No I'm not ignoring it, what I'm saying is that those conditions are voluntarily obeyed. At no time does the rights of the property owner allow for anything other than willful compliance of said arbitrary rules, and barring a theft of goods and/or services, the property owners only legal recourse to someone not complying with said rules, is to ask the person to leave. If, and only if, the person refuses to leave does it become criminal.
Either Attorney Dean is wrong or you are. You can't both be right, despite your protests to the contrary. Now you get with her, and when you're ready to tell me which of you two is right, and which of you two is wrong, let me know.
This is called the "false dilemma" logical fallacy and I've already answered it previously. There is a difference between the words "prevail" and "supersede".
Regardless it's a fact that a person can walk into any establishment in NH, excluding USSC recognized "sensitive areas" such as courts and Post offices, regardless of signs being posted, out of ignorance or intentionally, and the only thing the business/owner could do, if they realized one were armed, would be to ask said person to leave.
Why one would put up such signs is a better question.
No, that is not their only legal recourse. They also have the option of denying that person admittance in the first place, which they effectively do. That the other party chooses to ignore that denied permission and willfully trespass anyways, is irrelevant, since that is by definition, what trespassers do.