From Knife Rights, Inc. v. Blanche, decided yesterday by Fifth Circuit Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, joined by Judges Don Willett and Cory Wilson:

This case presents a Second Amendment challenge to the Federal Switchblade Act (FSA)'s restrictions on switchblade knives. {Section 2 of the FSA, codified as 15 U.S.C. § 1242, … place[s] a fine of up to "$2,000 or imprison[ment] not more than five years, or both" for anyone who "knowingly introduces, or manufactures for introduction, into interstate commerce, or transports or distributes in interstate commerce, any switchblade knife."}

Applying the framework articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, we hold that the FSA is unconstitutional.  We determine that switchblade knives qualify as "Arms" and are covered by the "plain text" of the Second Amendment. Because the regulation implicates the amendment, the government bears the burden of establishing that the FSA comports with well-established principles of the Second Amendment and its regulatory tradition. The government fails to meet its burden. Specifically, the FSA's restrictions on the introduction, manufacture, transportation, and distribution of switchblades fail step two's "how" analysis….

Amongst other definitions, Heller highlighted that the founding era understood the term to mean "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." Switchblade knives have surely been used for "defence" and to "strike another."

Knives have been used for defense throughout human history, including the American founding. During the colonial period, "[e]veryone had a knife," and "as long as a man was required to defend his life," a "knife was a constant necessity." In the 1700s and during the American Revolution, knives were used for scavenging, hunting, and defense, and "[b]elt and pocket knives" accompanied frontiersmen "in the developing eastern settlements and on the western frontiers." Well into the 1800s, "men of all walks of life" were "accustomed to wear a knife as a necessary part of their garb."

Switchblade knives are no exception. "Springblade knives" (precursors to the modern switchblade) "have been made for hundreds of years because there has always been a need for a pocketknife that can be opened easily when the hands are wet, cold, or covered with gloves." In the 1700s, such knives were a part of certain types of flint-lock pistols: "[i]f the pistol mis-fired (which frequently happened) the person would touch the release button and the blade would open up, and be available for use." After the Civil War, patents for switchblade knives proliferated, and the large-scale production of "switchblades in the United States began in the 1880s, shortly" thereafter. Then, "[o]ver a 50 year period from the mid 1890s to the mid 1940s there had been approximately 20 different companies who had manufactured switchblade knives in this country." In short, some forms of switchblades have been commonly used for defense for hundreds of years. They are "arms."

Accordingly, the government's not-in-common-use argument fails. In addition to the wealth of history indicating the founding-era uses of switchblades for defense, the record indicates that there are "millions" of automatically opening knives in the United States now. The record further reflects that switchblade knives are lawfully used for "every day utility use, hunting, fishing, recreation, and camping and hiking." Despite the FSA, there are still lawful sales of switchblade knives in the United States. Consequently, switchblade knives are "arms" "in common use" both then and now….

We proceed to step two [of the Bruen analysis]. Here, we assess whether § 1242 is consistent with the principles that flow from the Second Amendment's history and tradition….

The government makes its stand primarily by citing a host of nineteenth-century cases in support of its argument that there existed a well-established tradition of regulating "inherently concealable weapons." The concealable nature of these weapons, the argument goes, makes them "particularly dangerous." The government connects this with the clear congressional history that suggests that Congress enacted the FSA because it believed that switchblades posed a unique danger and therefore needed to be restricted. This line of argument is focused on answering the "why" portion of the step two inquiry.

However, we do not reach the question of whether the government meets its burden as to the "why" analysis because it fails the "how" analysis. As mentioned, the Supreme Court has informed us that "[e]ven when a law regulates arms-bearing for a permissible reason," it may not be "compatible with the right if it does so to an extent beyond what was done at the founding." So, even if we grant the government's argument that there is a well-established tradition of regulating "inherently concealable weapons," this only addresses the "why" inquiry.

The government cites no historical analogue that regulates the manufacture, transportation, or distribution of "inherently concealable weapons," much less switchblade knives. Rather, its analogues suggest that there is a tradition of regulating the manner of carrying concealable weapons….

The government's best attempt at meeting its burden is through a single citation to a treatise-length law review article. See Gov't Br. at 16–17 (citing David B. Kopel & Joseph G.S. Greenlee, The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, 50 J. Legis. 223 (2024)). It cites the article to show how "statutes regulated concealable weapons in a variety of different ways, including banning carry or concealed carry, prohibiting their possession in specific locations, subjecting their sale or possession to taxes, or restricting the sale to minors." The referenced section of the article catalogs nearly two hundred pre-1900 statutes regulating daggers, dirks, and sword canes.

Of the nearly two-hundred statutes, only two regulate bladed weapons in an analogous manner as § 1242. See 1881 Ark. Acts 191, 192 (proscribing the "sell[ing], barter[ing] or exchang[ing]" of "any dirk or bowie knife, or sword or spear in a cane"); 1837 Ga. Laws 90, 90–91 (making unlawful "for any merchant, or vend[o]r of wares or merchandize in this State, or any other person or persons whatsoever, to sell, or offer to sell … Bowie, or any other kinds of knives, manufactured and sold for the purpose of wearing, or carrying the same as arms of offence or defense, pistols, dirks, sword canes, spears, &c"). Two laws out of nearly two hundred bring us into outlier territory….

