Should a legislature be taking quick and appropriate action after judicial decisions?

[pex]

I'm not exactly clear on the intent of a lawmaking body where a judiciary is in place to judge the law (conforming it in such a manner that the plain words of the law might no longer have the same meaning they once did.)

Should the legislature be on their toes when it comes to decisions, rewriting the law so it is more appropriate the next time around?

The biggest example I see is for statute that is struck down. I don't know if the judiciary can just force it to be stricken out...just that in the future, it would be effectively unusable in court, and if you're lucky, DAs won't use it and agencies won't fight it.

Shouldn't the legislature quickly be whisking this stuff away?

Also, I consider the situations like the LTCF and car carry. Why doesn't the legislature just revise the meaning?

I just read about constables and residency, that the word of the statute makes no such (explicit) requirement, but the PA supreme court says there's an effective common law requirement. Why doesn't the legislature then just step in and rewrite the law?

What is most agitating is that the body of case law is a bit more fluid than statute, and trying to gather the law is harder to search and decide when case law is applied. So much for not being in ignorance of the law.

[WhiteFeather]

Pex,
Next time we have a Harrisburg firearm legislative lobbying event come and learn how things really works, politically.

You be amazed all of the trees that have to be chopped down just for all the paperwork that is created each session.

Most of the bad laws we now have is because gun owners did not oppose them when enacted or did not support corrective fix’s to proposed laws when they had the chance to.

[pex]

Originally Posted by WhiteFeather

Pex,
Next time we have a Harrisburg firearm legislative lobbying event come and learn how things really works, politically.

You be amazed all of the trees that have to be chopped down just for all the paperwork that is created each session.

Most of the bad laws we now have is because gun owners did not oppose them when enacted or did not support corrective fix’s to proposed laws when they had the chance to.

My question is more about how it should ideally happen (should legislatures be doing this, or is there a good reason toward the purpose of well-formed government that they don't?) but I'm sure I and others could benefit from seeing the dichotomy between 'what is' and 'what should be'.

My concern, although local to issues this board, is really a question that jumps to all decision and law-making, good or bad for us. The judiciary shapes law in significant ways, and I wonder why these directions aren't merged via legislation.