Neither circumstance applies here.
This article is arguing in favor of just such legislation.
It addresses the collision of rights, the property rights of the business and those of the individual. If the business prohibits arms in vehicles on their property, they effectively prohibit them in the vehicles on the way to and from work, as well as being armed at necessary stops along the way.
What could be more reasonable as a resolution of those conflicts than to mandate that weapons must be left locked in vehicles, unless the business allows other wise? People have rights, just as businesses do. (And most of the businesses in question are not the individual property of an individuals, those tend to better take the needs of their employees into consideration. They also tend to provide their own security, not depending on armed or unarmed licensed security guards
What could be more reasonable? How about staying the heck out of the resolution, and not "mandating" anything that should be decided by contract between individual parties?
When you say "mandate", you are saying, "compliance enforceable by Government coercion". You are lending all the power of the Government to one side of a private agreement, and ceding the argument they have any authority or business in the argument to begin with. Once ceded, you have opened the floodgates to things like ADA lawsuits, Affirmative Action mandates, mandatory unionization, etc.