John William Dillon (Dillon Law Group, A.P.C.), Richard Brent Cooper (Cooper & Scully, P.C.), and Daniel Schmutter (Hartman & Winnicki, P.C.) represent plaintiffs.

The post Switchblade Ban Violates Second Amendment, Fifth Circuit Holds appeared first on Reason Magazine.

• Mechanized assaults have been rare in Ukraine, but amid a major offensive, its forces pulled off two.
• The Ukrainian commander behind the operation doubted the assaults would succeed.
• He said using armored vehicles now needs extensive planning and support, much like a special operation.

A massive Ukrainian operation retaking territory from Russian forces has shown that assaults with tanks and armored vehicles are still possible in a drone-heavy war, but far more support and planning are now necessary to execute them.

Tanks and other armored vehicles have faced serious challenges on battlefields dominated by drones, mines, and artillery, prompting both sides to move away, tactically speaking, from large-scale mechanized assaults. Those decisions have led observers to question whether tanks still have a role in modern warfare.

Those discussions have taken a new turn in the wake of recent Ukrainian combat operations.

Ukrainian forces involved in Operation Vivaldi, a counteroffensive that has so far taken back 277 square kilometers of territory, carried out two successful mechanized assaults behind Russian lines this week, Brigadier General Andrii Biletskyi, the commander of Ukraine's Third Army Corps, the unit conducting the operation, told the Ukrainian outlet Militarnyi.

George Barros, the director of innovation at the Institute for the Study of War, a US think tank, told Business Insider that this appears to be "the first successful mechanized tactical level breakthrough in a drone-dominated battlefield."

Sharing details of the operation, Biletskyi said he had been skeptical it could be done, remaining unsure until the last minute whether armored vehicles could be used successfully, but he decided to allow brigade commanders to try.

The assaults required extensive preparation and coordination. "Today, the use of armored vehicles is effectively a special operation. It requires extremely detailed planning and the coordination of a huge number of assets," Biletskyi told Militarnyi, a Ukrainian military news site.

Barros said that while the assault's territorial gains were limited, he believes it is the most consequential and meaningful offensive in theater and in military science observed so far.

"It's a really big deal," he said. "It decisively proves that it is possible to achieve mechanized maneuver at the tactical level in a drone-dominated battlefield."

The mission planning involved separate training for vehicle crews and infantry, fitting vehicles with additional equipment, and extensive support to shield the advance. Biletskyi did not specify the equipment used, but electronic warfare, additional armor, and supporting drones and robots are among the kinds of tools that can help protect assault forces.

"The big lesson here is that the tank isn't dead, and the tank isn't obsolete," Barros said, "but rather the prerequisites to make the tank useful have become lengthy and extensive and very difficult to achieve, but all the same important and critical for success on the battlefield."

The challenge is replicating that success. Such assaults require more resources and preparation time than some units can reasonably dedicate to the mission. Barros noted that very few Ukrainian units are as well trained and well equipped as the Third Army Corps, Vivaldi's lead unit.

But if Ukraine is successful in proliferating these lessons and tactics into other elements of its armed forces, "then we will have a Ukrainian military that is extremely capable and able to roll back the Russians, whereas the Russians still lag potentially years behind the Ukrainians in terms of being able to conduct these kinds of maneuvers," he said.

The recent Vivaldi assaults build on a broader effort to bring armored vehicles back into bigger offensive breakthrough operations.

ISW observed in May that Ukraine, for the first time since 2023, was beginning to carry out more frequent mechanized counterattacks, including using armored vehicles in front-line attacks.

In August, ISW assessed that Ukraine had been able to reintroduce limited mechanized maneuver through improved planning, suppression of Russian air defenses, and an emerging drone advantage. And by October, the think tank had detected an edge for Ukraine in these kinds of renewed operations.

Biletskyi said this week that the mechanized assault allowed his forces to achieve the partial encircling of the settlement of Nove and the deployment of infantry behind Russian lines to attack drone operators concealed in wooded areas.

He said the attacks degraded Russia's ability to conduct drone operations and gather battlefield intelligence, setting conditions for a tactical breakthrough.

Eliminating drone operators is key, Barros said, because it allows Ukrainian forces to push forward. It's something he said Ukraine has become better at over the course of the year, which was why Ukrainian vehicles were able to advance further. Vivaldi's leaders have emphasized the importance of shaping the battlefield by weakening the enemy first, including through the use of artillery, drones, and robots.

The war's dense networks of drones, land mines, and artillery have made large armored assaults difficult and dangerous. Inexpensive drones, in particular, make it hard to concentrate forces and complicate maneuvers. Both sides have added protective armor while decreasing tank activity, often keeping them farther from the front.

Vivaldi shows they're not out of the fight, though.

Western partners are still betting on tanks and buying new ones, but they foresee changes in how they are supported and deployed. Officials say tanks still have a place, but their role may shift. They will need to work alongside assets like drones.

Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said in May that "legacy platforms are not obsolete" but "the decisive question is the force mix: how can we combine ships, aircraft, tanks and high-end systems with robotics, drones, sensors, software and new effectors to increase lethality and better protect our soldiers?"

As of October, Russia has up to 700 ballistic and several thousand cruise missiles in reserve, and its 2026 state order for Geran-type drones and decoys such as the Gerbera exceeded 100,000 units, Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) told NV in figures the outlet published on 20 October. The missile stocks are roughly the same as HUR reported to NV in July, the outlet found.

Ukraine enters the heating season facing what it says is a Russian plan to hit 60 infrastructure sites this winter. HUR’s figures suggest Russia has the weapons for it, even after its fall mass strikes. In June, HUR said Russia could fire up to 100 ballistic missiles a month while keeping its stocks steady. Its drone output, meanwhile, is shifting to jets that are harder to shoot down.

Russia produces 110 ballistic missiles a month

Russia can make more than 200 missiles a month, 110 of them ballistic, HUR said. About 115 of its ballistic missiles are Iskander-Ms, with production of up to 65 a month. A modernized Iskander with a projected range of 550 to 700 km is in development.

At the same time, Russia holds up to 400 S-300PM and S-400 air defense missiles adapted to strike ground targets, and makes about 40 a month. Meanwhile, Kinzhal production has been temporarily paused over poor accuracy, and the capacity has gone to conventional ballistic missiles.

Most new Kalibrs go into reserve

Russia plans to make more than 80 Kh-101 cruise missiles a month and is exceeding that, though defects in releasing them from aircraft have sent some batches back to the factories.

Russia has more than 450 Kalibrs and makes about 29 a month. Because Ukrainian air defense downs them effectively, Russia sends most new ones to its strategic reserve and to equip its fleets, HUR said. It also holds more than 600 Oniks anti-ship missiles, upgraded for ground strikes, and more than 120 Zircons.

Explore further

Ukraine recovers Russia’s undamaged Geran-3 jet kamikaze drone carrying camera and live-link equipment (VIDEO)

Russia now assembles 4,000 jet drones a month

Russia holds a reserve of about 6,200 Gerans and makes about 10,000 drones a month. Its main production hub is the Alabuga special economic zone in Tatarstan.

Since summer, Russia has shifted toward turbojet drones. “The reason is the saturation of Ukraine’s Air Force with mobile fire groups that shoot down low-speed targets en masse,” HUR said. Russia now assembles about 4,000 jet drones a month, mostly Geran-4s and Geran-5s, which fly at 400 to 500 km/h. It also makes about 2,000 cheaper propeller-driven Geran-2s, which HUR said are used to wear down air defense and locate air defense positions.

In a direct confrontation with Russia, European NATO states would likely be even more vulnerable than Ukraine to swarms of Russia’s new jet-powered strike weapons, Fabian Hoffmann of the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies (NIDS) argued in a 20 October op-ed for the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). He calls them low-cost cruise missiles. Just three days earlier, Romania met what it believes were two of them over the Black Sea.

Romanian F-16 fighter jets shot down two jet-powered Geran-family drones over Romania’s territorial waters on 17 October, the Defense Ministry said. Interim Defense Minister Radu Miruță said they flew at about 450 km/h and were likely Geran-4s, the first of that type Romania had downed.

Faster drones for a faster war

Russia began using the Geran-4 in May in response to effective Ukrainian interceptor drones, Ukraine’s military intelligence (HUR) said, adding that it reaches up to 500 km/h. By June, those interceptors were downing about half of slower Shahed-type drones, defense adviser Serhii Beskrestnov estimated.

Hoffmann traces the shift to the Geran-3, a model Ukraine recovered intact in 2025. In his account, a Chinese JT80 turbojet roughly doubled its speed, from 185 to 350 km/h. However, he puts newer models, including the Geran-4, at 600 km/h or more, above HUR’s figure for that model.

By his estimate, each costs $150,000–$250,000, against about $50,000 for a long-range drone. Still, from Russia’s perspective, he wrote, that buys a significantly higher chance of getting through.

Explore further

Ukraine is testing four new drone interceptors as Russia floods its skies with faster Gerans 

Engines are the bottleneck

Hoffmann argues defenses must match the threat’s speed, for example with jet-powered interceptor drones. Ukraine already fields some. On 4 October, President Zelenskyy said its Bars interceptors had shown the highest percentage among Ukrainian interceptors, about 30% of targets, according to Militarnyi. One unit destroyed five aerial targets with five Bars interceptors, Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara later told journalists. He also called aviation one of the most effective tools against jet drones.

Hoffmann’s concern is scale. Jet engines are in short supply, he wrote, because too few European and US suppliers can meet demand. Ukraine’s Defense Industry Council flagged a shortage of such engines for its drones in April. In his view, gun systems and higher-end missile defenses are too scarce or too costly to fill the gap.

• Thiel criticized the US-Iran war, diverging from Trump's foreign policy stance, POLITICO reported.
• "There were a lot of mistakes that were made," Thiel said at a lecture earlier this month.
• Despite his criticism of the war in Iran, Thiel highlighted his continued support for Trump.

