baldeagle wrote:A right is not a right if other citizens can prevent you from exercising it by edict. A right is a right when neither the government nor any private citizen can prevent you from exercising it. Otherwise it's just an expression of a utopia that will never be realized. Tell blacks of the 50's and 60's that they had the same rights as everyone else and see what reaction you get. The tyranny of private businesses can be just as bad, or worse, than the tyranny of government, because you have little right of redress.
I disagree with this basic premise of your argument. Private citizens have the right to control their property. You have the right to carry your weapon. As in any situation where the rights conflict, there must be some way to resolve the conflict. In this case, the conflict is easy to solve because you have the choice to enter their property or not. You can work there and park on the street, for example. You can work with the employer and management to change policies, just as you can with any business owner.
Sorry, but my philosophy on rights gives the nod to the property owner in cases like this. I have suggested alternative resolutions, such as ensuring the law is clear on liability of the property owner who disarms a CHL. How long would employers ban guns if they had a liability insurance cost to consider?
Think about the first amendment. You can speak anywhere you want, even in my home, if I've invited you in. A business may take offense to your speech and ask you to leave, but they can't prevent you from entering simply because you have a mouth and vocal cords.
Your analogy falls down here. They may not be able to stop you from entering for being a human, but they certainly can stop you from entering while singing or while wearing clothing they disagree with (freedom of expression doesn't seem to hold up). They can also stop you from entering if they know you have a specific speech in mind, like a political stance they disagree with.
And they can't stop you from speaking on the public sidewalk outside their business. Do you have that level of freedom with the 2A? Because if the 2A is a fundamental right, just as speech and religion are (and the Supreme Court just said it is), then you should be able to exercise it anywhere, and the only time you should be prohibited from exercising it is when you've been asked to leave or you've entered without permission. When employers extend their gun bans to the parking lot, they've stripped you of your rights not only at their business but also traveling to and from their business.
Do you really think private businesses have the right to do that? Would it be acceptable to put up 30.07 signs that prohibit speech in a business? To preemptively prohibit you the exercise of your fundamental right?
Yes, as a matter of fact your proposed 30.07 sign is quite acceptable to me. If I own a business, I get to say what is allowed inside. I get to make any rules I want on what you can say while inside. I really do not have a problem with this. Philosophically, I have much more of a problem with the existing law saying I cannot deny service to someone for some specific reasons.