TexasCHLforum.com

mr surveyor wrote: Yep, if one knows that the front door of a building is posted, even if in inadequate size/contrast signage, if one still enters the building through that door, an unmarked door, a window, or a hole in the roof, one could be prosecuted for trespass as notification has been presumed to have been made.

Since when do non-compliant signs constitute notice being given?

chamberc wrote:To which the prosecutor says "Here is the OP's IP record of posting on the TexasCHLForum.com site, showing he was aware of the legally posted sign.

IANAL, but If the prosecutor had the posting, wouldn't he have had to inform the defense in advance, since it was evidence in his case?

chamberc wrote:Think about the line of questions "Mr. OP, were you aware that business XYZ had a 30.06?". At this point, Mr. OP can either lie or (hopefully)admit he was aware.

He can
a) decline to take the stand, as his attorney would have already established that there was NO sign at the entrance he used;
b) claim the 5th Amendment;
c) explain that he THOUGHT the venue might ONCE have been posted, but upon looking carefully at the entrance and seeing no compliant sign conspicuously posted, he came to the very reasonable conclusion that management had changed their policy.

A valid sign "is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

If it's not visible from the normal entrance you use, it doesn't meet the ordinary meaning of "conspicuous."

That a sign is posted elsewhere, hundreds, possibly thousands of feet away, is irrelevant unless it can be proven that you knew the venue was posted, however imperfectly.