Arguments in Fifth Circuit Cuts up Federal Switchblade Act

Provisions of the Switchblade Act have been challenged in federal court, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard arguments on appeal from the district court seeking a reversal.

On April 1, 2026 a three-judge panel heard arguments in Knife Rights v. Bondi at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs are challenging provisions of the Federal Switchblade Act. Part of the act prohibits the possession of switchblade knives on federal lands such as national parks, land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and statutorily defined “Indian country.” The oral arguments at the circuit court were litigated by attorney Daniel Schmutter.

The three-judge panel was composed of Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod (G.W. Bush appointee), Don R. Willett and Cory T. Wilson (Trump appointees).

At first the judges seemed skeptical of Knife Rights’ prayer for relief and questioned Schmutter heavily on the applicability of the challenge. Among those questions came the topic of how much of a threat is the Federal Switchblade Act to plaintiffs and/or the public at large. While the number of those convicted under the Act may seem de minimis, the federal government also refuses to concede that the law shouldn’t be enforced.

“Your Honor, the one important aspect of this is that the government doesn’t, doesn’t disavow enforcement,” Schmutter explained. “This is not a statute that’s never been enforced and has gone into, you know, disuse. I mean, they enforce it when they want to enforce it – from time to time — they enforced it against Spyderco.”

The panel did dance around the matter of applying the challenge to the law to standards highlighted in Bruen, McDonald, and Heller. When asking questions about the facial challenge to the law, judges asked about so-called “sensitive locations” within the jurisdictions that have outright prohibitions on the possession of such knives. Schmutter explained that under that logic, there could be no facial challenge to any law that infringes on the Second Amendment.

“We are saying that, that there is no constitutional application of applying the statute on Indian country, because, if it’s ‘Indianness,’” Schmutter said. “In other words, the reason the statute bans possession on Indian Country is because it’s Indian Country, without regard to the uses on Indian Country.

“Again, go back to Bruen, right? There’s no way Bruen could have come out the way it came out, if you parse a facial challenge this way, because there are many places within New York where you can’t carry a handgun: courthouses, police stations, all sorts of places. And nobody argued that that prevented a facial challenge in Bruen. Exactly the same here. It’s the Indianness that matters as far as the facial challenge. It’s the federalness that matters.”

The government doubled down that the Federal Switchblade Act is indeed an alive and well law. Whether they were trying to actively litigate for Knife Rights in those assertions is not exactly known, but the burden for them to reach is lofty considering the selective enforcement of the law.

“Does the government consider 12-42 to be a moribund law given that it has not been charged in 15 years?” Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod asked. After a back-and-forth between the chief judge and attorney for the government, it was explicitly asked: “You’re prepared to charge them tomorrow, any violations?”

“We have certainly not disavowed charging them,” the DOJ said. “We think we could charge them. You know, I’m not, I’m not saying there’s like some investigation where charges are about …” They contend that the Federal Switchblade Act is a constitutional law.

Upon rebuttal, Schmutter reminded the court what the case is really about and under what rules it should be judged under. “[It’s] very important that the court not lose sight of what rule governs this case, which is the common use rule,” Schmutter said. “There is no adapted to criminal use rule. That’s just interest balancing. We don’t compare what criminals can do with arms versus what law-abiding individuals can do with arms if the arm is typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, that’s the end of the inquiry, which is why the court need not remand to the district court, because there is no further Bruen analysis to do.”

The full April 1 arguments in Knife Rights v. Bondi can be listened to HERE. How the court will rule is tough to say, but Schmutter did a great job litigating this case on behalf of the plaintiffs. The government has a high burden to meet in explaining how the possession of a switchblade knife should be a crime when it’s established law that the possession of firearms is constitutionally protected. If you can carry a gun, it’s absurd to argue that you can’t carry a knife.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.