jones:
Laws repugnant to Constitutional principles are null & void. - And all of us are obligated to support & defend those principles.
Constitutional principles are subjective interpretations of the actual verbiage of the Constitution.
For example...the whole separation of Church and State is a Constitutional principle, so is the principle of the three branches of government.
You will find neither actual verbiage anywhere in the Constitution, but they are recognized principles nevertheless.
Your entire argument that to bear arms extends to a degree that it negates my property rights, is not an argument grounded on Constitutional principles, as both property rights and the right to bear arms are clearly defined in the Constitution.
What the Constitution does NOT say, is that your right to bear arms negates my right to control access to my property.
Your argument can ONLY be based on the belief that you are A) entitled to a job under your own conditions, and B) entitled to set standards of use on another individual's property.
Your Second Amendment rights remain intact if you are not allowed to enter my property with a weapon, because you have NO RIGHT to enter my property unless I specifically detail the conditions of your entry and continued stay, and you have the right to decide not to enter my property and give up your Second Amendment rights.
On the other hand, your argument violates a property owner's right to set standards of access and use to what belongs to him alone.
These principles have no formal legal status but are fairly widely accepted.
You are now trying to stand on the legality of something that's subject to interpretation according to your political leanings, and has no true legal standing.