Honestly, I don't support this.
1. I haven't seen a proliferation of new signs.
2. Unless there is a real problem with a current sign, we don't need to change the sign requirements. We should not change the sign requirements for the purpose of invalidating all current signs and "wiping" the slate, arbitrarily forcing all businesses that want to prohibit to re-post.
3. We don't need to make it more difficult for a business to give notice that they don't want firearms in their establishments. The bottom line is that the notice should be reasonable and apparent. If a sign is innocently and unintentionally missed, obviously there should not be a stiff penalty. If a sign is posted improperly where it isn't reasonably noticeable visible, obviously it shouldn't be considered valid notice. But further increasing the sign requirements here is not with the purpose of making sure the signs are more reasonably apparent or visible - at least ulteriorly it's so that it's more difficult to post so that there are fewer legal signs.
4. The focus next session should not be on tweaking the establishment's LTC framework, the focus should be on promoting and passing constitutional carry.