In a nutshell, private property rights have to do with rights held by an owner to keep, acquire and use property in ways so long as he doesn't interfere with similar rights held by another.
Private property rights also include the right to exclude others from use of property.
Under the liberty-oriented method of private property, as a means to conflict resolution, we'd ask the question of ownership. If the owner wishes his parking lot to be gun-free, it is his right.
Whether a gun owning employee is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to have a gun in his car is irrelevant.
Similarly, if a lot owner wishes to permit guns, it is his right, and whether a gun prohibitionist is harmed or annoyed is also irrelevant.
In the interest of minimizing possible harm either way, it might be appropriate for parking lot owners, by way of a sign or other notice, to inform prospective customers & employees of their respective gun policies. That way, customers can decide whether to enter upon the premises.
So luis; -- in your opinion is this a fair comparison?
"-- Whether a gun owning employee is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to have a gun in his car is irrelevant. --"?
-- Is smoking really comparable to our right to keep arms? Is our RKBA's "irrelevant" to you?
I doubt that it is to Walter Williams, - and his "Bogus Rights" article backs me up, not you.
My property rights are more relevant than your notion of RKPA is to you.
I am not seeking to violate your rigts, you don't have to come t my house or accept my job.
You, on the other hand, are seeking to violate my rights to what is mine.