[dirtboy]

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.

By that logic, a parking lot owner could not restrict who parks in his lot to only customers. Try again.

I'm a big supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. But those rights are not superior to property rights. If you don't agree with the terms a property owner puts on his private property, don't go on his property. It's that simple.

[jonestown]

dirtboy wrote:

I'm a big supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. But those rights are not superior to property rights.
If you don't agree with the terms a property owner puts on his private property, don't go on his property. It's that simple.

---

2nd Amendment rights to carry arms in vehicles are not inferior to parking lot property rights.

If you don't agree with those Constitutional terms, do business elsewhere.

[spunkets]

"By that logic, a parking lot owner could not restrict who parks in his lot to only customers. "

The zoning board realizes the business owner is the one that requires the lot be put in. It's for his use. The zoning board doesn't tell business owners to put lots in for other businesses. The lots are put in, because of the demand for temp. storage of vehicles that particular business creates. Neither the zoning board, nor the business are going to allow jeopardizing parking space supply, by insisting on open parking.

Vehicles are the consideration, not what's lawfully in them.