Second Amendment Fight Expands Beyond Guns as Supreme Court Weighs AR-15 Case

The ongoing debate over the Second Amendment is extending beyond traditional firearms, with recent federal court rulings affirming protections for items like switchblade knives and body armor. These decisions have bolstered the optimism of gun-rights advocates as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in a significant case concerning bans on AR-15-style rifles.

Recent Court Rulings

On a recent Wednesday, two federal court rulings addressed Second Amendment protections for items previously subject to restrictions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a federal law limiting the interstate commerce of switchblade knives violated the Second Amendment. Concurrently, a federal judge in New York struck down the state's restrictions on civilian body armor, ruling that both switchblades and body armor qualify as constitutionally protected "arms."

These rulings come as the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the case of Viramontes v. Cook County. This case could establish whether AR-15-style rifles are considered "arms" protected by the Second Amendment.

Broader Implications for Gun Rights

Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, stated that a Supreme Court ruling against AR-15 bans could have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to restrictions on other items. These could include ammunition magazines, automatic knives, body armor, and other defensive equipment. Brown noted that the core issues in the switchblade and body armor cases will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court in the Viramontes decision.

The legal reasoning in these recent cases relies heavily on two landmark Supreme Court decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Heller decision affirmed an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and recognized that "arms" can include weapons and armor. The Bruen decision introduced a "text-and-history" test for evaluating Second Amendment challenges, requiring governments to demonstrate that restrictions align with the nation's historical tradition of arms regulation.

Applying the Bruen Standard

In the switchblade case, the Fifth Circuit found that the Federal Switchblade Act's restrictions on interstate commerce differed from historical laws. Similarly, in the body armor case, the court rejected the argument that body armor is merely a tactical accessory, concluding it falls within the historical definition of arms. The court found that New York had not demonstrated a sufficient historical tradition to support its ban on civilian body armor purchases.

George Lyon, an attorney specializing in Second Amendment law, explained that under the Bruen standard, once a weapon or conduct is shown to fall within the Second Amendment's text, the presumption shifts to the regulation being unconstitutional unless the government can prove historical consistency.

The AR-15 Case Before the Supreme Court

The Viramontes v. Cook County case challenges a local ban on assault-style weapons. The Seventh Circuit had previously ruled that AR-15-style rifles are comparable to machine guns and thus not protected by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's upcoming decision will determine if this reasoning aligns with the precedent set by Heller and Bruen.

Lyon criticized the Seventh Circuit's comparison of AR-15-style rifles to machine guns, calling it incorrect. He stated that the Viramontes case will directly address this discrepancy.

Justin Davis, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, described the AR-15 case as part of a larger legal discussion about what constitutes an "arm" under the Second Amendment. He drew parallels to historical interpretations of the First Amendment, arguing that fundamental rights should adapt to societal evolution, just as communication methods have evolved beyond those existing at the time of the Founders.