Are Knives and Blunt Weapons Covered Under the 2nd Amendment?
In my opinion, the answer is a nuanced #8220;yes.#8221; However, the legal landscape surrounding this issue is complex, with no recent Supreme Court ruling directly addressing knives, Nunchaku, and similar blunt weapons.
Legal Precedents and Current State of Affairs
The Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter of whether knives and blunt weapons are covered under the 2nd Amendment. Challenges to prohibitions on carrying such weapons in federal district courts have so far been unsuccessful. The 2nd Amendment itself grants the right to #8220;keep and bear arms,#8221; but the term #8220;arms#8221; has historically been defined to include weapons carried and used by soldiers.
Technical Constitutional Interpretation
Currently, the constitutional technicality comes into play. The Constitution technically follows whatever the Supreme Court says it means, despite a common reading. From previous rulings on the 2nd Amendment, one could argue that while certain types of knives like butterfly knives and brass knuckles are constitutional, items like bayonets, machetes, and truncheons are not. This is a judgment based on whether such weapons are issued to, and considered necessary by, the military or police.
Courts’ Interpretation and Historical Context
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that knives and bludgeons are not covered under the 2nd Amendment, despite the lack of a logical argument against their applicability. Historically, the Supreme Court has a storied tradition of ignoring plain text in favor of deferring to government authority. The underlying rationale for prohibiting knives and blunt weapons is often their affordability, which means they are frequently carried by people who are not wealthy white lawyers.
Current Understanding and Policy Implications
Under the current legal understanding, the classification of specific weapons or classes of weapons are deemed constitutional. The key consideration is common use. Semi-automatic AR15s with barrels of 16 inches or longer are owned by a large number of American citizens, making them commonplace, leading to a legal argument that they cannot be banned. On the other hand, weapons like bayonets, machetes, and truncheons are not in common use and, therefore, could be banned.
Regulating Knives and Blunt Objects
Knives, as a class, serve various non-weapon functions in daily life, such as cooking, cutting boxes, and surgery. However, when used as weapons, they are subject to regulation due to the #8220;common use#8221; concept. The more specialized a design, the harder it is to defend it legally. Blade length restrictions and similar measures have historical roots in periods of discriminatory legislation.
Current Legal Landscape and Awareness
Legally owning blunt objects carries significant liability and requires meeting the same hurdles as lawful gun use. For instance, one must be able to explain why a gun could not be used and why a blunt weapon was necessary. Given the risks, owning a gun is generally a better option, albeit with its own liabilities. Using blunt weapons as a last resort is advisable in situations where lethal force is warranted.