No discussion of the reasonably apparent fact that the law against switchblades doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
If you want to stab someone, the 1/2 second needed to open a knife manually rather than by spring action wouldn’t seem to be much of a deterrent.
I carried a 4” folding Buck hunter to high school in a belt sheath every day. I assume it would have done at least as good a job of stabbing someone as any switchblade. Somehow I managed to restrain myself.
Or of the reasonably apparent fact that their claim of authority to regulate them (they have a "substantial effect on interstate commerce") doesn't appear particulary sound, either.
Who said the tripe they call legislation has to make sense or even be in accord with the U.S. Constitution? That's why I'm eager for the SCOTUS decision on McDonald v. Chicago.
I believe they will incorporate the Second Amendment with it, even though that was the explicit intent of the 14th Amendment, i.e. making the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.
Two other Second Amendment cases are still in SCOTUS' docket: NRA v. Chicago and Maloney v. Rice, as it was recently called. Maloney, a lawyer who had fighting sticks like Bruce Lee, variously called names like nun-chucks, etc., is questioning NY's law against them.