PA: Superior Court finds Switchblade Knife not Protected by the Second Amendment

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

The superior court that heard William Battle’s appeal found that switchblade knives are not protected by the Second Amendment, because they “serve no common lawful purpose”. Judge Lillian Harris Ransom wrote the memorandum.  From the memorandum:

Appellant was free to possess an instrument with a common lawful purpose and use that instrument for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Instead, Appellant possessed a switchblade. While it is conceivable that Appellant possessed a switchblade for self-defense, that is not the switchblade’s common purpose. Hitchon, 549 A.2d at 946; Ashford, 397 A.2d at 423. Accordingly, we reject Appellant’s constitutional claim; he is entitled to no relief. Judgment of sentence affirmed.

The decision makes no sense. Automatic knives are routinely carried and used for numerous common purposes, just as non-automatic knives are.   Knives are common arms.  Automatic knives are legal in most states. There are numerous legal reasons to own them, including self defense. The idea that they are “offensive” arms is an old myth created by a New York Congressman. Part of that mythology is the old play, West Side Story.

This memorandum is a non-precedential finding.  Knife law reform is being pursued in Pennsylvania, so this case might be used as a reason to pass the reform.  If Battle had an ordinary fixed blade knife in his pocket, there would not have broken any law.  He could have legally carried a sword, or a machete.

The appeal did not cite the Supreme Court ruling in Caetano, that said that all bearable arms fall under the Second Amendment. Caetano PER CURIAM decision (pdf):

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

The Caetano decision dealt with electronic stun guns, and held that they were in common use. There are likely more automatic knives in use than the 200,000 electronic stun guns cited in Caetano.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch