The death in police custody of Freddie Gray, the Baltimore man arrested last month who was severely injured while riding in a patrol car, has resulted in the indictment of six officers who were responsible for his care. Mr. Gray was stopped and searched; the search produced a spring-operated knife which the arresting officer believed to be illegal, and he arrested Mr. Gray for carrying it. One of the raging debates in the last two weeks has been whether Mr. Gray's knife was legal or illegal; it was apparently legal under state law, but prohibited by Baltimore city code. The reasoning I've read (not mine) is that if his knife was illegal, then his arrest was improper. The liberal websites I read argue that his knife was legal, and his arrest was therefore illegal; the conservative websites argue that his knife was illegal and therefore his arrest was legal. Here's one of the best examples: a website called "legal insurrection" whose author explains that whether Mr. Gray's knife was legal or not, the officer who found it had probable cause to arrest Mr. Gray for carrying it.
The irony is that the website's author, Andrew Branca, also writes a blog on the law of self-defense (he seems to favor it), and he likely believes that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning or limiting private ownership of guns and other deadly weapons. (Here's his post from which I draw that conclusion.) Mr. Branca can't be the only person who simultaneously believes that (a) the City of Baltimore can prohibit its residents from carrying switchblades, but (b) neither the city nor any other American government can prohibit its residents from carrying guns. I would have expected the NRA and its supporters to be outraged that Mr. Gray was arrested for exercising his Second Amendment right to bear arms.