admin
The Ninth Circuit just refused to rehear a challenge to California’s switchblade rules, and one of its own judges didn’t hold back. Judge Lawrence VanDyke blasted the court’s pattern on Second Amendment cases and urged the Supreme Court to deliver what he called a “benchslap” — a quick fix to stop what he sees as bad lawmaking from the bench. This is more than courtroom theater. It matters for gun and knife owners, and it raises real questions about how far judges will go to rewrite the Constitution under the guise of history.
What the court did
The court denied rehearing en banc in Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta, leaving a three‑judge panel’s ruling intact. The panel had affirmed a lower court decision that upholds California’s ban on concealed carry of certain switchblades under Penal Code §21510(b). The order denying rehearing was filed July 16, 2026, and it drew sharp dissents from multiple judges who said the panel misapplied the Supreme Court’s Bruen test for weapons cases.
VanDyke’s “benchslap” dissent
Judge VanDyke wrote a separate dissent that reads like the kind of blunt memo few judges dare to write. He accused the Ninth Circuit of a “long and concerning history of refusing to vindicate the Second Amendment,” and urged the Supreme Court to step in with a summary reversal — the so‑called “benchslap.” He even mocked the lower court’s reasoning with a sample rebuke: “Dear lower court: Your decision sucks…. And it sucks so badly, it isn’t even worth a closer look. Kindly re‑do it. Regards, The Supreme Court.” It’s colorful, and it makes a point: judges can be polite, or they can fix broken precedent. VanDyke wants action.
Why this matters for the Second Amendment
Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, courts must first ask whether the Second Amendment covers the regulated conduct and then test whether the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition. The Knife Rights panel said California’s concealed‑carry ban for certain knives fit within historic limits. The dissenters argue that reasoning stretches Bruen so far it swallows the rule. If the Ninth Circuit keeps treating modern arms as easily carved out of protection, then almost any law that regulates parts or accessories could escape scrutiny. That’s bad law and bad for people who value individual rights.
What’s next — and why conservatives should watch
Expect Knife Rights and allied plaintiffs to consider a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court. VanDyke’s dissent steers the case toward the high court by spotlighting a circuit split and a possible misread of Bruen. If the Supreme Court wants to restore clear rules, a summary reversal could be in play — the very “benchslap” VanDyke called for. Either way, this fight will matter beyond knives. It’s about whether courts police their own mistakes or keep letting restrictive laws erode constitutional protections one decision at a time. Conservatives who care about the Second Amendment should pay attention; this isn’t theater, it’s the next round in a legal war over liberty.
