The three-judge panel reversed a lower court ruling. It found that Hawaii’s ban on selling and possessing butterfly knives constituted a blanket prohibition that ran afoul of the Constitution. Once again, last year’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bruen played the deciding role.
The court affirmed that the state restriction could not be justified under the standard of the nation’s history and tradition of laws covering weapons.
Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the unanimous opinion in Teter v. Lopez.
“Because the possession of butterfly knives is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and because Hawaii has not demonstrated that its ban on butterfly knives is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition regulating firearms, we conclude that section 134-53(a) violates Plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights.”
Bea added that the right to keep and bear arms applies to bladed weapons and, “by necessity, butterfly knives.”
Hawaii attempted to categorize butterfly knives as “dangerous and unusual weapons,” but the court rejected this argument. Instead, the judges ruled that it “is simply a pocketknife with an extra rotating handle.”
The manufacture, sale or possession of these knives has been illegal in Hawaii since 1993. The ruling could erase bans in other states in the circuit that ban the knives.
There is also hope that there is now a precedent against prohibitions on so-called “assault weapons” by California, Oregon and Washington.
Alan Beck is one of the successful attorneys in Teter v. Lopez. “The ultimate application of Heller and Bruen is that arms which are owned for lawful purposes are protected and cannot be banned,” he explained. The plaintiffs argued that it was their right to possess these knives for self-defense.
