You know that much of the debate over the Second Amendment for the last two decades has been over which kinds of firearms are allowed. The gun control crowd doesn’t want you to own “assault weapons,” guns with bump stocks, suppressors, bayonet lugs, 30-round magazines, or a host of other firearm features. But the attack on the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment goes further than firearms. There are laws in America that ban specific knives like switchblades, and even laws that ban defensive equipment like body armor.
Switchblades and Body Armor: Second Amendment in the Court
In the wake of the two recent major wins for Second Amendment advocates at the Supreme Court, Heller, and Bruen, cases have been brought to unleash switchblades and body armor from the restrictions put on them.
Switchblade Ban Unconstitutional Says Fifth Circuit
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided on October 21, 2026, that the Federal Switchblade Act (FSA) is unconstitutional. The court’s decision explained (my emphasis added in bold):
This case presents a Second Amendment challenge to the Federal Switchblade Act (FSA)’s restrictions on switchblade knives. Applying the framework articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, we hold that the FSA is unconstitutional. We determine that switchblade knives qualify as “Arms” and are covered by the “plain text” of the Second Amendment. Because the regulation implicates the amendment, the government bears the burden of establishing that the FSA comports with well-established principles of the Second Amendment and its regulatory tradition. The government fails to meet its burden. Specifically, the FSA’s restrictions on the introduction, manufacture, transportation, and distribution of switchblades fail step two’s “how” analysis. The plaintiffs, however, fail to satisfy the stringent requirements for mounting a facial challenge to § 1243.
Accordingly, we conclude that this regulation violates the Second Amendment. We REVERSE the district court’s grant of the government’s motion to dismiss as to the § 1242 claim. We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the § 1243 claim, and we REMAND for further proceedings.
You can read the entire decision here:
Western District of New York Protects the Right to Defend with Body Armor
In the state of New York, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York found that the state’s body armor ban was a violation of the Second Amendment. The court’s decision explained:
New York enacted a first-of-its-kind law prohibiting law-abiding residents who are not engaged or employed in an eligible profession- from purchasing body armor for self-defense.1 New York enacted this legislation “to further strengthen gun laws.”2 New York’s body armor legislation, however, violates the Second Amendment. This result is dictated by the teaching of the Supreme Court’s cases addressing individual Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, body armor is an “Arm” protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. As such, regulation in this area is permissible only if the State demonstrates that the new enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. New York fails that test.
You can read the entire decision here:
SCOTUS Second Amendment Case Could Decide It All
The Supreme Court will soon decide on a separate case that could resolve the switchblade and body armor cases as well. The case is Viramontes v. Cook County, and it seeks to overturn bans on AR-15 parts. The National Association for Gun Rights explains:
The National Association for Gun Rights and Texas Gun Rights urge the Supreme Court to protect commonly owned AR-15s and put an end to lower courts’ attempts to evade the Second Amendment.
NAGR and TXGR are asking the U.S. Supreme Court for more than another Second Amendment victory.
They want a ruling lower courts cannot evade.
The Supreme Court granted review June 30 in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, agreeing to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semi-automatic rifles.
On September 3, NAGR and TXGR filed a merits-stage amicus brief supporting the challengers.
The brief argues that government cannot evade the Second Amendment by banning the components of protected firearms, that the AR-15’s suitability for militia purposes strengthens its constitutional protection, and that the Supreme Court must finally confront lower courts that continue finding ways around its Second Amendment precedents.
Hannah Hill, Vice President of NAGR’s legal arm, the National Foundation for Gun Rights, said:
“Our goal: Put the strongest case possible to SCOTUS to position us for a long-term win, not just short-term success on the question asked.”
You Can’t Ban the Rifle by Banning Its Parts
If the government cannot Constitutionally ban a protected rifle outright, can it accomplish the same thing by banning the magazine or components that allow it to function as designed?
NAGR and TXGR argue the answer must be no.
The restrictions at issue target semiautomatic rifles while also regulating magazine capacity and, in some cases, components from which prohibited firearms can be assembled.
The brief argues that protecting an AR-15, in theory, while allowing politicians to prohibit its standard components would simply create another path to banning the rifle in practice.
And these magazines are anything but unusual.
An NSSF study of detachable magazines supplied to the commercial market from 1990 through 2021 estimated that roughly 963 million magazines entered the market during that period. About 717 million — 74 percent — had capacities exceeding ten rounds.
These are standard components used with firearms owned by millions of Americans.
Government should not be allowed to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution forbids it from doing directly.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, National Association for Gun Rights President Dudley Brown explained how the outcome of Viramontes v. Cook County could influence the cases on switchblades and body armor. Watch:
Action Line: What’s important is that you get your gun and your training now. Don’t wait for the next wave of gun control legislation to prevent you. Read more about the Second Amendment and you, here. And click here to subscribe to my free monthly Survive & Thrive letter.
Every Family Should Own at Least One Shotgun: Here Are Three
