No right ever "trumps" another. Any action by an individual that would deprive another of his rights is, by definition, not a right.
Pure bunk. The top three enumerated rights in our Declaration of Independence are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," rights to which both I and a hypothetical gent standing outside my door possess in equal measure.
He kicks in my door, violating my right to privacy, and steps inside, violating my right to be secure in my person. Both are considerably further down on the totem pole than one's right to life. I have the lights dimmed, as I'm watching a movie, and can only see his outline from the lights in the common area breezeway. Rather than taking a chance he might be pointing a gun at me and getting ready to fire, I rest on our state's castle law and send him on his way to meet the ultimate judge.
In so doing, I just deprived him of all three rights. He's now dead, so right to life is out the window. Because he's dead, he can no longer move and might as well be wrapped in chains, so his right to liberty is out the window. Although he's dead, perhaps the ultimate judge will forgive him for his sins, or perhaps they weren't all that bad, so I can't speak about his happiness in the afterlife, if there is one. At the very least, however, I just ended his ability to pursue happiness in this life. If there's no afterlife, I ended his ability to pursue happiness for all time.
So, according to the law, my right to privacy and security just trumped his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Careful analysis in every situation where an apparent conflict of rights exists will reveal that one of the actions is not actually a right.
Which of us did not actually have a right or rights in the situation I described above? Some may say, "Well, he forfeited his rights when he kicked in your door." Really? All of them? If all he did was kick in my door then remain in the common area (breezeway), I would be exceeding the charter of my state's castle law if I shot him. Yet if an LEO had witnessed his act, they would have arrested him (bye-bye liberty) at which point my rights to privacy and security would have, under the law, trumped his right to liberty.
"But he stepped inside your apartment!" Yes, in this hypothetical situation, he certainly did, which created the legal justification under my state's castle law for my rights (privacy, security) to trump his rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).
Regardless of how you mash it, a hierarchy of rights most certainly does exist, and some rights do indeed deprive others of their own rights.
In analyzing the seeming conflict between the right to carry and the right to enjoy one's property, one of the two actions (carrying on the property of another or setting the rules for enjoying one's property to disallow carry) is not a right. Which one isn't?
Neither. They are both rights.
The key is to look at which action prevents the exercise of that portion of the other action that is an actual right.
In order to protect the ability to carry on the property of another, it must be made unlawful to stop another from carrying on your property. That requires intervention by the government into the enjoyment of one's private property.
On the other hand, in order to protect one's ability to keep guns off his property, the government needs no new laws. The necessary laws that government would need to have in place to protect one's property rights from others are already in place and widely accepted function of government among those who espouse Liberty: trespass laws. When a property owner disallows carry on his property, he does not stop anyone from carrying. He merely presents the carrier with a choice. The carrier may continue to carry and not visit the premises, or he can choose not to carry while he visits.
In the case of carrying on another's property being protected by the force of law, no choice is presented. If one owns property, one must allow carry on it. The only choice is not to own, which is the antithesis of the right to enjoy property.
There is no conflict of rights. There is no right trumping another. There is only, "I can't do what I want to do on his property. Make him let me." That is the exact opposite of government existing to protect our Liberty. It is government deciding which action is correct and which is not, without considering actual natural rights. That is tyranny.
Isn't it far less complicated to simply say, "the rights of the property owner trumps many of the rights of those who're either invited guests or uninvited trespassers onto his property?"
The way you put it is a clear violation of Occam's razor.
