Fifth Circuit Holds Federal Ban on Interstate Switchblade Commerce Violates the Second Amendment

Oct 22, 2026 · 6 min read · By Brandon J. Grable

Case: Knife Rights, Inc. v. Blanche, No. 25-10754, 2026 WL 3151464 (5th Cir. Oct. 21, 2026) (published). Opinion by Chief Judge Elrod, joined by Judges Willett and Wilson. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, No. 4:24-CV-926. Read the opinion on the Fifth Circuit's website.

What happened

In 1958, during a national panic over juvenile delinquency, Congress passed the Federal Switchblade Act. The Fifth Circuit's opinion opens with the 1955 film Rebel Without a Cause and its switchblade fight scene, and it describes the congressional reports from that era, which aimed to keep what Congress called "one of the favorite weapons of our juvenile and criminal element" out of interstate commerce.

Two parts of the Act were challenged in this case:

Section 1242 makes it a federal crime to knowingly introduce, or manufacture for introduction, into interstate commerce, or to transport or distribute in interstate commerce, any switchblade knife. As originally enacted, it carried a fine of up to $2,000, up to five years in prison, or both.

Section 1243 bans the manufacture, sale, or possession of switchblades in U.S. territories and possessions, in "Indian country," and within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

In September 2024, Knife Rights, Inc., a knife-rights advocacy group, sued in the Northern District of Texas along with two Texas-based businesses and five individuals. The businesses are federally licensed firearms dealers that sell knives but, according to the opinion, do not market automatic-opening knives because of the Act. The individuals included a filmmaker who travels interstate and wants a switchblade for "utility purposes and self-defense," a hunter and outdoorsman, and a man who had to give up the switchblade he owned in Arizona before moving onto Muscogee Nation land in Oklahoma. They asked the court to declare both sections facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and to stop the government from enforcing them.

The district court dismissed the case. It found the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Section 1242 but not Section 1243, and it concluded that Section 1242 was lawful because it did not amount to "an effective ban on possession" of switchblades.

What the Fifth Circuit decided

The Fifth Circuit reversed as to Section 1242, affirmed the dismissal of the Section 1243 claim, and sent the case back to the district court. Its main rulings:

The plaintiffs could sue before being prosecuted. The government did not disavow enforcement. In fact, at oral argument the government's lawyer said, "I'm, like, affirmatively telling you we will not, have not, are not disavowing enforcement," and the court noted the government "has, in fact, brought prosecutions under § 1242." That was enough for standing. The court also held, contrary to the district court, that the Oklahoma plaintiff had standing to challenge Section 1243.

Switchblades are "arms." Applying the Supreme Court's test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court first asked whether the Second Amendment's plain text covers the conduct. Reviewing the history of knives in America, the court concluded that "some forms of switchblades have been commonly used for defense for hundreds of years," and that "switchblade knives are 'arms' 'in common use' both then and now." The court pointed to a record showing "millions" of automatically opening knives in the United States today.

The right to keep and bear arms includes the ability to get them. Building on its earlier decision in Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, the court reasoned that the right to purchase arms "implies the right to manufacture, transport, and distribute the arms." So a ban on moving switchblades through interstate commerce regulates conduct the Second Amendment covers.

The government did not show a historical tradition supporting this kind of ban. Under Bruen, the burden then shifted to the government to show the law fits the nation's historical tradition of arms regulation. The government pointed to a host of nineteenth-century cases to argue there was a long tradition of regulating "inherently concealable weapons." The court said the laws in those cases mostly regulated how people carried concealed weapons, not whether the weapons could be made, shipped, or sold: "The government cites no historical analogue that regulates the manufacture, transportation, or distribution of 'inherently concealable weapons,' much less switchblade knives." Of nearly two hundred historical statutes on daggers, dirks, and sword canes catalogued in a law review article the government cited, the court found only two that worked like Section 1242. "Two laws out of nearly two hundred bring us into outlier territory," the court wrote. It concluded that Section 1242 violates the Second Amendment.

The challenge to Section 1243 failed. Because the plaintiffs brought only a facial challenge, they had to show the law could never be validly applied. The government pointed to places like "certain aircraft, courthouses, federal prisons, embassies, and military bases," and the court noted the Supreme Court has already treated restrictions on arms in government buildings, including courthouses, as settled. "Simply put, the challengers fail to establish that § 1243 has no lawful applications."

Why it matters

Bruen applies to knives, not just guns. The court made clear that "Arms" under the Second Amendment "was never understood to merely apply to firearms." For people who carry a knife for work, hunting, the outdoors, or self-defense, this published decision recognizes that the Second Amendment protects more than firearms.

Laws that restrict access to arms can be challenged too. The court rejected the idea that a law escapes Second Amendment scrutiny just because it targets sales, shipping, or manufacturing instead of possession. When a law cuts off the supply of protected arms, the government must still justify it with history.

Pre-enforcement challenges remain available. People should not have to risk arrest to test whether a law is constitutional. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court said that people in the Oklahoma plaintiff's position "should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief."

The case is not over. The court reversed the dismissal and sent the case back "for further proceedings." The opinion itself does not spell out the final remedy, and the government may seek further review. Until the courts finish with this case, no one should assume the federal statute can no longer be enforced against them.

What this means in Texas

This is a published Fifth Circuit opinion, so it is binding precedent in federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, including the federal courts in San Antonio. The case started in federal court in Texas, and two of the plaintiffs are Texas businesses.

This ruling addresses only two sections of the federal Switchblade Act. State and local knife laws, and rules for places like courthouses, airports, and other government property, are separate questions. If you believe a government restriction on your right to keep and bear arms has been applied against you, talking with a lawyer can help you understand your rights and the deadlines that may apply.

Attorney advertising. This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any future matter. Every case depends on its own facts. Grable PLLC was not involved in this case.

Attorney responsible for content: Brandon J. Grable, Grable PLLC, San Antonio, Texas.

Topics: Second Amendment