"You haven't a clue how our rule of constitutional law works if you believe any one right has automatic precedence over any other." (LexBaird in Post 132)
So you are saying:
a. In the name of balance you might not object to the Bearing of Arms on your property even though the impact to you was negative in that your control of your property was diminished.
b. Property Rights do not automatically take precedence over the Right to Bear Arms
Yes, but not by Government decree. If one should decide that the value of the employee or customer outweighed the "negative impact", then an accommodation could be reached. For example, the business owner might allow a currency courier or key designer who insisted to go armed on site, but not a janitor. The point is that the accommodation is negotiated and entered into willingly by both parties, or there is no deal.
b. Property Rights do not automatically take precedence over the Right to Bear Arms
Correct, in some conceivable circumstances. For example, the 3rd amendment allows for quartering soldiers on private property in time of war, provided it is done "in a manner to be prescribed by law." Active pursuit of a criminal might be another. But, in general, a property owner has say over whomever is allowed to enter a property, including vetoing whatever goods may be conveyed there. If some pacifist hippie commune wants to allow bird watchers with cameras but not bird hunters with guns, that's their right.
The right to bear arms moves with the PERSON not the ARMS. When you are in a building and your gun is in your car, you are not exercising your right to bear arms. OTOH, the right of property is centered in the property itself. My house or business is my property, whether I am there or not. Since the person bearing the arms is mobile and free willed, and the property is not, it is almost certain that the cause of the conflict lies in the person bearing the arms where they are not wanted, rather than the placing of that person on the property unwillingly. Perhaps if an owner were to allow carry by written agreement, then sold out to another who changed the policy without renegotiating the employee agreements.
In essence my position can be broken down like this:
A) If the two parties whose individual rights are in conflict wish to come to a mutually agreeable compromise, wherein the absolute exercise of their rights is voluntarily impinged, that is between the two of them, and the government should butt out.
B) If the two parties whose individual rights are in conflict cannot come to a mutually agreeable compromise, wherein the absolute exercise of their rights is voluntarily impinged, that is also between the two of them. They should go their separate ways and the government should still butt out.
C) One cannot justify using the force of the government to take away another's rights simply in order to more easily exercise their own. The exercise of your rights do not give license to violate another's. As Will Rogers famously said, "Your right to swing your fists ends at my nose."
D) Government intervention should only occur when the intersection of rights is unavoidable and causing actual damage, for example: X polluting upstream of Y's property means Y cannot avoid either the damage or the intersection of property rights. Since there is nothing compelling the employee to work at that place, just his desire to do so, the conflict is avoidable without governmental involvement.