded that knives were “ubiquitous among colonists, who used them to defend their lives, obtain or produce food, and fashion articles from raw materials.” 6 This historical context suggests that switchblades fit within the broader category of arms recognized at the time of the founding.
The court further stated that switchblades “not only fit within the contemporaneous dictionary definition of arms—which would encompass a broader category of knives that today includes switchblades—but … were commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes around the time of the founding.” 7 This acknowledgment emphasizes the longstanding cultural acceptance and practical use of such knives as both tools and self-defense weapons. The court then addressed whether Massachusetts historically regulated switchblades or similar folding knives. In the Court’s analysis, the state of Massachusetts found no historical laws governing such knives during the “founding or ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 8 Additionally, the court noted that switchblades remain in common use; only seven states and the District of Columbia enforce categorical bans. It concluded that switchblades are “weapons in common use today by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” affirming their legitimacy as tools for self-defense. 9
The Court’s ruling in the Canjura case has significant implications for the interpretation and application of the Second Amendment, especially regarding the types of weapons protected by the Constitution. The decision reinforces the idea that Second Amendment rights extend beyond firearms to include various types of bladed weapons, challenging traditional views that primarily focus on firearms as the core of Second Amendment protections. The ruling may inspire legal challenges to other weapon bans in Massachusetts and possibly in other states. Like the debate surrounding firearms, many characterize switchblades as dangerous and closely linked to criminal activity. Advocates for switchblade bans argue that these knives, designed for quick deployment, are particularly well-suited for criminal purposes, predicting that banning them reduces crime, especially assaults. 10 However, evidence on whether these bans effectively reduce crime remains mixed, weakening the rationale for treating switchblades differently from other pocket knives. 11 If jurists can successfully challenge the logic behind banning switchblades, they could set a precedent for contesting other weapon restrictions justified by similar arguments.
On the other hand, opponents of switchblade bans contend that they pose no more danger than other commonly available knives, paralleling arguments against specific firearm restrictions, such as those targeting semi-automatic rifles. 12 Much like in the debate on guns, those who oppose switchblade bans claim that banning switchblades may not significantly reduce violent lawbreaking but instead push criminals to substitute one type of weapon for another, just as restricting firearms might result in more knives being used in assaults. 13
Ultimately, overturning switchblade bans could spark additional challenges to restrictions on various weapons—including firearms. This ruling may lead courts to reconsider whether such laws actually diminish crime levels. As Second Amendment protections face increasing scrutiny based on arguments rooted in historical precedent and individual rights, decisions like this one could reshape the legal landscape, making it more difficult for states to uphold broad weapons restrictions, whether on knives or firearms.
Works Cited
Kathy McCormak and David Sharp, “Massachusetts Strikes down a 67-Year-Old Switchblade Ban, Cites Landmark Supreme Court Gun Decision,” Associated Press, August 28, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/massachusetts-switchblades-gun-rights-weapons-second-amendment-bfe1a0e80a8f4092f33d1978cabcca3a.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), 15–16.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Canjura, SJC-13432 (2024), 4.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Canjura, SJC-13432 (2024), 13.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Canjura, SJC-13432 (2024) (opinion by Justice Serge Georges).
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Canjura, SJC-13432 (2024) (opinion by Justice Serge Georges).
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Canjura, SJC-13432 (2024) (opinion by Justice Serge Georges).
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Canjura, SJC-13432 (2024) (opinion by Justice Serge Georges).
Paul A. Clark, “Criminal Use of Switchblades: Will the Recent Trend toward Legalization Lead to Bloodshed?” Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 13, no. 2 (Spring–Summer 2014): 243–244.
Clark, “Criminal Use of Switchblades,” 244.
Clark, “Criminal Use of Switchblades,” 245–246.
Clark, “Criminal Use of Switchblades,” 246.