Fifth Circuit Rules Federal Switchblade Act's Interstate Ban Unconstitutional; Federal Judge Blocks New York's Body Armor Sales Ban
Two Second Amendment rulings came down on Wednesday. A unanimous Fifth Circuit panel held that the 1958 law's ban on moving switchblades in interstate commerce fails the Bruen test, but it left the law's limits on federal and tribal land standing. In Buffalo, a federal judge permanently enjoined New York's ban on civilian body armor sales and paused his order for 14 days so the state can appeal.
The Overview
The facts, straight
Federal courts issued two Second Amendment rulings on Wednesday, one against a 1958 federal knife law and one against a 2022 New York law.
The Switchblade Act. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Switchblade Act's ban on interstate commerce in switchblade knives violates the Second Amendment. Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote the opinion in Knife Rights, Inc. v. Blanche, No. 25-10754. Judges Don Willett and Cory Wilson joined it. There was no concurrence or dissent.
"Applying the framework articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, we hold that the FSA is unconstitutional," Elrod wrote. "We determine that switchblade knives qualify as 'Arms' and are covered by the 'plain text' of the Second Amendment."
The ruling has limits:
- What fell: the court struck the interstate-commerce provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1242. It makes it a crime to knowingly introduce, manufacture for introduction, transport or distribute a switchblade in interstate commerce. The panel said the government failed to show the restriction fits the nation's historical tradition. Specifically, it wrote, "the FSA's restrictions on the introduction, manufacture, transportation, and distribution of switchblades fail step two's 'how' analysis."
- What survives: Section 1243 bars making, selling or possessing switchblades in U.S. territories, in Indian country, and within federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge it, reversing the district court on that point. But it upheld the dismissal of that claim because the plaintiffs brought only a facial challenge. "Simply put, the challengers fail to establish that § 1243 has no lawful applications," the court wrote. It noted the government's examples of "certain aircraft, courthouses, federal prisons, embassies, and military bases."
- The remedy: "We REVERSE the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss as to the § 1242 claim. We AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of the § 1243 claim. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." The case goes back to the Northern District of Texas, where Judge Mark T. Pittman had dismissed it. The appeals court itself did not issue an injunction. The docket lists Dec. 14 as the date the court's mandate issues.
The Justice Department defended the law. Its brief asked the court to affirm the dismissal. The plaintiffs are Knife Rights, Inc., several individuals and two knife businesses.
New York's body armor ban. In Buffalo, U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. granted summary judgment to Benjamin Heeter, Joseph Wurtenberg and the Firearms Policy Coalition in Heeter v. James, No. 1:24-cv-00623. His 47-page decision opens: "New York enacted a first-of-its-kind law prohibiting law-abiding residents—who are not engaged or employed in an eligible profession—from purchasing body armor for self-defense."
- The law: New York Penal Law §§ 270.21 and 270.22 and General Business Law § 396-eee (2022 bill text) bar buying or selling body armor unless the buyer is a police officer, a peace officer, in military service, or in another profession the Department of State designates.
- The holding: "the body armor ban expressly regulates conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment," Sinatra wrote, and "New York fails" the historical-tradition test.
- The scope: this is broader than an as-applied ruling. The judge permanently enjoined the named defendants and "all persons in concert or participation with them who receive notice" from enforcing those statutes "with respect to the sale and purchase of body armor." The defendants are Attorney General Letitia James, State Police Superintendent Steven G. James and the Erie and Monroe County district attorneys. In a footnote, he also found that "no set of circumstances exist under which [the body armor ban] would be valid," to the extent the plaintiffs brought a facial challenge. He rejected the state's argument that a statewide injunction would conflict with the Supreme Court's 2025 Trump v. CASA decision.
- The stay: "Defendants' request for a fourteen-day stay pending appeal is GRANTED." Judgment was entered the same day (docket). Any appeal would go to the Second Circuit.
We found no statement on either ruling from the New York Attorney General's office (website or X), the Justice Department or Knife Rights as of Wednesday evening. Radio Purple has covered how courts have handled Second Amendment cases since Bruen, including where guns can and can't be carried.
What the Left Says
The progressive and Democratic case
The arguments for both laws come from New York's Democratic leaders and, in the knife case, from the Justice Department, which defended the 1958 federal statute in court. They argue that the laws target narrow categories of items tied to crime and do not keep anyone from owning weapons for self-defense.
New York. In court, the state argued that "body armor is not an 'Arm' as the term would have been commonly understood in 1791 or 1868." It said there is "a long uncontradicted Anglo-American tradition of armor regulation," and that "at most, body armor is better understood as a tactical accessory to firearms." It also argued, according to the decision, that the ban "is also legally justified by a long-standing historical tradition of prohibiting weapons and gear that cause public fear or terror."
Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the restriction in June 2022 as part of a package that her office said would "close critical loopholes exposed by shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde." At the time, she said the package "bans body armor sales outside of people in select professions" and called the measures ones "that I believe will save lives." In the same release, Assemblymember Jonathan Jacobson said: "As in far too many other mass shootings, the gunman in Buffalo went into the store wearing a bulletproof vest so he would be safe while he slaughtered innocent victims." He added: "Unless your profession puts you at a special risk of gun violence, there is no reason you need a bullet proof vest."
