Knife Owners’ Protection Act of 2025
HB60, the Knife Owners’ Protection Act of 2025, would create a federal rule protecting lawful interstate transportation of knives by individuals who are not otherwise prohibited under federal law from possessing them. The bill says that a person may transport knives from any place where they may lawfully possess, carry, or transport them to another such place, so long as the knives are secured in specified ways depending on the mode of travel. For motor vehicles, knives must be out of direct passenger access or locked in a container, glove compartment, or console; for air travel, they must be in a locked container and out of the passenger cabin; and for other travel, they must be in a locked container.
The bill also defines “transport” broadly to cover the full journey, including temporary lodging, food and fuel stops, vehicle maintenance, emergencies, and medical treatment. It creates a special rule for emergency escape knives or tools with safety blades or guarded blades, allowing them to be kept accessible in a passenger vehicle without a locked container, while still excluding them from the passenger cabin of screened aircraft. The bill further states that a person complying with its requirements may not be arrested or detained under state or local knife laws unless there is probable cause to believe the person is not complying with the federal requirements.
HB60 would also give individuals a federal cause of action and a defense in civil or criminal proceedings if state or local officials interfere with the protected transport of knives. In criminal cases, the state or local government would bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was not in compliance. Prevailing parties could recover reasonable attorney’s fees, and the bill expressly allows the section to be used as a claim or defense in court. The bill does not limit any broader rights already available under state law and does not add new restrictions on air travel beyond the federal framework it sets out.
The bill appears to have been received favorably in committee, at least procedurally, because it was ordered to be reported on a 13-10 vote after amendment. No committee transcript or floor debate is provided, so the available record does not show detailed arguments, but the vote margin suggests some bipartisan or at least cross-aisle support for the measure’s core premise. At the same time, the close vote indicates meaningful opposition, likely centered on federal preemption of state and local knife regulations and the bill’s enforcement provisions.
The main point of contention is the bill’s override of state and local knife laws in interstate travel situations. Supporters likely view it as a uniform protection against a patchwork of differing state and local restrictions that can burden lawful travelers, while critics may be concerned that it weakens local public-safety rules, complicates enforcement, and creates litigation risk through the private right of action and attorney’s-fee provision.
HB60 would preempt conflicting state and local laws to the extent they interfere with lawful interstate transport of knives under the bill’s conditions, while preserving state law where it is not inconsistent. It would create new federal protections for knife owners, establish standards for secure transport by car, air, and other conveyances, and authorize civil suits, defenses, and fee shifting against state or local actors who violate those protections. The bill would affect knife possession and transportation laws, law enforcement practices, and litigation involving travelers carrying knives across state lines.
The available voting history suggests the bill had moderate support but also notable resistance, passing committee on a 13-10 vote after amendment. The lack of transcript material limits insight into specific rhetoric, but the bill’s stated purpose—protecting lawful travelers from a patchwork of state and local restrictions—indicates a pro-rights, pro-uniformity framing that likely appealed to supporters. Opposition is implied by the close committee vote and likely reflects concerns about federal intrusion into state weapons regulation and public safety enforcement.
The central controversy is federal preemption: whether Congress should override state and local knife restrictions for interstate travelers. Supporters likely argue that lawful citizens should not face inconsistent rules while traveling, especially when knives are stored securely and not intended for criminal use. Opponents are likely to focus on the bill’s broad enforcement mechanisms, including the bar on arrest or detention absent probable cause, the criminal burden-of-proof provision, and the private right of action with attorney’s fees, all of which could constrain local enforcement and invite litigation. The emergency-knife exception and the treatment of temporary lodging may also raise questions about how broadly the protections extend in practice.