Billionaire technology investor Peter Thiel said he's skeptical of the US war with Iran and does not believe the United States should have launched it, putting the major Republican donor at odds with President Donald Trump over one of the administration's defining foreign policy decisions, POLITICO reported.

Thiel's remarks, delivered on October 12 at a private event, are his most explicit statements to be revealed publicly about the war with Iran and come less than two weeks before the midterm elections in which Trump's party is grasping to maintain power in Congress. The audio of Thiel's comments was obtained by Decoded by POLITICO from a lecture earlier this month.

"I'm skeptical of [the war], I think we should not have done it," Thiel said. "There were a lot of mistakes that were made."

Thiel added, "Maybe we don't have the hard power. Maybe we're going to lose the soft power war."

In the full lecture, Thiel made clear his strong opposition to neoconservatives and Middle East wars. Despite his criticism of the Iran war, Thiel highlighted his continued support of Trump and suggested he wanted to protect the president.

Still, Thiel's break over the war represents one of the most important examples to date of a fierce Trump ally sharing deep concerns about the conflict.

The comments were part of Thiel's lecture series in Nashville, which Decoded has documented since their start this fall. In the latest lecture, Thiel issued extensive warnings about what he described as the unchecked power of the International Criminal Court, drawing on comments from Bush-era figures Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

"I read the Cheney family's Trump derangement syndrome as an attempt to buy favor with the [International Criminal Court] and avoid prosecution. Probably too late," Thiel said. "And I have come to suspect that the threat of an ICC arrest warrant is the sword of Damocles hanging over the Trump administration as it tries to persecute this war in Iran."

Thiel also discusses meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in early 2024, after the October 7 attack, where he said he asked the president about his plans in Gaza. Thiel said Netanyahu told him, "I can't just Dresdenize it," referring to the Allied bombing of the German city of Dresden during World War II that killed roughly 25,000 people.

The first big tech investor to back Trump in 2016, and then have a high-profile speaking role at the Republican National Convention that year, Thiel was also the biggest financial backer of super PACs supporting Vice President JD Vance's Senate campaign in 2022. POLITICO reported in March that Vance was "skeptical" of the U.S. striking Iran in the lead-up to the beginning of the war.

Representatives for Thiel and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.

The chaos engulfing France is a preview of what Democrats want for America, Sen. Eric Schmitt warned, contrasting the unrest with new manufacturing jobs and a federal crime crackdown in Missouri that he credits to cooperation with the Trump administration.

"You see what’s happening in France. That’s exactly what they want here, the DSA Democrats," the Missouri Republican told Fox News Digital.

His warning comes as riots, fires and looting have swept France after protests over rising living costs and strained public services turned violent, prompting curfews in parts of Paris and other cities.

"I think the Democrat Party at this point is sort of post-American and anti-Western civilization," Schmitt said.

VIOLENT FAR-LEFT RIOTS IN FRANCE ARE 'CHILLING WARNING' FOR AMERICANS AT HOME, MIKE JOHNSON SAYS

With control of the House "up for grabs," Schmitt argued, Republicans need to make the stakes clear while showing voters what they have delivered.

INSIDE THE HOUSE GOP'S 4-WEEK BATTLE PLAN TO SAVE ITS MAJORITY

Asked what a Democratic House would mean for Trump’s agenda, Schmitt accused Democrats of obstructing Republican efforts on immigration, permitting reform and regulations.

'SQUAD' DEMOCRAT FORMALLY INTRODUCES BILL TO ABOLISH ICE, BORDER PATROL AND DISMANTLE DHS

He warned that Democratic control could jeopardize funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and revive what he described as the political weaponization of government under former President Joe Biden.

But Schmitt also argued Republicans need to give voters a reason to support them, pointing to jobs and public safety as areas where he says cooperation with the Trump administration is paying off.

KEY AMERICAN INDUSTRY SEEING BLUE-COLLAR JOBS BOOM AS TRUMP'S RE-SHORING POLICIES PAY OFF

In Missouri, he highlighted Boeing’s selection to build the Air Force’s F-47 and the Navy’s next-generation F/A-XX fighter as a potentially transformative investment in American manufacturing.

Boeing secured the Navy contract in September after winning the Air Force program last year.

BERNIE SANDERS ADMITS DEMOCRATS FAILED WORKING-CLASS VOTERS ON ECONOMICS, DRIVING THEM TO DONALD TRUMP

Schmitt, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the programs would mean 7,000 direct jobs, with additional opportunities for suppliers and surrounding businesses.

"It means that the goal we’ve been fighting for, which is that St. Louis is the defense tech capital of the United States of America, is coming true," he said.

TRUMP SAYS POLLS 'DON'T ACCOUNT FOR ONE THING,' AS HE PLEDGES TO DEFEAT COMMUNISTS 'ONCE AND FOR ALL'

Schmitt said he worked with Trump and administration officials to help land the programs, describing them as "generational opportunities" for Missouri workers.

"You think of the good-paying jobs that’s going to mean for generations to come, it’s just a game changer," he said.

He also tied the aircraft programs to the broader competition with China, saying the next generation of fighters would help meet military demands in the Pacific.

