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.

The smart business will not post signs prohibiting the carrying of weapons for self defense. The smart consumer will not frequent places that post such signs. Governments, by nature, are not usually smart, so we would expect them to post the "No Weapons" signs. However, we can always hope that governments will eventually learn that their main purpose is to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens. The smart consumer will stay out of places that display any "No Weapons or No Firearms" signs.