Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Judiciary subcommittee hears testimony on Knife Owners Protection Act (COPPA)
Loading...
Summary
Witnesses and members debated the Knife Owners Protection Act, which would protect transport of knives across state lines if secured during travel. Proponents argued the bill resolves a patchwork of state and local restrictions; opponents and some members raised public-safety and enforcement questions.
House Judiciary subcommittee members and witnesses focused part of a hearing on the Knife Owners Protection Act, or COPPA, a proposal intended to shield people who transport knives across state lines from prosecution when the knives are legal at both origin and destination and secured during transit.
The bill “would protect law‑abiding knife owners when they are traveling throughout the U.S.,” Doug Ritter, founder and chairman of Knife Rights, told the subcommittee. “If possession of the knife is legal where the journey starts and ends, and the knife is locked up in accordance with COPPA, a knife owner would no longer be threatened with arrest simply for traveling from one place to another, even if they have to pass through a jurisdiction where the knife is illegal.”
Ritter said inconsistent local and state knife laws put routine travelers at risk of arrest, and he framed COPPA as criminal‑justice reform that has attracted bipartisan support in several states. He cited enactments in 32 states over 16 years and said seven of the 10 states represented on the committee have passed knife reform laws, naming Georgia, New York, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. “This bill cannot be used to protect bad actors,” Ritter added, noting the bill would not shield someone who transports a knife with intent to commit a felony punishable by more than one year.
The bill’s supporters emphasized narrow, transport‑specific protections. Ritter described COPPA as modeled on earlier federal protections for firearms transport and said it would require knives to be inaccessible during intervening travel and would not override Transportation Security Administration rules.
Members pressed witnesses on enforcement and public‑safety tradeoffs. Representative Thomas Tiffany (R‑Wis.) asked for crime context; Ritter replied that FBI numbers show crimes with knives have remained relatively steady and that many such incidents involve kitchen or chef’s knives. Representative Barry Moore (R‑Ala.) and others highlighted disparities in state rules and asked whether the law would create unintended incentives or enforcement difficulties for police and prosecutors.
Committee chair Representative Andy Biggs introduced the panel and swore in witnesses. Later in the hearing, Representative Jim Jordan asked Ritter about prior court decisions touching the status of knives under the Second Amendment; Ritter responded that both Heller and Bruen recognize knives as “arms” and reiterated the bill’s travel protections.
Several members and witnesses also discussed a related statutory and litigation backdrop. Ritter referenced a Second Circuit precedent (Toronto v. Port Authority) in describing why COPPA explicitly contains a private right of action; he said that, without such a remedy, enforcement would be left to prosecutorial discretion and provide little deterrent against inappropriate arrests.
The hearing record contains no committee vote on COPPA. Committee members asked for follow‑up materials and submitted written statements for the record.
The subcommittee adjourned after additional panels and questions on firearm policy. The COPPA discussion concluded with witnesses and members agreeing to enter written testimony and follow‑up materials into the record.
