My layman's opinion is they are "not enforceable" as far as criminal liability arrest, however as far as being an employment policy, they could "enforce" employer "policy" based on the sign and a person could be fired.MasterOfNone wrote:In this case, as an employee, it is understandable that the OP wanted to know the policy that governs his employment, which exists whether or not signs are posted. Perhaps the better lesson here, regarding employer policies, is to ask for all policies governing your employment and look for yourself instead of stating the specific thing you are looking for. Asking about the specific thing may prompt a response to that thing. I remember someone once asking our employer about using cell phones at work (because nothing was stated in the employee manual); within a week a policy restricting cell phone use to break areas was published.
As for the city-posted 30.06 signs, are they actually prohibited from posting them, or are the signs just not enforceable? 30.06 does not state that signs cannot be posted; it only states "(e) It is an exception to the application of this section..."
So, it only prevents employees of the city from carrying. It wouldn't be "illegal" even if they did, but employees could be fired.
Non-employee licensees could simply ignore the signs which are "non-enforceable" as to them. (Except during a "political meeting" or if there are "offices "utilized" by a Court ...etc.)
My layman's opinion is worth what you paid for it
They can post a sign to "Keep of the grass" if they wanted to, but if there was no ordinance against it ...
