Soccerdad1995 wrote: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?
That was my understanding, but it is a very convoluted way to render an opinion. You must also remember that it is just that, an opinion. There is no case law to use as a precedence, and only states that a court of law would likely find the opinion to be true. It will still take a court case, or the modification of the law itself, to have the force of law. JMHO