It is my understanding that the case law as quoted by whochee is partially correct. It was not stated in it totality. However the edited version general premise does have legs. So, in that respect I was wrong. However I did some further investigation. Interpretation is key. If a police officer finds the instrument as a deadly weapon then it is prohibited. Push daggers in many cities through out Missouri is defined as a "cutting instrument for which sole purpose is death or to inflict serious injury".
Statues 571.010 also addresses (not direct quote) any dagger or bladed hand instrument that is readily capable of inflicting serious physical injury or death by cutting or stabbing a person.
I would invite whochee to speak with the Missouri Dept. of Public Safety (888) 394 6377 or with the Attorney General of Missouri Dept. (573) 751 3321. Both representatives I spoke with listed that stilettos, dirks and daggers are legal (under four inches) "only" if carried openly and not considered capable of inflicting serious physical injury or death. Now many sharp instruments can bring about death or serious injury if used. This led me to ask for clarification. The reps from both departments stated it is left to the interpretation of the police officer. Both departments stated that balisongs and push daggers are being reviewed for future legislation.
So, it goes to reason that the outcome of legal ramifications (as literally stated) is dependent on situation and interpretation. Maybe if whochee strolled through various regions of Missouri luck would be on his side. I would exercise caution with the displaying of an instrument that is considered "offensive versus a tool" in the nature of its makeup. However, my omission in my previous post was just that. It was by no means entirely incorrect or misleading. I am not going to debate the issue further. Please purchase a push dagger and take your chances. Best of luck in that regard.
Definitely use your ability to confirm information given to you (no matter the source). It is your obligation as a discerning and hopefully rational adult to do so. It is my obligation to present information with the intent of being clear and not misleading. You came to this forum with a question. Do not insult the members of this forum by labeling the information shared suspect because of your findings. Maybe presenting yourself in a none combative manner and giving respect will yield true education for all members. This action will preserves your integrity. It eliminates stains on your character...keeping it pristine.
Your previous declaration allowed me to further investigate. Therefore you gave me an opportunity to explore. Now my understanding is more clear. However, it would be to your benefit to understand when someone is attempting to do you a service (by providing you with information they understand as correct) versus intentionally misleading you. Also statutes are best listed in its entirety. When directing the readers attention to 571.010 my intention was to fill in gaps left from your previous post. Your editing did not provide a clear picture. When legal speak is altered it changes meaning. If anyone wants the full statute it can be reviewed online. Where you attempting to provide misinformation? I doubt it. Difference is I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.