No, people have the right to prohibit guns on their property, just as they have the right to deny protests on their property or passing out fliers on their property, which are First Amendment rights off their property.
Specious argument. Obviously not 'always'.
And this is where your argument falls apart. No one forces you to take a job. Whereas government can force you to do something. That is why the Bill of Rights is a constraint on government - because government can use force. But is not on individuals - they in turn have property rights - and if you violate property rights, such as having a gun on their property against their will, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are in trespass, and then government is called to enact force.
And loose your job because of coercion.
Coercion? You signed an employment agreement. No one coerced you to do that.
Such coercive efforts to ban guns are repugnant to our rule of law.
I disagree with banning guns at the workplace. But it is a property owner's perogative to do so. I enter his property on his terms and remain there on his terms.
And it's telling that you STILL have not answer a simple question - do I have the right to demand you leave my property for any reason after I have invited you there?
I think I know why you refuse to answer such - because it destroys your position utterly.
I disagree with banning guns at the workplace. But it is a property owner's perogative to do so. I enter his property on his terms and remain there on his terms.
Try to understand that you do not have the coercive 'perogative' to ban guns or demand BJ's [thanks Spunkets] as a condition of employment.