from the opinion: 'shuriken are principally used for throwing, but can be used for stabbing.' okay. methinks the edged weapons expert for the prosecution was supporting the classification of shuriken as a dirk or dagger, e.g. stabbing weapons not a thrown one. I'm no expert, but Wikipedia and about a hundred kung fu flicks show them as thrown weapons. The last line of the opinion implies that had the expert opinion been to support the use of the shuriken as primarily a throwing weapon, the conviction would have been upheld regardless where they were kept - on person or in the backpack, either way they are in possession. No dog in this hunt - but from the prosecutor's perspective, I suspect some future possession of shuriken will have an expert opinion that it is primarily a throwing weapon, not a dirk or dagger. And this case clarifies the scope of possession of dirks and daggers.

As I interpret the California law, a Boy Scout can walk down the street with a dirk or dagger holstered on his belt, in plain site. Concealing it down your sock or boot or under a shirt will get you in trouble.

Of course the Scoutmaster should snag away any dirks or daggers, since folders are deemed to be safer for young Scouts to handle. That's been our interpretation up here anyway - and only with the whittling chip...