Act 35 explicitly states "A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision."So, what are the consequences of posting a business or a government building against the carrying of firearms and/or other weapons? If a person not does prohibit, i.e., does not post a "No Weapons" sign, then that person "is immune from any liability arising from its decision." Conversely, if a person does prohibit, i.e. properly displays a "No Weapons" sign, then that person is NOT immune from any liability arising from its decision. In other words, businesses and government entities are setting themselves up for a lawsuit should some be injured or killed if an incident occurs with a weapon when the signs say that no weapons are allowed.