BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has submitted an amicus brief to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in support of two Hawaii residents who won a ruling before a circuit court panel in a challenge of Hawaii’s ban on “butterfly knives,” and are now responding to the state appeal before an en banc panel.

Andrew Teter and James Grell are plaintiffs in the case. Defendants in the case are Hawaii Attorney General Anne E. Lopez and State Sheriff Division Administrator Mark Hanohano, in their official capacities. SAF’s amicus brief was filed by attorneys Edward Andrew Paltzik, Serge Krimnus and Meredith Lloyd at Bochner PLLC in New York.

“The issue here is very simple,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Butterfly knives, which have been in common use for generations, are protected arms within the plain text of the Second Amendment. Thus, the government in Hawaii cannot demonstrate that such knives are ‘dangerous and unusual’ by any stretch of the imagination.

“Butterfly knives were widely used by U.S. servicemen during WWII in the Pacific,” Kraut continued, “and they were known long before as a utilitarian tool in Asia and the Philippines. In recent years, butterfly knives have remained prominent in popular culture, through film and literature. As a result, the state has failed to make a credible argument such knives are not in common use within the scope of Second Amendment protection.”

“It often surprises people,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “that knives of all types are protected by the Second Amendment, but they are. Since the founding era, knives have been commonly owned and used by American citizens from the colonial days through our westward expansion, so for Hawaii to argue that butterfly knives are somehow different is simply a non-starter.”