Au Contraire
943.13 "Trespass to land."
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/943/II/13
Although titled "trespass to land," this Wisconsin statute, deals with much more than that, especially since the changes made by WI 11Act35: Buildings, special events, residences, multi-family, etc.
I am not sure what you are trying to say. Could you restate?
There is NO specific reference to Open or Concealed carry in this statute. CCL licensees are referred to in several places, but even for them, it is not mentioned that they need to be carrying open or concealed. There is also NO reference to the exact wording on "5x7" signage or verbal notifications where allowed.
Where did I say that some "exact wording" existed? Where wouldn't signage or an oral notificaiton be allowed?
Regarding your first point - remember the discussion is about the immunity issue.
175.60 License to carry a concealed weapon.
(21) IMMUNITY.
(a) The department of justice, the department of transportation, and the employees of each department; clerks, as defined in sub. (11) (a) 1. a., and their staff; and court automated information systems, as defined under sub. (11) (a) 1. b., and their employees are immune from liability arising from any act or omission under this section, if done so in good faith.
(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a
concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
(c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a
concealed weapon under sub. (15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.
(d) A person providing a firearms training course in good faith is immune from liability arising from any act or omission related to the course if the course is one described in sub. (4) (a).
History: 2011 a. 35.
Wisconsin's Concealed Carry Law. Hinkston. Wis. Law. July 2012.
Sounds pretty specific to me. In other words, a restriction on open carry does not impact the immunity of the decisionmaker. At least in the context of Act 35.
While a licensee may generally carry concealed or openly, a property owner may prohibit any type of carry so,
a fortiori, he may restrict the mode of carry. The method of notification does vary depending on the mode of carry/licensee status. There is no stated minimum for a sign prohibiting open carry. A nonlicensee carrying concealed (despite its unlawfulness) probably does not bring the immunity provisions into play.
A proper sign stating "No Concealed Carry" does not imply no Open Carry anymore than it implies "suit and tie required". Further verbal instructions from a person in authority, could indicate that Open Carry is not allowed.
I think the connection between one sign on firearm carry with another is much closer than with one regarding attire. While a poorly worded sign may get you off the hook, I wouldn't want to present that as my defense. If you show up in a suit and tie, but wearing flip-flops, you are probably going to be as unwelcome as if you arrived in Bermuda shorts. I think in both cases there are other, implied, conditions on entry. Of course, you are likely to simply be asked to leave so we would never know.