Though he said he personally believed free-speech rights trumped private-property rights, Judge Stephen H. Helvin said the Supreme Court of Virginia has held that private-property rights prevail.
If both private property and free speech are human rights (and I certainly think so), then one does not "trump" another, and that is a flaw in his thinking. Of course, law is not necessarily based on clear thinking.
Anywho, private property is private property. If they tell you to stop leafleting, or to stop carrying, and you blow them off, you are a trespasser. I believe in the right to KABA, but not at the expense of liberty and rights in a more general sense. Sure, argue with them and try to reason with them, but the owner has the final say.If we use the law to do an end run around a property owner's rights, then we should not cry foul when the the same tacticis used to supress our right to self defense. In the end my life is my property, so we're talking about the same thing, here.
Also, the one lawyer in the case is trying to argue that a shopping center or a mall is a defacto public square. BS. As long as that property was bought and paid for by a private owner, it's private, and you visit at his pleasure. If we long for the days of a public square, there's nothing written says we can't get our local government to buy a piece of land and make one, and set it up so that shops line it, etc.