th ▁ 1 4 0 9 ▁( Re view ▁denied ), ▁Division ▁ 1 ▁( San ▁Diego ) ▁of ▁the ▁Four th ▁District ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ▁found ▁that ▁possession ▁of ▁nin ja ▁rocks ▁was ▁not ▁pun ish able ▁under ▁section ▁ 4 6 6 ▁of ▁the ▁pen al ▁code . ▁That ▁court ▁applied ▁the ▁ej us dem ▁gener is ▁rule ▁of ▁construction , ▁dec iding ▁that ▁nin ja ▁rocks ▁were ▁not ▁enough ▁al ike ▁the ▁then - list ed ▁burg l ary ▁tools . ▁On ▁the ▁other ▁hand , ▁in ▁In ▁re ▁Robert ▁B . ▁( 2 0 0 1 ) ▁ 9 3 ▁Cal . App . 4 th ▁ 9 6 3 , ▁Division ▁ 3 ▁( O range ▁County ) ▁contrad icted ▁this ▁interpretation ▁of ▁section ▁ 4 6 6 ▁and ▁u ph eld ▁the ▁conv iction . ▁On ▁February ▁ 1 3 , ▁ 2 0 0 2 , ▁the ▁latter ▁case ▁was ▁granted ▁review ▁by ▁the ▁California ▁Supreme ▁Court . ▁ ▁Two ▁days ▁later , ▁the ▁state ▁assembly ▁proposed ▁in ▁Assembly ▁Bill ▁ 2 0 1 5 ▁to ▁am end ▁section ▁ 4 6 6 ▁to ▁include ▁nin ja ▁rocks . ▁The ▁bill ▁passed ▁un anim ously ▁in ▁both ▁houses ▁in ▁August ▁ 2 0 0 2 . ▁ ▁Washington ▁( state ) ▁One ▁Washington ▁trial ▁court ▁found ▁that ▁the ▁ability ▁of ▁nin ja ▁rocks ▁to ▁quietly ▁break ▁temper ed ▁glass ▁meant ▁that ▁their ▁possession ▁could ▁be ▁used ▁to ▁establish ▁intent ▁to ▁commit ▁burg l ary