no... you are misreading it. I'll say it a different way...
An individual, corporation, business entity or government entity can post property that they own, operate, manage or have control of. Also if they are conducting a meeting in any area which they don't own, operate, manage or have control of, they can still post signs that have force of law over their meeting.
No I don't agree that the law is good in any way shape or form, its really stupid... but thats what it says. Its not about meetings only.
39-17-1359(a) (1) Except as provided in § 39-17-1313, an individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.
No, you are misreading the sentence. And yes the knuckles of the authors of this sentence should be slapped. Slapped so hard their knuckles bleed. But, the sentence actually says in simple terms:
An individual, or agent thereof, is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property of, the individual.
This is the only way this mishmash of words can be assembled to have any cognizable meaning.
The “Individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity” in the first half of the sentence equals or is the same as the “individual, corporation, business entity or government entity” in the second part of the sentence. So, for simplification the term “individual” is used to represent all those other groups.
The phrase “operated, or managed or under the control of” expands who has authority over the “property owned.” All this phrase does is clarify or defines geographically what encompasses the “meeting” area.
This is the only way this sentence can be diagrammed to have any meaning. And this is why there is no case law addressing this statute.
Even the title of the statute "Prohibition at certain meetings Posting notice." is telling, "certain meetings." If someone can come up with the legislative history of the statute that gives an interpretation other than mine, then I stand behind my understanding of the statute. And I would go to court and defend my understanding.
Now, I'm done....