I understand the principle...I was asking if he had a source for stating the Supreme Court has in fact told the unicameral to revisit the law. I ask this because I read the courts response and summary and didn't get the feeling at all that they felt the law should be revisited.
First of all, no where in my statement did I say that the Supreme Court said that this needed to be revisited. I said it SEEMS like that, which indicates opinion, not fact. I am basing that on the end of the article which reads, and I quote:
In an opinion written by Judge John Wright, the court seemed to suggest that the Legislature should once again consider revisiting the language defining a knife as a dangerous weapon.
“We decline to comment on the rationale for the legislative amendment that defines all knives with blades longer than 3½ inches as a deadly weapon per se for purposes of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon,” Wright wrote for the court. “That is the province of the Legislature.”
That sure sounds like they would like the Legislature to revisit the law. By starting with "We decline to comment on the rationale..." and ending with “That is the province of the Legislature.” they come across as saying that they understand the intent of the law, but it is written differently than the intent and the Legislature should fix this, but without saying it.
Much like my wife saying, "It should would be nice if our lawn was cut and the trash was taken out by someone." or "Ya know, I have had this old diamond ring for a long time. What do you supposed new ones are like now?" Subtlety, it's as concept used on men for years.
