Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta challenges California’s prohibition on switchblade knives. Oral arguments were delivered on appeal in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week by attorney John Dillon.
On October 8, 2025, attorney John Dillon — from the Dillon Law Group — delivered oral arguments in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dillon is the attorney representing Knife Rights, Inc., the plaintiff in the case. Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta seeks to overturn California’s switchblade knife prohibitions. The language of the law amounts to a complete ban on switchblades with blades over 2 inches in length. Dillon masterfully sparred with the three-judge panel; was Knife Rights heard?
The arguments were presided by Ninth Circuit Court judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ronald M. Gould, and Lucy H. Koh. Wardlaw and Gould were appointed by President Bill Clinton; Koh was appointed by President Joseph Biden.
The three-judge panel also referenced amicus briefs from William Taylor from Everytown Law on behalf of Bonta, and Erin E. Murphy from (Clement and Murphy), who wrote on behalf of Knife Rights, Inc.
Questions the panel wanted answered prior to the arguments via the amicus briefs were:
- a. Does a Court assess whether a weapon is “dangerous and unusual” under Bruen’s “step one… threshold inquiry” or “step two” historical inquiry?
- b. Whether and to what extent this language is related to the “in common use” language?
- c. What is the proper understanding and application of the “dangerous and unusual” language?
“California’s switchblade ban criminalizes the possession, carrying, selling, loaning, transferring and gifting of a switchblade, a class of protected arms under the Second Amendment,” Dillon opened with. “The Supreme Court instructs us that a Second Amendment challenge begins with a threshold question, does the Second Amendment’s plain text cover the appellant’s conduct?”
During his opening, Dillon reaffirmed something that the panel spent a fair amount of time questioning him on. “Because this threshold question has been favorably answered, the burden then shifts to the state to justify the ban based on reference to the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulations. …” Dillon pointed out.
Judge Wardlaw peppered Dillon with questions about if the ban is really a ban.
“Can I just ask, you characterized it as a ban? Is this really a ban?” Judge Wardlaw inquired. “I mean, I mean [are there] other specific limitations on when you can possess or carry a switchblade?” Wardlaw then asked Dillon to explain how California’s law is a “functional ban” on the possession of switchblades.
“Under California penal code, sections prohibit carrying, buying, selling, loaning, transferring or gifting a switchblade. So in that essence, any form of acquiring the switchblade is outlawed in California law,” Dillon explained. “It also prohibits the possession in public, in the car or vehicle, and it also creates the possession of a switchblade as a nuisance and subject to confiscation and destruction. Putting all these together, it amounts to a complete ban where there’s no possible legal way to acquire these switchblades in California.”
“Could they allow you to purchase a switchblade from out of state, put it in the trunk of your car and bring it home to your house, and then possess and carry [it] in your home, right?” Judge Wardlaw mused.
“Realistically, how do you get the knife in your car, if it’s not possessed outside of the car first?” Dillon quipped. “And I guess in the hypothetical that someone went out of state to purchase the knife, then placed the knife in their car before coming into the state and then driving to their home and entering their home without getting out of the car. Then it’s possible that it would be legal to possess and acquire that switchblade. However, I don’t think that’s realistically feasible.”
Dillon further explained that there have been prosecutions over switchblade possession inside the home in California.
Judge Koh was fixated on the concept of concealed carry. It appeared the judge was trying to paint Dillon into a corner of some sort.
“If this is a facial challenge, you agree that the government just has to show some constitutional applications, and do you agree that concealed carry, there’s certainly a historical tradition of regulating concealed and prohibiting concealed carry?” Judge Koh asked.
The questions devolved from the nuance of concealed carry, versus perhaps Judge Koh implying open carry of switchblades would be constitutional, to whether or not a switch blade is in common use for “self-defense.” Dillon continued to reiterate that there does not have to be a qualifier that an instrument is or has been used for self-defense in order for its use to be common. It appeared that the panel was engaging in some rhetorical gymnastics.
Dillon was asked for analogues throughout the examination. He maintained it’s the state’s duty to provide the analogues — from the relevant time of 1791, not a postbellum United States where weapon restrictions were specifically employed to restrict the freed slaves from being armed.
Deputy Attorney General Katrina Uyehara represented California. Uyehara focused on how dangerous switchblade knives are. The state took a hardline — but weak tea — position that “California’s long standing restriction on switchblade knives addresses only the most dangerous of those knives, those with blades two inches or longer” and contended the knives are “deadly and lethal weapons very consistent with [their] historical analogues.”
Drawing on laws that were enacted post-World War II, Uyehara concluded that “the state has met its burden of establishing that California switchblade restrictions is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of regulating particularly dangerous and deadly impact weapons that are susceptible to criminal misuse.”
After Dillon had an opportunity to address the state in a rebuttal, Judge Wardlaw thanked the amici who were asked to give briefs: “I also want to thank all the entities that submitted amicus briefs to assist us in this analysis, including Everytown Law and a brief written by Bill Taylor, and the brief by Clement and Murphy written by Erin Murphy. Thank you very much for your helpful writings.”
Absent from Judge Wardlaw’s list of amici to thank were others who filed briefs: NRA and NSSF, Second Amendment Foundation, et al., and Firearms Policy Coalition.
Bearing Arms reached out to attorney John Dillon and inquired about his view on how the arguments went. “The record is clear, switchblades are unquestionably protected by the Second Amendment,” Dillon told Bearing Arms. “The State entirely failed to present any evidence that switchblades are not in common use or that they are dangerous and unusual. We hope the Ninth Circuit will faithfully apply the proper standards demanded by the Supreme Court and rule in our favor.”
How the three-judge panel of two Clinton appointees and one Biden appointee is going to rule on the case is not yet known. Is it a foregone conclusion that there’ll be requests for an en banc review or an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after a judgment is rendered? No, it’s not. However, it wouldn’t be surprising if we find ourselves covering a petition to the High Court in the future.
For more information about the case and to follow what’s going on at Knife Rights, head over to their website: KnifeRights.org
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
