The federal ban on shipping and selling switchblades across state lines violates the Second Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in an opinion filed October 21, 2026. The decision strikes the central provision of the 68-year-old Federal Switchblade Act.
The published opinion in Knife Rights, Inc. v. Blanche was written by Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, on a panel with Judges Willett and Wilson. "Applying the framework articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, we hold that the FSA is unconstitutional," the court wrote.
What the law does
Congress passed the act in 1958. The opinion recounts that it grew out of a congressional subcommittee's work on juvenile delinquency, which estimated that 1,200,000 switchblades entered the market each year and that many crossed state lines to get around local bans. The House report said the goal was to "remove one of the favorite weapons of our juvenile and criminal element."
The statute defines a switchblade as a knife whose blade opens automatically by a button or other device in the handle, or by inertia or gravity. Section 1242 makes it a federal crime to knowingly introduce, manufacture for introduction, transport or distribute one in interstate commerce. Section 1243 bans making, selling or possessing them in U.S. territories, Indian country and other areas of special federal jurisdiction.
Who sued and what the court held
Knife Rights, Inc., five individuals and two Texas businesses filed suit in the Northern District of Texas in September 2024. The district court dismissed the case, and the plaintiffs appealed.
The panel first held that switchblades are "Arms" under the plain text of the Second Amendment. "Knives have been used for defense throughout human history, including the American founding," Elrod wrote. The court pointed to a record showing "millions" of automatic knives in the country today, used for "every day utility use, hunting, fishing, recreation, and camping and hiking." It also held that the right to keep and bear arms covers the ability to acquire them, which is why a ban aimed at the supply chain counts.
The government's main historical evidence was a law review article cataloguing nearly two hundred pre-1900 statutes on daggers, dirks and sword canes. The panel found that only two of them, an 1837 Georgia law and an 1881 Arkansas law, restricted sales in a way comparable to Section 1242. "Two laws out of nearly two hundred bring us into outlier territory," the court wrote.
The challengers lost on Section 1243. They brought only a facial challenge, which requires showing a law is invalid in every application. The government listed places where the provision plainly can apply, including courthouses, federal prisons and military bases, and the court agreed that was enough.
An unusual defender
The Justice Department, which under the Trump administration has attacked a number of gun laws, defended this one. It argued the act "fits within the tradition of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons," Reuters reported. Knife Rights said in a statement that "The Second Amendment protects knives, not just firearms." The department did not immediately respond to Reuters.
The newsroom's analysis: what happens next
The ruling reverses the dismissal and sends the case back to the district court in Texas. It does not by itself erase the statute nationwide, and state knife laws are untouched.
The government now has two clocks. Under the federal appellate rules, a party that includes the United States generally has 45 days to seek rehearing by the full court, which from October 21 runs to December 5, 2026. A petition to the Supreme Court is due 90 days after judgment, which by the newsroom's count is January 19, 2027, unless rehearing is sought first.
A split is possible. The opinion cites the Ninth Circuit's 2026 litigation over California's switchblade rules, Knife Rights v. Bonta, including a dissent from that court's denial of rehearing en banc. It also notes that the circuits disagree on where the "common use" question belongs in the Bruen test. The Supreme Court is already sorting through a crowded docket of arms cases, as our look at the November 6 conference on 24 gun petitions shows.
The decision also fits a pattern of courts testing what counts as a protected arm, from the Seventh Circuit's suppressor case to the AR-15 bans defended by Cook County and Connecticut. If the Fifth Circuit's reasoning holds, the question of whether a weapon is "dangerous and unusual" will turn on history and current lawful use, not on the fears that drove Congress in 1958.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