On public safety, Schmitt pointed to Operation Show Me Justice, an ATF-led enforcement surge that resulted in 435 arrests and the seizure of 166 firearms in St. Louis, according to the Justice Department.

Authorities also seized 81 kilograms of drugs and more than $1.25 million linked to suspected illegal gun and drug transactions during the operation, which officials announced had concluded Oct. 15.

Schmitt said his conversations with administration officials have carried a straightforward request for his hometown.

TRUMP’S LAW-AND-ORDER BLITZ MARKS ONE YEAR WITH EYE-POPPING HAUL OF SUSPECTS, GUNS IN BLUE CITY

"St. Louis, we need your help," he said.

The former Missouri attorney general described the toll of violence on families, including grandparents cleaning up broken glass and parents burying their children.

"We don’t need to accept this," he said. "We just don’t need to accept the idea that violent crime needs to be in the headlines every single day."

He pledged the effort would continue beyond the surge.

"This isn’t a one-and-done deal. There are more resources coming," Schmitt said.

OMAR'S NEW LEGISLATION TARGETING ICE SPARKS OUTRAGE WHEN THE INTERNET SEES WHAT'S IN IT: 'UN-AMERICAN'

For families wanting to send children safely to school, visit a park or attend a Cardinals game downtown, he said the goal is a better quality of life.

"I think the message is help is on the way, and there are real tangible results now, not just rhetoric, not just empty promises," Schmitt said.

"We’re not letting up."

Schmitt’s third major priority is modernizing St. Louis Lambert International Airport, an effort he linked to the region’s aerospace growth and aviation history.

His Modern Skies Act would fund improvements to air traffic control technology, towers and airport terminals. He said midsize airports need help securing investments that larger hubs can more readily finance.

"St. Louis is the gateway to the West," he said. "It deserves a world-class airport."

The proposal remains a legislative push rather than a guaranteed funding award for Lambert. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said during an October visit that airport funding would be competitive.

For Schmitt, those priorities form part of the argument Republicans need to make as voters weigh control of Congress.

He cast the election as "common sense versus crazy," but cautioned that Republicans cannot assume their supporters will show up.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"I just don’t think you can take anything for granted," Schmitt said. "I think we have to fight for every vote and tell an important story."

"I think if we do that, we’re gonna hold on to the Senate, and the House is up for grabs."

Key developments on Oct. 21:

• Zelensky supports resuming trilateral peace talks with US, Russia after Putin claims Kremlin readiness
• 'Everything was in ruins' — At least 2 killed, 2 injured in Russian drone attack on Kyiv
• Russian Su-30 fighter jet crashes in Kaliningrad Oblast during training exercises, Moscow

From today's decision by Judge John Sinatra (W.D.N.Y.) in Heeter v. James:

New York enacted a first-of-its-kind law prohibiting law-abiding residents-who are not engaged or employed in an eligible profession-from purchasing body armor for self-defense. New York enacted this legislation "to further strengthen gun laws." New York's body armor legislation, however, violates the Second Amendment….

In D.C. v. Heller (2008), the Court made it clear what the term "Arms" meant when the Second Amendment was ratified. In explaining that "[t]he 18th-century meaning" of the term "Arms" is "no different from the meaning today[,]" the Court quoted multiple dictionaries from the Seventeenth Century. Specifically, "[t]he 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined 'arms' as '[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.' 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined 'arms' as 'any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.' 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989).'' As a result, this Court is bound by Heller's textual analysis, which demonstrates that the word "arms" included armor at the Nation's founding (as it does today)….

The State submits that, during the Founding Era, armor "had become rare or even entirely obsolete in everyday American English" and "the protective leather gear of th[e] pre-Kevlar era was notoriously ineffective against bullets, meaning civilians did not typically wear such body protection either." This argument runs headlong into the definitions adopted by Heller, nevertheless indicating that the term "arms"—as it was defined in the Founding Era—included defensive body armor that (according to the State) was supposedly rarely utilized in 1791.

Body armor may be used more today than Defendants' understanding of its use in 1791. But it strains credulity to say that an arm that was rarely used during the Founding Era—yet still protected by the Second Amendment per Heller—is no longer protected despite being much more common among Americans today.

Moreover, this conclusion is consistent with Heller's clear statement that the Second Amendment "extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." While body armor may not have been in common use at the founding—although the commonly understood definition of "arms" included body armor—neither were other arms commonly used for self-defense, such as resolvers, semiautomatic pistols, and stun guns. See Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) (Alito, J., concurring). The defensive body armor available today is "no more exempt from the Second Amendment's protections, simply because [it was] unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment." …

Even if the definitions put forth by the Supreme Court in Heller are dicta, this Court has an "obligation to accord great deference to Supreme Court dicta," absent a change in the legal landscape. Defendants have not suggested—nor can they—that a change in the legal landscape exists that would require this Court to ignore how Heller defined the term "arms." …

Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated that body armor is an "arm" protected by the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the State to justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of arms regulation. The State fails to do so….

