Yours is a very well-reasoned argument! I'll try to reply in kind.
IMHO, I think there are two classes of private property - 1) personal, which includes all your possessions and your home, and 2) commercial, which includes that which business is conducted on.
Agreed, and as for the latter, such as exists in my apartment complex, I'd like to think of it as an implied easement, although I don't think legal precedent has been established for that, yet. I carry anyway, and as the manager and staff and I know one another, things seem to be ok, but at least one of the maintenance workers seems to have a fit every time he and I see one another.
Given the fact that moving can be very expensive, and Colorado law being what it is, if they tried to prohibit it, I'd sue, particularly as I cannot get to/from my vehicle to my personal without transiting joint property.
I think this argument alone should be sufficient to overturn the bans from a few places of joint use. All hail to the corporate lawyers of Wal-Mart, IHOP, Starbucks and similar places! A big F for the idiot lawyers at Kalifornia Pizza Kitchen. Sorry to "single you out," but I really didn't. That was your own doing, probably at the behest of Brady-loving corporate type. (rolls eyes)
You're not helping the crime issue, you know that, don't you? No? (rolls eyes again)
Sheesh.
I believe that one has a right to limit my transit on your private property and what I may bring and you control who and what comes onto your property. I assume that you will take on the responsibility of my defense and safety if you allow me onto your property. People get sued all the time for not doing so.
But for commercial proprty, which you mention "implied consent to transit" (I like that term), I think the business owner should not be allowed to infringe on my 2A rights, since there is less control over who can and cannot transit the property and what they bring with them, unless they can provide the same level of security. They don't necessarily take on the responsibility for my safety. If they do, it's only to limit their liability,
after the fact. It's hard to sue them when your dead. And yes I do know that I can take my business elsewhere, and I do.
My employer bans firearms on their property. A friend and I were discussing why they would do this and we think it's to limit their liability. If an employee goes off the deep end, the company can say they violated company policy and they aren't liable. If they allowed firearms, and the same happened, then the victim's lawyers would have a field day. While I'd prefer to carry my firearm with me while at work, if my employer is going to ban carrying, then they should be required to provide secure lockers to store my firearm in while at work. Frankly, I'm less concerned about getting shot at work, but while out of the office at lunch and in transit to/from the office. And because of their policy I have no way to bring my firearm to the office for my self defense. I take a vanpool so I can't leave it there. And even if I drove to the office and left it in my car, I'd still be violation of company policy if I parked on their property.
There is a third class of property, public, owned by the government, on behalf of the People. I think the Government limits where I can carry firearms way too much on The People's property. Yes, some places are needed - jails, courts (perhaps), high security areas (what ever that might mean), etc. But other areas, like Post Offices, normal government offices, DMV, tax assessor, etc really don't need a firearm ban.
Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]