The phrase “shall not be infringed” has a way of revealing who actually believes it — and who only supports it when it is politically convenient.
That tension is now on full display inside the Trump Administration itself.
While the Department of Justice has aggressively challenged gun control laws in blue states and territories, it is simultaneously telling federal courts that the Second Amendment does not protect switchblade knives. According to the DOJ, Americans may have a constitutional right to own AR-15s and carry handguns, but automatic knives are a bridge too far.
That position has landed the administration squarely at odds with Second Amendment advocates — and exposed a familiar fault line in how the federal government treats “arms” it finds uncomfortable.
The Case at the Center of the Fight
The issue is playing out in Knife Rights v. Bondi, a case currently before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Knife Rights, a national advocacy group, is challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Switchblade Act — a 1958 law that restricts interstate commerce in automatic knives and bans their possession on certain federal, tribal, and territorial lands.
Rather than backing the challenge, the Trump DOJ is defending the law.
In its appellate brief, the Department argues that switchblade knives are “well-suited to criminal misuse” and fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment altogether. According to the government, history supports broad regulation of “inherently concealed” weapons, and automatic knives fall under that category.
The DOJ’s conclusion is blunt: there is no constitutional right to carry or possess them.
A Narrow View of “Arms”
To justify its position, the Justice Department leaned heavily on 19th-century laws regulating the concealed carry of weapons such as Bowie knives, dirks, daggers, and pocket pistols. Those laws, the DOJ argues, demonstrate a long-standing tradition of restricting weapons deemed particularly suitable for concealment.
According to the brief, the Federal Switchblade Act fits neatly within that tradition because it targets only knives whose blades are concealed inside the handle and deploy automatically. Fixed-blade knives, the DOJ noted, remain unregulated under federal law.
In the Department’s view, that distinction is enough to survive constitutional scrutiny.
What the DOJ did not address is why concealability alone strips an object of Second Amendment protection — especially when concealed carry of firearms is now constitutionally protected nationwide.
Knife Rights Pushes Back
Knife Rights wasted no time condemning the filing.
The group’s leadership accused the Trump DOJ of adopting the same logic used by the Biden Administration and ignoring the plain text of the Constitution. Their criticism was straightforward: if the Second Amendment protects “arms,” knives are arms — and have been for centuries.
Historically, knives were among the most common personal weapons in America. They were carried by soldiers, frontiersmen, and ordinary citizens alike. The Founders did not carve out exceptions based on blade deployment methods.
Knife Rights argues that the federal government is selectively redefining the Second Amendment to preserve laws it finds politically inconvenient to repeal.
The Irony of Federal Consistency
The contradiction is hard to ignore.
On the same day the DOJ challenged Washington, D.C.’s so-called “assault weapons” ban, it told another federal court that switchblade restrictions are perfectly constitutional. The message is clear: some arms are worth defending. Others are not.
That selective enforcement is nothing new. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have a long history of defending federal weapons laws, even while campaigning as pro-Second Amendment.
The Trump Administration’s position may frustrate gun-rights activists, but it reflects a broader pattern: the federal government rarely relinquishes regulatory authority once it claims it.
A Law Stuck in the 1950s
The Federal Switchblade Act was passed at the height of mid-century moral panic over juvenile delinquency. Switchblades were portrayed as tools of gang violence, despite little evidence to support the claim.
Since then, public attitudes — and state laws — have shifted dramatically. Over the past 15 years, more than a dozen states have repealed or loosened their switchblade bans, including states controlled by both parties.
The federal law, however, remains untouched.
Knife Rights’ lawsuit is an attempt to force the courts to reconcile that outdated statute with modern Second Amendment jurisprudence — particularly after Heller and Bruen.
What Happens Next
A federal district court dismissed Knife Rights’ challenge earlier this year, citing both standing issues and Second Amendment precedent. The group appealed, sending the case to the Fifth Circuit.
Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
If the Fifth Circuit sides with Knife Rights, it could mark a significant expansion of Second Amendment protections beyond firearms — something the federal government appears eager to avoid.
If the DOJ prevails, it will reinforce a troubling precedent: that the Second Amendment protects only the arms the government approves of.
The Bigger Issue
This case is not really about knives.
It is about whether the Second Amendment is a principle or a policy tool.
If “arms” means only modern firearms — and only when politically expedient — then the amendment has already been hollowed out. If it means what it says, then the government does not get to pick winners and losers based on aesthetics, mechanics, or public discomfort.
The courts will decide this case.
But the DOJ has already made its position clear — and it should concern anyone who takes the Second Amendment at face value.
Read the full article here