No, I'm not. I'm saying that you have no right to bear arms on private property without the owner's consent. If you do not have a right to do something in the first place, I do not violate your rights when I tell you to stop doing it on my property.
What next? Gonna try and claim Prima Noctem on your neighbors daughter? After all, if a restriction in the Constitution only applies to government action....
Rape is a crime. Outlawing rape is within the proper power of state and local government.
It says "...the right of the people...". That is us. We individual citizens of the United States. Waiting for your judicial heros to stand up and mouth the correct words is like Galileo waiting in his tower for the Church to realize that the Sun does not orbit the Earth.
It's an unsettled legal issue. I believe that the 2nd Amendment does recognize the individual right to bear arms, but there are many people who disagree. Until a ruling is made by SCOTUS on this issue, it will remain open.
That being said, whatever way SCOTUS determines this issue in the future, that will not change the fact that you do not have a right to bear arms on private property contrary to the owner's wishes.
Yes. But using your argument, it would only restrict government employees from raping people.
The only reason it is unsettled is because of the modern legal fictions created by those who really can't grab more power for themselves with an armed populace. As the language of the Zmendment is quite clear, why does the USSC need to say anything on the subject at all? What other Rights do we have that must first be ennumerated by them before we can be said to have them? Is there a list somewhere?
And it remains my contention that I am not in any way violating my employers property Rights. They can no more claim a Right to my property than I could claim of theirs. Period.