The State argues that there exists a "centuries-long historical tradition" demonstrating that, "when body armor has been in use, it has been subject to government regulation." Yet, the State is unable to identify a single regulation on body armor post-ratification…. The State contends that its body armor ban is consistent with "English monarchs and parliaments" who "regularly issued laws forbidding or restricting the wearing of armor …." Not only is this analogy irrelevant to the regulation of arms in the United States, but it also ignores the historical reason the right to keep and bear arms is "understood to be an individual right protecting against public and private violence." Accordingly, the Court interprets the English history put forth by the State in light of these principles and articulates that it is not "sufficiently probative" to defend New York's body armor ban….

The State points to the Statute of Northampton for support for its position that there is a long-standing tradition of restricting who can purchase body armor. The law prohibited anyone to "go, nor ride armed by night, nor by day, in fairs markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armor to the King and their bodies to prison, at the king's pleasure." Notwithstanding the ink that continues to be spilled over this law, the Supreme Court has stated that "the Statute of Northampton—at least as it was understood during the Middle Ages—has little bearing on the Second Amendment adopted in 1791." N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)….

The State's analogy to the Statute of Northampton is an attempt to justify its body armor ban by speculating that individuals only wear body armor to terrify the public. Yet, this ignores the reality put forth by Plaintiffs, that the public is more likely to reach for body armor to protect themselves from terrifying circumstances. In Rahimi, the Supreme Court concluded that "[a]n individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment." Here, however, the State is suggesting that a merely broad-based suspicion over the population at large is sufficient to justify a universal ban on the sale and purchase of a specific type of arm. And to the extent that the State analogizes this to prohibiting criminals from purchasing body armor, other statutes already criminalize the use of body armor while committing violent crimes. The State's categorical prohibition of a specific type of arm to law-abiding citizens at large, is untethered from any historical tradition-including the Statute of Northampton….

Nicolas J. Rotsko (Fluet) represents plaintiffs.

The post Body Armor Ban Struck Down by N.Y. Federal Court appeared first on Reason Magazine.

As Washington leans on Ukraine to make a deal with Russia amid its diesel agreement ahead of the US elections, its European partners are meeting to keep it armed against deadly weapons.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he met Kongsberg CEO Eirik Lie and Norwegian Defense Minister Tore Sandvik in Oslo on 21 October to discuss more NASAMS air defenses, a day after meeting US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff in the same city.

Washington has spent the past two weeks easing pressure on Russia and leaning on Kyiv, with a diesel deal, throttled Starlink, and talk of cutting intelligence, while Ukraine’s European partners move in the other direction. Russia pounds Ukrainian cities almost nightly, and the Norwegian-made NASAMS is one of the systems holding that barrage off critical infrastructure.

Kongsberg opened an office in Ukraine in 2025. Its NASAMS uses the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile built by the US defense giant RTX, the same firm behind the Patriot launchers that are Ukraine’s only means of downing Russian ballistic and hypersonic missiles. The same missile is also used in F-16s.

“They effectively protect our people and critical infrastructure from Russian missile and drone attacks virtually every day,” Zelenskyy said.

He added that Ukraine is counting on additional defense support packages next month.

A European shield Ukraine wants tested this year

The visit also advanced a joint missile-defense project. Norway is actively involved in FREYJA, a European anti-ballistic missile program that Ukraine is helping to build.

“There are already first results in creating individual elements of the system. Today we determined where we can and must speed up to reach testing by the end of this year,” Zelenskyy said.

FREYJA now draws in 10 countries and is built around an interceptor missile designed to stop ballistic threats, a capability Europe largely lacks against Russia’s fastest weapons.

A push for satellites as Starlink falters

Zelenskyy also raised satellite communications amid the scandal over speed limitations on Elon Musk’s military Starlink service that disrupted a series of front-line missions.

“We discussed in detail the start of work on new satellite-communication capabilities for our soldiers,” the president said, adding that Kyiv would bring in partners able to support them.

The push comes after SpaceX throttled the StarShield military package Ukrainian drones use. Ukraine’s 7th Air Assault Corps said the connection began dropping as drones moved at speed, negatively affecting their missions.

Intercepting a jet-powered Geran can cost anywhere from $2,000 to $4 million depending on the weapon used. Cheap interceptor drones are the only option that keeps air defense affordable, the foundation of Ukrainian top war volunteer Serhii Sternenko said on Telegram.

Russia’s jet Gerans now carry every characteristic of a small cruise missile, and Russians keep raising their speed in answer to each Ukrainian countermeasure. Former commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi has framed the shift bluntly: an expensive Cold War missile has become a cheap weapon fired in bulk, and the drone is now “a missile in all but name,” affordable to any side, not only wealthy countries.

Sternenko heads a charitable foundation that has purchased 291,502 FPV drones, which have helped Ukraine’s military down more than 12,954 aerial targets. Also, has advised the team of former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov.

