You saw the sign, didn't you? There is no such thing as "legally" posted in that failure to meet the specifications of Act 35 is not an illegal act. The relevant statute sets forth a description of what is notice. This does not mean that it is the only method by which notice could be given. Anybody who carries has the obligation to make a good faith effort to look for a sign. If a sign is there, the fact that it may not be in compliance with the size or location requirements of Act 35 does not mean you are free to ignore it with impunity. If you saw a sign, even a nonconforming one, and blow past it - you could be liable for trespass. If you didn't see a sign but went out of your way not to see it (e.g. looking at your feet as you enter), you could be liable for trespass. If you didn't see a sign but the sign was conforming you could be liable for trespass. Only if you, acting in good faith, did not see a sign AND the sign was nonconforming do you stand a good chance of not being liable for trespass. I understand people are not happy about places that post. Your best course is to shop elsewhere. Being cutesy just ain't the way to go.
Here is the statute involved in the weapons trepass:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/13
Well, I had seen the sign on the TV news, thats why I knew it was there. I am sure that Nazir, did not see it on the TV news, until after the attempted robbery. I have heard no mention of Nazir being notified by any other mehod, about the stores request to not carry weapons.
The statutes spell out the minimum requirements for POSTING, that is what I was referring to. I don't think that the posting at Aldi's meets the legal requirements spelled out in the statutes. How would you identify other posting as meeting the requirements, without seeing them in the statutes?
I'm sorry that the phrase "legally posted" confused you, that was not my intention. I did not mean to imply that Aldi's had broken the law in their manner of posting. I meant to explain that they had NOT met the requirements for posting a building against weapons trespass, as outlined in the statute. I did not use the term "legaly notified".
A sign that is not visible to anyone, until after they have entered the building, would not seem to meet the requirements of the statute. Also, a sign on any door, may not be seen, if the door is open, when you pass thru it.