Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.
Business owners will sometimes post signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." This is reasonable as there are many reasons why someone is not a desirable customer, however, some business used to use this to exclude ethnic minorities. The courts have ruled that there are limitations on this right, specifically in the public access areas of the business. It can therefore be argued that anything one has in their vehicle that does not create a public hazard is of no concern to the property owner.
When an employer prohibits an employee from having a self defense firearm in his vehicle or on company property, the employer also restricts the employees ability to defend himself while en route to and from the place of employment. Perhaps a better way to resolve the issue is to pass a law to make the employer (property owner) financially liable for the protection of the employees while traveling to and from the place of employment whenever the employer has a policy that restricts the ability of any employee to defend himself. This liability would include full financial liability for loss of property and the medical treatment of all injuries the employee incurs as a result of that policy.
If such a law was enacted, employers would quickly realize that is is more cost effective to allow firearms on their property than to accept the liability.
