What I'm taking away from this discussion is that, in fact, any government agency be it federal, state, or local can restrict constitutional rights at their pleasure. In this particular instance anyone attempting to ignore these signs must first have bags of money to pay a legal defense team on a roll of the dice to argue your case in court (who, by the way will most likely not be sympathetic to your rights) and the guts to take the beatdown or tasing, public ridicule, potential loss of employment and property, and incarceration. The gubmint knows that you will likely lose more often than not in a legal challenge of this kind (and by "lose" I mean the case, your freedom, your property, and the right to
ever carry a firearm for protection again) which is an extremely effective deterrent to anyone with anything to lose and an ounce of self preservation in them. Taking a hardline stance restricting any of your "rights" and making the penalty for trying your luck stiff enough is just as good as making it "the law". Better actually. Laws are made up of language that can be examined and must be defended. Internal "policy" invented out of whole cloth is fluid and can be adapted to suit the situation. Most people won't have the guts to challenge it, and the few that do, are likely to get their dicks slapped. One out of a hundred may "win" in some small fashion but just tweak the policy a little and go back to business as usual. Who needs laws anyhow?
