KD5NRH wrote:
So, it should be perfectly legal to post a "No Jews allowed by order of the Fire Marshal" sign, simply because it would be unenforceable? IMO, any sign that purports to give information about an issue of legality should be subject to certain standards of civil and criminal liability.
What would happen to someone who posted a sign that said "Under Federal law, murder is unconditionally permitted in this area," if someone else took it at its word?
The difference is that your scenarios have signs that advocate acts that are illegal. The non-compliant sign is simply that, non-compliant. It is not advocating an illegal act, but stating an opinion or desire in a way that is not binding. There is clear method in the law we have today that allows private entities to prohibit concealed carry on their property (they should be allowed to exercise that right, IMHO) if they choose to follow it. By not following it, they shouldn't be law breakers, they are simply choosing, deliberately or ignorantly, not to use a binding method to have their desires made enforecable.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like it when private entities use 30.06, but
private property rights trump 2nd amendment in my opinion. If someone doesn't like my rules, they can stay off my property. I am not obligated to let people do whatever they want on my property. Although on my property, feel free to carry.
Public property is a different story. I own it, I have a right to carry....