•

Massachusetts high court strikes down switchblade ban

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/massachusetts-high-court-strikes-down-switchblade-ban-2024-08-27/

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held, opens new tab that a 1957 law barring people from possessing spring-release pocketknives commonly known as "switchblades" violated the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

The court reached that conclusion while dismissing a charge filed against David Canjura for unlawfully possessing a switchblade, which Boston police found when responding to a report of an altercation between Canjura and his girlfriend.

3 comments

southsamurai

•

I've always said this. If a knife is a weapon it falls under the 2nd as a form of arms. If it isn't a weapon, there's no need to ban it. Simple.

Anything can be used as a weapon in the extreme, and most things can be weapons in typical situations, but knives are kinda like shovels or hammers. They're a tool that can be a weapon easily. Even knives designed to be weapons from the start (and there are plenty) are such limited weapons, only idiots would ban them outright. Well, that might be a bit strong, but it would require ignorance of knives and their use as weapons.

BearOfaTime

•

If a knife is a weapon it falls under the 2nd as a form of arms. If it isn't a weapon, there's no need to ban it. Simple.

Succint. Not sure why this was ever a difficult thing to clarify.

We need an amendment that requires all new laws to go through court before being implemented, to verify they don't contravene the constitution. Though I'm not sure if that idea would contravene constitutional requirements.

jordanlund

•

This is in line with one of my favorite cases, Caetanto vs. Massachusetts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts

Woman got a stun gun to protect herself from an abusive ex. Was arrested for having the stun gun. Cops argued that the 2nd amendnent didn't apply because stun guns didn't exist back then.

Supreme court ruled:

The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]