[RedDawnTheMusical]

The opinion contends that the plaintiff (Evans) is arguing that the two bills are in conflict. I know pretty damn well that this is blatantly untrue. The entire argument was that there is no conflict. The bills can be reconciled and should be reconciled. It appears to be another case of an appellate court misrepresenting GCO's arguments, that is, a strawman

This is what I don't get. Instead of ruling on the argument of the plaintiff, they invent a different argument to rule on as that is one that they would prefer to render a decision on. Seems like an ideal grounds for an appeal to me.