This article appeared in Knife Magazine in August 2026.
Know Your Knife Laws – Knife Design and Law
By Anthony Sculimbrene, Attorney and Knife Expert
Here is a question I think knife knuts don’t ask often enough: why are automatic knives subject to so much legal scrutiny? They cut things just like every other knife does, and often they do it in a way that isn’t quite as thoughtless as a typical folder (I wipe down the blade after almost every use–I don’t want to gum up the internals). What about automatic knives makes them so scary that legislators have, for more than a century, thought about banning them? The answer, of course, lies in a mix of history and law.
The first place to look is the Second Amendment and the history of the Second Amendment (notably District of Columbia v. Heller has an excellent, if biased, review). Even at the time of the founding, there was an understanding that some weapons are outside the scope of the Second Amendment. These weapons have been categorized as “especially dangerous or unusual.” In Heller Scalia outlined this idea and highlighted a few weapons, specifically the sawed-off shotgun. The list of these weapons holds relatively constant over time. Rocket launchers, sawed-off shotguns, and flamethrowers are on almost all model lists either in case law or in statute. Older recitations of permissibly prohibited weapons included sword canes, brass knuckles, saps, stilettos, Bowie knives, and, in some instances, automatic knives. If you review all of these lists from across the states and throughout the history of the United States there seems to be three categories: 1) weapons that are extremely destructive (archetypically a rocket launcher); 2) weapons that are easily concealed and quick to deploy (sawed off shotgun or sword cane); and 3) weapons that are designed for solely for torture or killing (stiletto). The oldest expression of this dangerous or unusual formulation can be seen in discussions of cruciform bayonets within the ancient philosophical and political debates over rules of war and just war theory (notably, cruciform bayonets made wounds that could not be easily sutured and were, in an era before antibiotics, likely to lead to infection and a slow, painful death).
But these categories–extremely destructive, easily concealed and deployed, or only capable of causing death or torture–interestingly do not apply to automatic knives (or, more accurately, do not apply exclusively to automatic knives as a specific design of pocket knives). In the years since the Federal Switchblade Act (FSA) went into effect (1958), the design of pocket knives has changed dramatically. While there were locking knives at the time, most knives were slip joints. Additionally, very few knives (though not none) were capable of one-handed deployment. In that context, automatic knives do seem different–they are much faster to open and can be opened with a single hand (this is why many automatic knife bans have a carve-out for people with only one functional hand). In today’s market, automatic knives are only one of dozens of different designs that are both easy to conceal and fast to deploy. In fact, I think there is a good argument that knives that deploy via a hook or notched plate, like the Emerson Wave, are even faster to deploy than automatic knives (they combine deployment and opening into one motion, whereas automatic knives are a two-step process).
The cascade of new folding knife designs shows that automatic knives no longer fit into any of the three historical categories related to dangerous or unusual weapons. Knives deploy via a finely balanced detent and bearing pivot system with a push of a button and NO springs. Knives can be flicked open with a thumb or index finger in the blink of an eye. Among these peers, the automatic knife is just one of many pocket knives that are easy to carry in a pocket and fast to open.
Standards, even legal standards, change over time. Jurisprudence around what counts as cruel and unusual punishment has changed over time. This is why the electric chair, cyanide gas chambers, and the noose have fallen out of use or been banned even in states that still allow capital punishment. What counts as obscene under the Miller test is subject to an analysis about whether it would offend a person with “contemporary community standards.” In short, the law, even constitutional rights, evolve over time. Treating automatic knives as “especially dangerous or unusual” no longer makes sense when you compare automatic knife designs to contemporary knife designs. This, in turn, means that the ban on automatic knives is unjustifiable in 2026 under the common historical logic related to unprotected weapons. But it also means something on a common sense level–these knives just aren’t that different from knives that virtually no one sees as inherently dangerous or bad. And when logic and common sense align, it is time for the law to change.
The American Knife & Tool Institute successfully repealed automatic knife laws in several states and is continuing its initiative to repeal the Federal Switchblade Act. You can support this effort by joining AKTI or making a contribution.
District of Columbia v. Heller