Three ways to kill a jet Geran, and what each costs

The foundation laid out the price of each method:

• Aircraft (F-16, MiG-29, Su-27, Mirage 2000): $25,000 to $1.2 million per kill. Effective, but the stock of missiles is critically low, and some air-to-air types are no longer being replenished.
• Surface-to-air and shoulder-fired systems (IRIS-T, NASAMS, Vampire, Avenger): about $30,000 to $4 million. Good for shielding key sites, but a missile capable of reaching a jet Geran at 6 to 7 kilometers costs $0.5 million to $4 million.
• Interceptor drones (makers undisclosed): from $2,000. Cheap, with trained operators ready, but not yet scalable.

Why the cheapest option is the one that matters

No single tool is enough, the foundation stresses. Downing jet Gerans still needs aircraft, small aviation and missile systems together, but it is the interceptors that make the defense affordable, taking out the cheaper Shaheds and saving costly missiles for targets nothing else can reach.

The foundation says it has found a way to counter drones that already match small cruise missiles, working with Ukrainian manufacturers, without disclosing details. The method is far cheaper than other ways of downing jet Gerans and significantly strengthens air defense, it says, as part of a wider Ukrainian push to field interceptor drones fast enough to catch Russia’s fastest weapons.

The commander of an interceptor battalion in Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps said his unit destroyed several thousand Russian aerial targets during Operation Vivaldi, ArmyInform, the Defense Ministry’s news agency, reported on 21 October.

Operation Vivaldi is a Ukrainian counteroffensive north of Lyman in Donetsk Oblast, where the 3rd Army Corps has reported liberating settlements. In its third phase, Ukrainian forces reclaimed five settlements and expanded their gains to 176 square kilometers. Strikes on Russian logistics and electronic warfare likely neutralized Russia’s drone defenses before Ukraine sent in armor, the Institute for the Study of War assessed.

The commander, who uses the callsign “Betsyk,” leads the interceptor battalion of the 1030th Anti-Aircraft Missile-Artillery Regiment “Aquila,” part of the 3rd Army Corps. He said Russian forces deployed large numbers of reconnaissance drones to locate Ukrainian positions after the corps began advancing.

Betsyk named Zala, Orlan, Supercam, Merlin, and Knyaz Veshchiy Oleg among the reconnaissance drones used by Russian forces.

Russia also brought in reinforcements and units operating strike drones, including first-person-view (FPV) quadcopters, Molniya fixed-wing FPV drones, and Lancet crews, he said. At one stage, Russian forces deployed crews from their Rubicon drone unit to disrupt the advance, but the move did not change the situation.

Explore further

Ukraine retook Kolodiazi north of Lyman as its drones hit 200-plus Russian vehicles in Operation Vivaldi’s last phase, Ukrainian drone officer says

Betsyk said his battalion’s work deprived Russian forces of the ability to strike Ukrainian troops and track their movements.

Jet-powered Shaheds: speed is the main challenge

The regiment also works against Russian strike drones heading for targets behind the front line. Betsyk said interceptor crews had destroyed some jet-powered drones, but not in significant numbers.

The main difficulty is speed, he said. Interceptor drones need to reach 500–600 km/h to intercept Russian jet-powered attack drones, according to Betsyk.

For now, the regiment mainly uses conventional air-defense systems against these targets: self-propelled anti-aircraft systems, surface-to-air missile systems, and portable surface-to-air missile systems. Betsyk said these systems were historically designed to engage jet-powered targets.

He compared the current challenge with the early use of piston-powered Shaheds. Those drones initially posed a serious threat but later became easier for Ukrainian air defenses to counter. Russia has largely stopped using piston-powered Shaheds on most fronts since summer, he said, but continues to use piston-powered Gerbera drones, which are relatively cheap and can partly exhaust Ukrainian air defenses. The main drones Russian forces use now are jet-powered Shaheds, he said.

Betsyk expects Russian forces to adapt if Ukraine fields effective interceptors against jet-powered drones. They will seek ways to evade the interceptors, increase speed, improve navigation, and change their tactics, he said. However, he added that the battalion had not observed a major evolution so far and did not expect the drones’ speed to double.

What the corps says Vivaldi achieved

Separately, 3rd Army Corps commander Andrii Biletskyi said Ukrainian forces retook 277 square kilometers and 16 settlements during Operation Vivaldi, Ukrainska Pravda reported. Biletskyi also said Russian losses exceeded 8,000 personnel, according to ArmyInform. These figures are Ukrainian claims and have not been independently verified.

• Elon Musk's Starlink service is being drawn into Russia's campaign of hybrid operations in Europe.
• There have been several attacks against Starlink infrastructure across Europe in recent weeks.
• SpaceX's lucrative connectivity business has become a military and political target.

Elon Musk and SpaceX have gotten caught up in very public battles over Starlink's role in the war in Ukraine, but they're also being drawn into another, less visible conflict: Russia's shadowy campaign of hybrid operations against the West.

The past few weeks have seen attacks and attempted sabotage against Starlink infrastructure across Europe. Western officials are blaming Russia for at least some of the incidents, and Ukrainian intelligence has warned that Moscow could ramp up these efforts.

Kęstutis Budrys, Lithuania's foreign minister, said on Sunday that a sabotage attempt targeting Starlink infrastructure near Vilnius was thwarted the previous night. He said that the aim was to "undermine a capability critical" to Ukrainian defense and civilian communications.

