Massachusetts high court strikes down switchblade ban
Adds detail on ruling, comment from state attorney general in paragraphs 14-16
By Nate Raymond
BOSTON, Aug 27 (Reuters) -Massachusetts' highest court on Tuesday struck down a state ban on carrying switchblades, saying a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling requiring modern gun restrictions to be consistent with the nation's history and tradition covered other weapons too.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a 1957 law barring people from possessing spring-release pocketknives commonly known as "switchblades" violated the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.
The court reached that conclusion while dismissing a charge filed against David Canjura for unlawfully possessing a switchblade, which Boston police found when responding to a report of an altercation between Canjura and his girlfriend.
The justices' decision was based on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established a new test for assessing whether modern firearm restrictions comply with the Second Amendment by requiring them to be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, was issued by the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority and has led to a series of court rulings invalidating modern gun regulations.
The office of Suffolk County District Attorney Kevin Hayden, a Democrat, had argued that even after that decision, the Second Amendment's protections only extended to firearms and that knives could not be legally considered "arms."
Seven other states plus the District of Columbia categorically ban switchblades or other automatic knives, while two others impose blade length restrictions of less than two inches.
But Justice Serge Georges, writing for the 5-0 court, said the state was incorrect and that knives, like handguns, fit within the definition of arms as both are weapons that can be used by someone for offensive or defensive purposes during a confrontation.
"The Second Amendment extends to all bearable arms and is not limited to firearms," he wrote.
Georges cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 decision to throw out a ruling by his court upholding a ban on stun guns. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court later in 2018 said the ban violated the Second Amendment.
Georges said the state had failed to identify any laws regulating weapons akin to folding pocketknives in place at the time of the 2nd Amendment'sratification in 1791 or the ratification in 1868 of the 14th Amendment, which extended the Constitution's Bill of Rights to the states.
He said a review of history showed that since the colonial and Revolutionary War era, Americans had used knives for self-defense and that the folding pocketknife "played an important role, both as a tool and a weapon."
"Accordingly, the Commonwealth has not met its burden of demonstrating a historical tradition justifying the regulation of switchblade knives," Georges wrote.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a Democrat who had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the switchblade ban, in a statement called the ruling disappointing.
"This case demonstrates the difficult position that the Supreme Court has put our state courts in with the Bruen decision," she said.
Spokespeople for Hayden and Canjura's attorney had no comment.
The case is Commonwealth v. Canjura, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, No. SJC-13432.
For the state: Elisabeth Martino of the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office
For Canjura: Kaitlyn Gerber of the Committee for Public Counsel Services
Read more:
US Supreme Court upholds federal domestic-violence gun ban
U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, strikes down New York law
Reporting by Nate Raymond
Pinakabagong Balita
Disclaimer: Ang mga kabilang sa XM Group ay nagbibigay lang ng serbisyo sa pagpapatupad at pag-access sa aming Online Trading Facility, kung saan pinapahintulutan nito ang pagtingin at/o paggamit sa nilalaman na makikita sa website o sa pamamagitan nito, at walang layuning palitan o palawigin ito, at hindi din ito papalitan o papalawigin. Ang naturang pag-access at paggamit ay palaging alinsunod sa: (i) Mga Tuntunin at Kundisyon; (ii) Mga Babala sa Risk; at (iii) Kabuuang Disclaimer. Kaya naman ang naturang nilalaman ay ituturing na pangkalahatang impormasyon lamang. Mangyaring isaalang-alang na ang mga nilalaman ng aming Online Trading Facility ay hindi paglikom, o alok, para magsagawa ng anumang transaksyon sa mga pinansyal na market. Ang pag-trade sa alinmang pinansyal na market ay nagtataglay ng mataas na lebel ng risk sa iyong kapital.
Lahat ng materyales na nakalathala sa aming Online Trading Facility ay nakalaan para sa layuning edukasyonal/pang-impormasyon lamang at hindi naglalaman – at hindi dapat ituring bilang naglalaman – ng payo at rekomendasyon na pangpinansyal, tungkol sa buwis sa pag-i-invest, o pang-trade, o tala ng aming presyo sa pag-trade, o alok para sa, o paglikom ng, transaksyon sa alinmang pinansyal na instrument o hindi ginustong pinansyal na promosyon.
Sa anumang nilalaman na galing sa ikatlong partido, pati na ang mga nilalaman na inihanda ng XM, ang mga naturang opinyon, balita, pananaliksik, pag-analisa, presyo, ibang impormasyon o link sa ibang mga site na makikita sa website na ito ay ibibigay tulad ng nandoon, bilang pangkalahatang komentaryo sa market at hindi ito nagtataglay ng payo sa pag-i-invest. Kung ang alinmang nilalaman nito ay itinuring bilang pananaliksik sa pag-i-invest, kailangan mong isaalang-alang at tanggapin na hindi ito inilaan at inihanda alinsunod sa mga legal na pangangailangan na idinisenyo para maisulong ang pagsasarili ng pananaliksik sa pag-i-invest, at dahil dito ituturing ito na komunikasyon sa marketing sa ilalim ng mga kaugnay na batas at regulasyon. Mangyaring siguruhin na nabasa at naintindihan mo ang aming Notipikasyon sa Hindi Independyenteng Pananaliksik sa Pag-i-invest at Babala sa Risk na may kinalaman sa impormasyong nakalagay sa itaas, na maa-access dito.
