I used to think that, bu: is that not an infringment? “SHALL NOT be infringed” means nowhere, no way, no how.
“I used to think that, bu: is that not an infringment? “SHALL NOT be infringed” means nowhere, no way, no how.”
Perhaps the “right to keep and bear arms” (which right “SHALL NOT be infringed”) does not include keeping and bearing arms on the property of someone else who has not given permission to do so. If so, prohibiting keeping and bearing arms on private property is not an infringement of the right.
I have not seen the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms” adequately defined.
No. If you don’t want someone to carry a gun in your home, you have the right to tell them you don’t want them there armed. Same with your business. If not, you have no control over your own property or what you consider your own personal safety.
When you have two people and the right of each person potentially violates the others’ right, it has to be determined as to how they need to function, if one or both rights really aren’t violating the others’ right, and whose rights precede the others’ and under what circumstances. Generally this is where the courts have an important role, if it already has not been spelled out in laws and statutes.
So yes you are correct that it technically can be viewed as an infringement as if the person decides to go into that store, or work for that company, in the purest technical sense. The person however, must agree to disarm and thereby accepts the conditions to enter the store, or work for that company, so even though it might be an infringement, it is one that the person accepts and under those conditions, since in these cases where the person does not have to go into that particular store, or is forced to work for that particular employer, they could be viewed as voluntarily giving up their right to be armed in those places. They have no compelling reason to have to use a certain store or work for a certain company.
Generally the courts side with people being able to control what goes on on their property (home, business). Generally that right trumps anothers’ right to exercise what they want to do. To illustrate it further, forget guns for a moment. What if someone came onto your private property, and started to protest you and was speaking all day about your supposed problems? Does their right to free speech trump your property rights?