Budrys characterized the incident as "a direct consequence of Russia's war" and later described the act as an element of Russian hybrid operations against Europe — sabotage, attacks, drone incursions, and other actions that Western officials have attributed to Moscow in recent years. The Kremlin has repeatedly denied involvement.

Starlink infrastructure is a growing target. The civilian satellite internet service and its military-grade variant are used by NATO and Ukraine for battlefield communications and operations.

Last week, Poland blamed Russian intelligence services for a sabotage incident in September — two Turkish citizens were arrested in connection with a fire at a Starlink satellite station near Warsaw. Donald Tusk, the country's prime minister, called the attack "another act of hybrid warfare."

There was also a recent attack on Starlink antennas near Bulgaria's capital, according to media reports.

Ukraine's GUR military intelligence warned on October 2 that Russia could target Starlink infrastructure in Europe as part of its campaign.

Speaking Monday, after the most recent incident involving Starlink, Lithuania's Budrys said that "we are seeing coordinated efforts to target critical infrastructure linked to support for Ukraine, logistics chains and other important facilities."

"These are not isolated crimes," he added. "They are part of Russia's broader hybrid campaign against Europe, aimed at intimidating allies, undermining support for Ukraine, and testing our resilience."

Neither Russia's defense ministry nor its embassies in Poland or Lithuania responded to requests for comment from Business Insider about these allegations.

Lithuania's defense ministry said in a statement that the thwarted attack is not the first time it has seen an attempt to set fire to companies providing support to Ukraine. The ministry added that "attempts to damage Starlink equipment have recently occurred in other countries as well."

Attempted sabotage of Starlink infrastructure is not a recent development, though. British authorities, for instance, determined that Russian intelligence was behind a March 2024 arson attack targeting a London warehouse storing Starlink equipment bound for Ukraine.

"Neither space nor our societies are sanctuaries," US Army Col. Martin O'Donnell, a spokesperson for Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, told Business Insider. "Fortunately, NATO has strategies for countering threats to both, and for defending the alliance."

NATO leadership and European Union officials have said the hybrid campaign won't derail support for Ukraine.

"As the threat level climbs, so must Europe's preparedness," Christian Wigand, the EU's lead foreign affairs and security policy spokesperson, told Business Insider. "Moscow is trying to scare Europe into winding down its support for Ukraine," he said. "This will not happen."

SpaceX in the crosshairs

Although the sabotage attempts in Poland and Lithuania targeted Starlink equipment at sites run by third parties, not by SpaceX directly, the incidents are a sign of how the company and Starlink are becoming increasingly entangled in the war between Ukraine and Russia and Moscow's hybrid operations against the West.

That entanglement is turning SpaceX's lucrative connectivity business into a military and political target.

Starlink accounted for over 60% of SpaceX's revenue last year and has been the funding engine for the company's cash-burning artificial intelligence and rocket ventures.

In SpaceX's third-quarter earnings call this week, the company reported that government and enterprise revenues were up 91% year over year, and executives told investors they expect this revenue stream to eventually exceed income from selling Starlink terminals to consumers.

As SpaceX contends with Starlink infrastructure becoming a target of hybrid Russian warfare, the company and its leadership are also facing controversies from the war in Ukraine that put that business at risk.

Earlier this month, Ukraine's access to Starshield, the military-grade version of Starlink, was limited without warning, complicating operations.

Ukrainian defense ministry sources told Business Insider that Starshield was restricted at speeds above 100 miles per hour, disrupting the Starlink-equipped drones that have become a crucial part of Ukraine's war machine, with some Ukrainian and foreign officials initially blaming SpaceX and Musk.

Musk redirected concerns in a social media post, saying that Starshield is operated by the US government and that the president and the Pentagon are responsible for such decisions. A senior US official told Business Insider last week that President Donald Trump did not order the Starshield restrictions.

Multiple media outlets have since reported that Musk ordered the disruption. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.

This incident has sparked calls from European officials for the EU to divest from Starlink in favor of local alternatives not controlled by Musk or the US.

Christophe Grudler, a member of the European Parliament, wrote to EU leaders urging them to accelerate development of IRIS2, a European rival to Starlink that is set to begin satellite deployments in 2029, while other lawmakers also called on Europe to reduce its reliance on US tech.

Europe is not alone in seeking alternatives. In an interview with The New York Times in September, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney confirmed that Canada would "diversify away" from Starlink in favor of a locally developed satellite network. He pointed to previous instances of Starlink access in Ukraine being throttled or disrupted.

Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Zelenskyy said the limits on Starlink in Ukraine had made it clear that Europe needs to develop its own alternatives, and fast.

"All of Europe has seen that it can be controlled from the United States, regardless of agreements or contracts, that Starlink speeds can be restricted," said Ukraine's president.

"That's why the Europeans are now raising the question of alternatives themselves. They're already making progress, and they'll succeed in this area," he added. Such an outcome could pose a major threat to SpaceX's ambitions to sell Starlink and Starshield to governments worldwide.

In the meantime, Starlink remains largely unrivaled, and Ukraine continues to face service restrictions, while Europe faces the threat of repeated hybrid attacks on Starlink infrastructure.