There is no inalienable right to bear arms on someone else's property, just as there is no inalienable right to free speech on someone else's property.
Not true:
The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions prevents anyone from imposing a condition that is unrelated to the purpose to be furthered.
For example:
In PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), the Supreme Court upheld that California Supreme Court's ruling that owners of private shopping centers may not exclude persons who wish to engage in nondisruptive speech and petitioning activities.
So, although the Court eliminated part of the property owners right to select users of their property, the Court held it was not a taking because the owners could not demonstrate that an unchecked right to exclude others was a basic part of the economic value of the shopping center.
Thus, - I see an effort to disarm employees in a company parking lot as "unrelated to the purpose to be furthered".
Why should any company have a business 'purpose' to disarm employees.
-- Or, - to prevent them from smoking at home?
And you think that's okay? You agree with the court?
But I wonder if it would violate the McCain Feingold act if someone was using your property for political purposes within 60 days of an election. Who would be fined? The property owner who wasn't allowed to toss them off or the squatters on your land?
Government has so many rules and regulations restricting property use they're tripping over their own dick.
"Doctrine" bump. -- See 434.