From today’s Washington Supreme Court decision in City of Seattle v. Evans, which also usefully canvasses decisions from other state courts:
The court also expressly noted that “many knives banned under the Seattle ordinance may be arms deserving constitutional protection…. In a different case under appropriate facts, the ordinance’s ‘broad prohibition’ on carrying arms for purposes of self-defense may well be constitutionally infirm. We reserve judgment on this issue for an appropriate case.”
Four of the nine Justices dissented, reasoning that knives are generally constitutionally protected, whether or not the particular knife is designed as a weapon. (For gender identity politics buffs, note that the less weapons-friendly — but still quite weapons-friendly — majority was three women and two men, and the more weapons-friendly dissent was three women and one man.)
Thanks to David Stearns for the pointer.