Two decidedly different pieces of news regarding legal rulings hit the digital newsroom over the weekend. Both set the stage for what are likely to be favorable rulings for 2A advocates. One, however, was a bit of a sour grape for what was supposed to be a day of celebration.

The bad news, at least for now, came from Doug Ritter of Knife Rights. According to Ritter, he was preparing to send out his “Happy National Knife Day” release when a California court (surprise) turned his good wishes sour.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a questionable ruling regarding that state’s ban on automatic knives (switchblades in California, because that’s more scary sounding) with a blade 2-inches or longer. The court, while stating that California officials had failed to make the case for a historical justification on the ban. Then, with a disregard for the Bruen and Heller rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, found the ban constitutional.

Two issues, Ritter points out: first, the court held that under the plain text analysis required by Bruen, automatic opening knives are not “arms” under the Second Amendment. The District Court then went on to say that only arms that were “in common use for self defense” are considered arms under the Second Amendment.

As Ritter caustically pointed out, “There’s no mention of ‘self defense’ or ‘in common use’ in the plain text of the Second Amendment.”

“To call the Court’s decision irrational and ludicrous,” Ritter submits, “is being nice.”

But, he points out, “that’s not all bad for us.”

What is bad for Knife Rights is the inevitable appeal process means more dollars spent fighting rulings that don’t just lack judicial standing, they’re absent common reason.

But, having defeated bad legislation in 31 states (and counting), Ritter and his organization are all-too-familiar with the two steps forward; one step back legal processes.

Meanwhile, on another of the Second Amendment fronts, two national 2A Groups are calling on the Supreme Court to hear their case challenging Maryland’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013” after a lower court ruled the ban constitutional.

The Firearms Policy Coalition asked the high court to hear Snope v. Brown (alternatively Bianchi v. Frosh). That’s after the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit court upheld the ban in a 10-5 decision earlier this month.

That decision said Maryland’s ban on certain semi-automatic rifles and pistols “fits comfortable within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

The Second Amendment Foundation joined the FPC in asking the Supreme Court to make a superseding ruling on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling.

According to the SAF’s Alan Gottlieb, there’s a very solid reasoning behind the request. “They are arguing the arms protected under the Second Amendment are limited to certain state-approved firearms.”

He then points out- correctly- that interpretation takes a right and morphs it into a “government-regulated privilege.”

This isn’t the first time the high court has been petitioned in the case. This is the SAF’s third time.

Separately, Brandon Combs of the FPC says the case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve what he called “exceptionally important issues.”

Those include what arms the Second Amendment actually covers, and more importantly, would end what he calls “immoral and abusive gun control regimes.”

In the Maryland ruling, District Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III opined that the AR-15, the Barrett .50, and ‘gangsters style guns’ are not protected by the Constitution.

The reason? Due to their “excessively dangerous” nature.

In a dissent, Judge Julius Richardson countered that “the Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges.”

While I agree with Richardson’s dissent, I would take exception with his use of “whimsical”- seems to me the decision is more “capricious” than whimsical. But I’m neither a legal scholar nor a linguist.

And just before knocking off for the weekend, we got word that Daytona Beach, Florida based SCCY firearms had notified employees it was indefinitely suspending operations. The apparently now-unemployed sources asked that we not use their names, but said SCCY owner Joe Roebuck had notified the remaining employees (which implies the workforce had already been paired down) that operations would be suspended indefinitely as of Friday.

No confirmation from SCCY, primarily because no one’s answering their phones, email or online inquires, but a quick check of industry sources made it pretty apparent that a closure would be “no it surprise” to anyone except SCCY’s customers.

Distributors quietly admitted they had stopped carrying their handguns, and one source sent us a special promotion where one distributor had offered a SCCY CPX-2 pistol for $49.99 with the purchase of “any HK gun in this email.”

The distributors can smell trouble well in advance of retailers or their customers.

As this story unfolds, we’ll keep you posted.

— Jim Shepherd