TexasCHLforum.com

treadlightly wrote:In a proper world, as soon as the government entity who can't be fined for posting the signs lets the private company get away with posting government property, the government entity would be guilty of conspiracy to violate the law.

But that's deplorable of me to think that way.

If the City of Houston leased NRG stadium to a vendor who posted a sign saying "No Gays allowed", exactly how long do you think it would be before the city demanded the removal that sign?

If I understand the AG's position correctly (which is a big "if"), he is not saying that anyone can legally restrict our right to carry on government owned property. He is just saying that the "fines for signs" law does not allow for the fining of the government entity, since they did not post the signs, and also does not apply to the non-governmental entity that did post the signs since they are not a government entity.

So, no one is violating the "fines for signs" law as it is currently written, but the signs are also unenforceable, and presumably the government would be guilty of other crimes if they instruct their LEO employees to arrest LTC holders who are carrying past these invalid signs (false arrest, assault, etc).

Is this how other people understand the situation?