Background
Plaintiffs, including Knife Rights, Inc. and various individuals and retailers, brought a facial Second Amendment challenge against California’s switchblade regulations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the state, and a three-judge panel affirmed on different grounds, ruling narrowly that the state constitutionally prohibits the concealed carry of switchblade knives.
The court’s reasoning
The panel applied the facial challenge standard from United States v. Salerno and United States v. Rahimi, which requires plaintiffs to establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the regulation would be valid. The court found that California’s prohibition on the concealed carry of switchblade knives is consistent with the Nation’s history and tradition of arms regulation. Because this single application is constitutional, the facial challenge fails, and the court declined to address whether other applications, such as open carry, are constitutional.
This case comes down to Plaintiffs’ choice to pursue the most difficult challenge to mount successfully: a facial one.
Wardlaw, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc
The dissent
What it means going forward
The denial of rehearing en banc leaves the Ninth Circuit’s precedent standing that California’s switchblade regulations are constitutional as applied to concealed carry, while leaving open the possibility for as-applied challenges regarding open carry.