However, I believe regardless of this issue of fact, Smith was prohibited by law from carrying a weapon, openly or concealed, onto the Zoo's premises. Click to expand...

However, this does not end our analysis. Click to expand...

this does not

Where two statutes covering the same subject matter are unambiguous when read separately, but conflict when read together, we must attempt to harmonize the provisions and give effect to both. Click to expand...

The judge makes a reconstruction where none should have occurred in my view. Having a permit to OC, where RSMo 21.750.2 is invoked by a political subdivision, is not "connected" to RSMo 571.107.1."RSMo 571.107. Permit does not authorize, where — penalty for violation."The "intent" of RSMo21.750.3 is clear and available for all to read in the legislative record...if you wish to go and dig it up...and the judge did not, or did and disagreed with the Jeff City critters restoring individual liberty a wee bit more...not uncommon for anti-individual liberty judges where restoring individual liberty is concerned. SB 656 data provided below.The judge emphasizing on the permit and not the manner of carry, specifically delineated in the two statutes.His opinion regardless of the facts (plain language in the statutes).This nitwit should have stated "However,we will (I will) not end our analysis...because we don't like folks carrying guns where folks can see them.Like Terry v. Ohio, these judges manufactured a harmonization out of thin air.I will not go further because it will take the MoSC to decide this...and we know judges rarely hold their fellow judges accountable for their nitwittery.