Harris vs Trump vs Your Knife Rights ~ Take A Stand!

Opinion

Germany’s Interior Minister recently announced that she wants to ban carry of knives 6cm/2.34 in. and longer.

That would ban the traditional Swiss Army Knife, so I expect their Swiss neighbors have already been in touch. However, if she changes her proposal to accommodate the SAK’s 62.5mm/2.46 in. blade, they’ll likely be mollified. Oh joy, another 2.5 mm longer…  And earlier this year, Victorinox CEO Carl Elsener commented on the likelihood of more knifeless Swiss Army multi-tools joining their existing TSA-legal Jetsetter knifeless model.

All over the world, leaders and bureaucrats in supposed “free” countries continue to work to more severely restrict the possession and carrying of knives of all sorts that are generally legal here. Of the many cultural and legal differences that save us, we have our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, there are plenty of political leaders in this country who would be more than happy to deny us these rights and gut the Constitution.

It is once again time to annoy, possibly anger, a segment of our supporters by pointing out which presidential candidate supports our rights and which is actively opposed to these freedoms. Protecting our rights is what we do here and that includes making sure you know the candidates’ attitudes towards them.

Given our focus on the Second Amendment and Kamala Harris’ and Tim Walz’ well-documented animus towards the Second Amendment and individual freedom, I doubt anyone will be surprised that I think Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are the better choices for the knife community.

I get that for many, neither is an appealing choice, but one is going to be president. It is important to look at the broad scope of history, as well as the record and well-established policy stances of the candidates, not their too often objectionable or odd personality. Words are cheap, politics is dirty, and the record does not lie. Neither candidate is even close to “perfect;” they each have substantial issues for many.

But Trump will protect the freedoms we hold dear and that we fight for; Harris wants to take them away.

As I mentioned four years ago, I have personal experience that adds to my belief that Harris is not a friend. In 2015 Harris was the California Attorney General. She personally signed off on the continued illegitimate prosecution of Emmanuel Castillolopez for having in his possession a concealed “dagger,” a common Swiss Army Knife. If that sounds odd, it’s because it made not a bit of sense.

The case arose from the 2012 arrest of Castillolopez, a passenger in a vehicle that was subject to a traffic stop. He was accused of carrying concealed a Swiss Army Knife with the blade supposedly in the open position. Castillolopez was not cited or charged with any crime other than possession of that Swiss Army Knife “Dirk or Dagger,” the concealment of which is a felony under California law.

Castillolopez was initially convicted, but his conviction was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found there was no evidence that the open blade of the Swiss Army Knife was “locked into position,” and therefore, it could not be a dirk or dagger under California’s peculiar law. Well, duh!

Harris chose to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court

Based on the ludicrous claim that the slipjoint SAK was a lockblade knife and the state’s weird concealed carry definition applied. In 2016, the California Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower court’s reversal.

As AmmoLand News reported in 2015, Knife Rights not only filed an amicus brief in the case, but our attorney was invited by the defendant’s court-appointed counsel to join him before the Court. That Supreme Court is certainly no friend of the Second Amendment or weapons in the hands of the state’s citizens. Getting a weapons conviction unanimously reversed on the merits, which they did in upholding the appeals court, is extremely rare.

Worse, Harris’ office knew the case was so weak, with no foundation in the law, that in the end, they had a junior lawyer with no previous Supreme Court experience argue the case so that the anticipated loss would not be incurred by anyone of consequence. It is indicative of Harris’ zeal to oppose the possession or carrying of any weapon, regardless of the law. Castillolopez, meanwhile, suffered years of prosecution, some might call it “persecution,” despite the utter inanity of the case against him.

It cost us a pretty penny to step up and ensure that slipjoint knives would not be considered lockblades in the state. A decision upholding the state’s position might well have been taken up by other blue states, as too often happens with bad California law. This victory was a big deal for all of us against an AG, now presidential candidate, who hates what we stand for and who has made her anti-2A position front and center in her campaign.

I hope everyone reading this will vote in the coming election.

While voting is a civic duty, too often, some feel it makes no difference and don’t bother. I am here to tell you that in my congressional district, just 27 votes made the difference. It certainly seems like in many states this year, your vote could well make a difference.

Elections have dire consequences in some cases. In this instance, a Harris presidency may well turn the Supreme Court from a defender of the Second Amendment to one that will shred it up and toss it in the bin of history, leaving us in the knife community with no constitutional protection against rabid knife banners.

I encourage you to vote for candidates who will maintain the freedoms that the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee for us, not only in the race for president but also for state and local offices. Please don’t make my job any harder than it already is.

Doug Ritter
Chairman
Knife Rights