Legislation like this tears me. On one hand, I believe in the rights of the property owner to do whatever he wants. On the other hand, people should be armed wherever they wish.
I think the ideal thing would be to let property owners prohibit whatever they want, but make them responsible for the safety of those on their property.
Remember that those prohibitions carry no legal weight. You might get fired by carrying to work (even leaving it in the car), but there wouldn't be any legal trouble. What someone doesn't know...
Legislation like this USED to tear me until someone pointed out to me we are NOT pitting property rights against the mere right to carry some object.
We are talking about the right to LIFE, to defend LIFE and limb vs an irrational, counter-productive, and invasive policy.
Would anyone REALLY be "torn" if an employer wanted a policy banning asthma inhalers, insulin pumps, pace makers, or other life-saving and sustaining medications or equipment?
Anyone torn over legal requirements that commercial construction meet some minimum seismic code, have working fire detection and suppression systems (smoke detectors and sprinkler systems), and have clearly marked, fully operational emergency exit doors? I mean, nobody HAS to enter an office building, grocery store, or movie theater. So why not caveat emptor if you are foolish enough to hang out in a building that will collapse on itself at the first tremor, is a tinder box with no emergency exits, or has other serious health and safety issues.
Maybe there are a few pure libertarians who think such a world is desirable. But most of us see the fallacy right away. And even if such a world WOULD somehow be preferable to one with some minimum safety standards, that is NOT the world in which we live and I see no reason why gun owners should be the only group without some basic protections under the law.
It is one thing to give extreme deference to the desires of home owners and churches when it comes to what they do or do not allow into their property. But when it comes to commercial property I see no reason not to provide some protections to gun owners.
Besides, having been invited to park my car at a certain location, what I have IN my car is of nobody's business nor concern. THAT is the only property-rights vs property-rights question.
The real question is LIFE and limb vs mere property. The employer assumes ZERO responsibility for my safety during my commute, but presumes to disarm me. And that is even if I drive my own car. What of those who walk, ride a bike, or take mass transit?
LIFE trumps property.