You can defend your life by refusing to work for a company that you feel does not allow you to protect it properly; your right remains intact, and the company's property rights remain intact.
Instead, you feel that you are entitled to the job, and demand that the property owner's rights to set rules of access to his property be violated in order for you to keep the job that he is paying you to do.
The property owner believes that his right to protect himself is best served by the policy of not allowing guns on his property, the Oklahoma legislature violated his right to set policies on his own property that he believes are the best options to defend himself and others whom he is accountable to, and responsible for.
The legislature in question in Oklahoma violates the business owner's property rights, and his right of self determination to self defense.
As a gun owner, your right to defend yourself remains intact in spite of the business owner's policy, because you retain the right to park elsewhere or work elsewhere with policies more to your liking.
Advocating the use of force of government to force business owners to accept unwanted weapons on their property, is a violation of the right to self defense because it violates the property owner's right to determine what he believes is the best way to protect himself.
In a further travesty of justice, the Oklahoma legislature did not absolve Oklahoma businesses from any accountability--financial, legal, or criminal--stemming from possible workplace shootings, leaving them completely liable, and unable to take preventive action to defend themselves.
Apparently, the people of Oklahoma, and the Oklahoma State legislature, believe that they have the right to establish policy for Oklahoma businesses, but they refuse to accept either accountability or liability for their policy.
He protects himself by denying that right to others.
"the Oklahoma legislature violated his right to set policies on his own property"
The OK legislature is justified, because it is the ultimate sovereign over that land and it is charged with protecting the rights of all of it;s citizens, not just the guy that owns the parking lot.
First of all, the legislature acknowledges that the right to life is paramount and self defense is a right that all are entitled to equally. Neither the founders of the country, or the OK legislature thinks that this right is subservient to any random individual's right to defend themselves in public, or anywhere for that matter. The OK legislature trusts it's citizens and allows them to own firearms and to elect the folks that make it up.
The OK legislature doesn't see phantoms and agrees that disarming their citizens is neither justifiable, nor do they see it as a valid defense and protection scheme. They know that disarming folks creates victims.
The state defines your property rights, they are not inalienable. You are neither born with, nor do you take with you when you die, your property. In the US, they are based on Freedom. Freedom however, does not in any way whatsoever render the right to life, sovereignty of will and the right to self defense, subservient to anyone, because they own real property. Especially when it's a stinking parking lot.
The State of OK, being charged with protecting it's citizen's rights equally, realizes that business is a joint venture of individuals. It recognizes the fact that some individuals wielding power over others, deny the rights that they themselves enjoy. The state of OK allows those involved in business and weilding power over others, a wide lattitude in limiting firearms within the scope of business activity.
Just as they provide for the existence of zoning regs for location, design, construction of buildings, that limit property rights for the protection of life and the property rights of others, they draw the boundaries that limit the powers of the property owner. They limit that power to prevent abuses. Real property owners are no more kings of some little kingdom, than the State of OK is, or the US for that matter. That property is under the owner's charge for use only, not abuse.
Parking lots are for storage of vehicles. Parking lots could just as well be created by having the State take the property under emminent domain and charging the business that necessitates the lot and causes it's use. They do this to create the roads. Instead, the zoning folks simply say the lot must be a certain size to accomodate the number of folks expected. If you think you can setup a significant business, w/o providing parking and using other people's property for that purpose, you are mistaken. You are not entitled to the space.
No business owner is entitled to claim that a parking lot is any more than what it is. It's defined by the State. It's not the workplace. It's for storage of vehicles and that's it. You may use it temporarily for other purposes, as the State permits.
Just, because you hold a peice of paper that says you own a friggin' parking lot doesn't mean jack. Your employee's are entitled to free and unencumbered enjoyment of their rights coming and going to your business that other people enabled. Whatever is in their car is their business, not yours. Stick to whether, or not they can park there and obey the zoning requirements. You're not a king, so you're not entitled to demand anything about what your employees have in their vehicles, nor hire sheriff wannabe's to enforce it.