Balisong ban in Hawaii overturned by 9th circuit panel

Here's a news article if you're not into weird angle videos:

Interesting point is the judges said a bladed weapons is an arm same as a firearm. Blades have the coverage under the 2A.
He added, “Because the plain text of the Second Amendment includes bladed weapons and, by necessity, butterfly knives, the Constitution ‘presumptively guarantees’ keeping and bearing such instruments ‘for self defense.’”
 
The "ninth circus" is the last outfit I'd expect such a ruling to come from. Will look forward to the actual text... Great news on several fronts..
 
The "ninth circus" is the last outfit I'd expect such a ruling to come from. Will look forward to the actual text... Great news on several fronts..
I added a link to the opinion just below the video. It is 31 pages of well reasoned analysis that helps to restore a bit of faith in the court system. It should be noted that this is the decision of a three judge panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals, and it could be appealed to the full panel of judges for that circuit. Reading the opinion also gives a glimpse of the many factors considered, and how a different conclusion on any of them could change the outcome. The case now goes back to the trial court, because the appeal affected only the summary judgment entered by the trial court on the pleadings and, apparently, limited evidence in support of the summary judgment motions.
 
Last edited:
The "ninth circus" is the last outfit I'd expect such a ruling to come from.
During Trump years, hundreds of federal court judges were appointed to where some Circuit Court panel make up could be majority pro-2A - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

And even the 9th Circuit must "comply" with Heller/Caetano/Bruen Supreme Court rulings ... Or be "corrected" by the Supreme Court for their "incorrect" rulings - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ing-its-nysrpa-v-bruen-decision.913941/page-3
 
This is a surprising step, but keep in mind this is just a rung on the climb up the courts.


Here is Knife Rights' notification I got last night.

Ninth Circuit Holds Hawaii's Butterfly Knife Ban Unconstitutional!​

hGrq11JG9KecB2nG0ztsJdIJsShd70PcMwlY7vDILI7Fc7SBVfbbc4wG_OUVaE6DKHnxEZLrHYsrLGiKl23tFIyxiTHqbeDSTQkpSvG9=s0-d-e1-ft
OpmSNdcL0PiZFz52s5bKPV567WTJAMfJQnBd2sdHddeBZsPqF5Gh_tzL6C5seYzhWNBF0kfn-q9ugbk5KZvG7ztPbmtqBpsXrdxaZbBkJxhQwC8L4wXUmcdGy808DcTB5lcMVNcZ0edR=s0-d-e1-ft
hGrq11JG9KecB2nG0ztsJdIJsShd70PcMwlY7vDILI7Fc7SBVfbbc4wG_OUVaE6DKHnxEZLrHYsrLGiKl23tFIyxiTHqbeDSTQkpSvG9=s0-d-e1-ft
hGrq11JG9KecB2nG0ztsJdIJsShd70PcMwlY7vDILI7Fc7SBVfbbc4wG_OUVaE6DKHnxEZLrHYsrLGiKl23tFIyxiTHqbeDSTQkpSvG9=s0-d-e1-ft


Today, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Hawaii's ban on butterfly knives violates the Second Amendment. Knife Rights filed an important amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of the appellants in the case of Teter v. Lopez.

In its decision, the Court reversed the district court's judgment in favor of Hawaii and remanded the case back to the district court “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” The Court also denied the appellees’ request to remand the case for further factual or historical development in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, determining that only “legislative facts” were relevant and further development of the facts was unnecessary since the case presented only a legal question. Click to read the full opinion.

As Knife Rights has argued in its recently filed Second Amendment lawsuits against the State of California's ban on switchblades (also in the Ninth Circuit), the City of Philadelphia (recently settled in our favor) and the Federal Switchblade Act, enforced by the federal government, the Court held that possession of butterfly knives is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment and that bladed weapons are "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment. It also held that at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, the term "arms" was understood to include bladed weapons and concluded that the Constitution guarantees keeping and bearing of bladed arms for lawful purposes including self-defense.

Knife Rights' attorney John Dillon said, "We applaud the Ninth Circuit decision in Teter v. Lopez. Butterfly knives, like any other variation of folding pocket knives, are protected arms under the Second Amendment. This decision supports our recent challenges to city, state and Federal knife bans. Whether they like it or not, governments throughout America will be forced to understand that they cannot ban common arms."

While this decision is a huge victory, before balisong enthusiasts in Hawaii rush out to buy one, it must be noted that the district court still has to take action and there's also the possibility of a rehearing en banc or other legal activity. Stay tuned!

Congratulations to the plaintiffs' attorneys, Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh, on this important victory.​
 
HSO or Live Life, a ? on this.

This should also cover the ban in any state the 9th covers.

Being remanded back to the lower court, do you think this could go back to the 9th for a full review?

Hawaii has until the 20th to respond, hopefully it just dies quietly!

I own a BF knife and while I think they're a cool design. I just don't find them practical for much.

I can have my Blur with blade out faster than a switchblade or BF knife.

I know the real issue is people's misconceptions about them and switchblade knives.
 
HSO or Live Life, a ? on this.
Rust Collector is the one to reply since LL and I aren't legal experts.
Yup, I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR. ;)

This should also cover the ban in any state the 9th covers.
What is interesting is this is the first case 9th Circuit ruled on since the Bruen ruling where 9th Circuit applied the "text and history" approach mandated by the Supreme Court and looked at historical tradition of analogous regulation of "arms" present at the time of signing of the Bill of Rights.

And 9th Circuit ruled state did not produce evidence to support such historical tradition of regulation. This 9th Circuit ruling is very significant as to post-Bruen application of "text and history" approach that will likely influence other cases dealing with categorical ban/regulation of "arms" including firearms.

judges said a bladed weapons is an arm same as a firearm. Blades have the coverage under the 2A.
Nice. 👍
 
I have no doubt that Hawaii will appeal the case, will read it if it comes out.

Be interesting to see how they try to spin it.
 
I have been off the grid, so did not hear the question until just now. My sense is that this precedent would likely apply only to Hawaii, as their law on the topic likely differs from that of other jurisdictions. The state may decide to simply re-fashion the law to attempt to work around the opinion, or may like its chances with an en banc consideration which would involve more of the judges that have often ruled against 2A in such issues. If I hear more on the topic, I will report.
 
Back
Top