As I read the court's decision, the issue was whether the defendant carried a weapon concealed upon his person. The court held that in a backpack is not upon the person. In the final lines of the decision the court mentions that had the defendant been charged with possession of shuriken instead of dirks & daggers, the conviction may have been upheld since that is controlled by a separate part of the statute that outlaws possession of shuriken. The actual weapons found on the defendant were shuriken and not dirks or daggers.

Blogger missed some of the point of the court's decision...