I'm not concerned on whether you buy my argument or not, the truth remains the truth.The Second Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government, not an imposition on the owners of private property.
Plainly spoken, you have no First or Second Amendment Rights on anyone's private property, and a private property owner has a right to set conditions on your access to his property. He is not enjoined by the Bill of Rights to allow you to set up a podium on his property from where you can give a speech supporting the political ideology of your choice, a pulpit to preach the religion of your choice, or to carry any weapons at all.
Property owners do not have to allow anyone access to their property at all, and that access is subject to conditions and limitations of his choice. Your choice being not entering his property if those conditions are not to your liking.
When you support the notion that a property owner can be forced by the government to allow guns on his property against his wishes, you also support the idea that someone can enter your property and preach Islam or advocate communism against your wishes.
You may support the violation of property rights in the case of what you believe the Second Amendment says, but that doesn't make you right, it doesn't mean that the Second says what it says, and it actually puts you on the same side of the playing field with the Supreme Court on this decision.
You support the erosion of property rights in this instance for your reasons, they support it on other instances for their reasons, and someone else on yet some other instances for their own reasons, and in the end, there will be no property rights.
The road to tyranny is paved with "reasonable" violations of our rights.
Beauseant!