Not denying that what you're saying is accurate, but that seems like some really silly assumptions for any court to make...
It's almost play by play of what we have (and also almost had) happen here in Va. Our 'secure container' law for CC was a vehicle excpetion. The legislature originally passed it as Locked, the Governor sent it back with the change from Locked to Secure. Congress passed it with this change.
Little while later someone gets arrested because the cops construed secured to mean locked. The courts looked at the history of revisions to see that the legislature specifically changed it from locked to secure so they understood that to mean that the legislature didn't intend for the container to be locked, merely 'secured'.
Without a clear definition in the law the courts can look at the intent of the legislature to determine how the law should be interpreted... if Congress didn't address something or repealed something then they must have intended for it to not be covered under the law.
Look at user's summation of last year's attempt to pass Castle Doctrine in VA. He lays out the exact arguement but from a lawyer's point of view. Anything codified into law can be change with a few strokes of the pen later on by slipping something into a future bill (like how Student loans were tucked into Healthcare and no one knew it till it almost passed) and then previous case state case law means nothing as the new law superceded it and was repealed.
At least, that is my understanding of the dangers of codifiing case/common law into written law. It now is at the mercy of the politicians whims.