The Switchblade Act. The Justice Department argued that the 1958 law reaches only "the narrow subset of concealable knives that Congress determined were particularly dangerous." It also argued that the law fits "a robust tradition, repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court, of States' regulating concealed and concealable weapons," and "a similarly robust tradition of permitting legislatures to prohibit the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." The brief said Congress acted "only after an extensive investigation that led Congress to conclude that automatic switchblades are uniquely suited to criminal use." The Fifth Circuit quoted the 1958 House report: Congress wanted to "remove one of the favorite weapons of our juvenile and criminal element."
Where Reality Likely Sits
Radio Purple's analysis
- Both rulings are narrower than they may first appear. The Fifth Circuit struck the Switchblade Act's interstate-commerce ban (Section 1242) and left the federal-land provision (Section 1243) in place. The plaintiffs lost that part only because they brought a facial challenge, which the court said is hard to win. The appeals court sent the case back to the district court rather than issuing an injunction itself. In New York, the injunction is on hold for 14 days to allow an appeal.
- The method is the same in both cases. Both judges applied Bruen's two steps. First, does the Second Amendment's text cover the item? Second, can the government show a sufficiently similar historical tradition? Both turned on the second step and on the question, sharpened in Rahimi, of why and how a law burdens the right. Supporters of the laws point to concealed-weapon laws, laws against "dangerous and unusual" weapons, and old laws against terrifying the public. The courts said those analogues don't match how these laws work.
- The state's public-safety rationale is on the record; the data is not. New York's lawmakers tied the ban to the Buffalo shooter's use of body armor. The decision did not turn on crime statistics, and the state's case in the opinion rests on history and text.
- More review is likely. New York can appeal to the Second Circuit within the stay window. The Justice Department, which defended the Switchblade Act, can seek rehearing by the full Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court review. Knife Rights says on its website that its petition asking the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling upholding California's switchblade ban is due Dec. 14.
- What to watch: a New York notice of appeal and any request to extend the 14-day stay; whether DOJ seeks rehearing en banc before the Dec. 14 mandate date; and what Judge Pittman does on remand in Texas.
What the Right Says
The conservative and Republican case
The challengers and the judges who ruled for them say both laws ban arms that law-abiding people use for lawful purposes, and that the governments could not point to historical analogues.
In the switchblade case, the Fifth Circuit found that "switchblade knives are 'arms' 'in common use' both then and now." It cited a record showing "millions" of automatically opening knives in the United States today. It said the government's evidence of a tradition of regulating concealed weapons "only addresses the 'why' inquiry" and "cites no historical analogue that regulates the manufacture, transportation, or distribution of 'inherently concealable weapons,' much less switchblade knives." The opinion closes by comparing the law to those struck down in Heller and Bruen, which "purported to deal with 'perceived societal problem[s].'"
Sinatra's decision cites the Supreme Court's own warnings against treating the right differently from others. Summarizing Bruen, he wrote: "the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to lesser rules." Of body armor, he wrote that "the dictionary definitions relied upon in Heller confirm that ordinary citizens at the founding understood the term 'arms' to include defensive body armor." He said the Constitution "requires that individuals be permitted to use arms—including body armor—for the core lawful purpose of self-defense," and called the ban "another one of the policy choices taken 'off the table' by the Second Amendment."
The Firearms Policy Coalition announced the win on X:
Post: Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) on X, Oct. 21, 2026, 4:22 p.m. ET.
"In a first-of-its-kind Second Amendment victory, federal judge holds defensive body armor is constitutionally protected, grants FPC summary judgment, and orders permanent injunction against New York's unconstitutional ban."
In a separate post, the group quoted its president, Brandon Combs: "FPC has already made history defeating bans on protected arms like semiautomatic rifles, and now we're making history again by establishing that defensive body armor is protected by the Second Amendment." FPC was not a party to the knife case, but it also posted the Fifth Circuit ruling.
Sources & Citations
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, “Knife Rights, Inc. v. Blanche, No. 25-10754 (5th Cir. Oct. 21, 2026), published opinion”, October 21, 2026.
- CourtListener (RECAP), “Knife Rights v. Blanche, No. 25-10754 (5th Cir.), docket”, October 21, 2026.
- U.S. Department of Justice (via CourtListener), “Brief for the Appellees (United States), Knife Rights v. Bondi, No. 25-10754”, December 22, 2025.
- U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), “15 U.S.C. chapter 29 (Federal Switchblade Act), sections 1241-1245”, January 1, 2023.
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (via CourtListener), “Heeter v. James, No. 1:24-cv-00623 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2026), Decision and Order (Dkt. 95)”, October 21, 2026.
- CourtListener (RECAP), “Heeter v. James, No. 1:24-cv-00623 (W.D.N.Y.), docket”, October 21, 2026.
- New York State Senate, “New York Senate Bill S9407B (2022), unlawful purchase and sale of a body vest”, January 1, 2022.
- Office of the Governor of New York, “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislative Package to Strengthen Gun Laws and Protect New Yorkers”, June 6, 2022.
- Firearms Policy Coalition, “Heeter v. James case page”, October 21, 2026.
- Knife Rights, “SCOTUS Grants Extension for Cert Petition in CA SWB Ban Appeal”, September 16, 2026.
- X, “Posts by Firearms Policy Coalition on X”, October 21, 2026.
Positions above are attributed to the public statements and published reporting cited here. Quotations are taken from these sources; Radio Purple does not publish unattributed or invented quotes. See an error? Request a correction.
