The ruling overturned the state’s ban on switchblades, which had been in place since 1955. The decision has sparked debate among residents, with some praising the ruling as a victory for gun rights and others expressing concerns about public safety. Supporters of the ruling argue that it aligns with the Second Amendment and that the right to self-defense is paramount.

This argument is based on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which established the right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The argument also draws on the “arms” clause of the Second Amendment, which states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Georges’s argument hinges on the interpretation of the “arms” clause, arguing that it encompasses a broad range of weapons, including spring-loaded knives.