...the ManiacJoe was suggesting that the original law being "reinterpreted" by the AG's decree was (at least in part) defective and that the blame for the defect(s) is attributable to the authors degree of unfamiliarity with the target of the legislation.
This a prime peeve of mine. There are numerous instances of folks campaigning for laws who have no understanding of the details involved in the implementation of their ideas. I'm mostly okay with the idea of "banning" certain activities such as murder, rape, robbery... However, I'm less friendly toward bans on individual objects and substances. Banning guns, drugs or email servers will be really difficult and, IMNSHO, pointless.
How can anyone be surprised that a manufacturer would read the law and then remove the features named as problems from their products? How can anyone think an AG has the authority to interpret the law? That's for the courts to decide.
Federal and state constitutions are written to regulate the various branches, to articulate their roles and authorities and to limit those authorities to protect the people. State and federal laws need to comply with those constitutions and be concise and deterministic.
Capricious decrees from over zealous executives need to go. 
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
