No, when you are at work, you are subject to the rules of your workplace. They are paying you so that you will do as instructed. If you don’t like it, start your own business.
Funny you said that - see my comment #5...
I'm a hard-core 2nd supporter, but even more so when it comes to private property rights.
NO law should demand property owners allow anything on their ground that they don't willingly want.
Not quite; consider New Mexico's State Constitution which, in part, reads:
| Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.] |
|---|
| All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness. |
| Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.] |
| No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) |
The way the English there is written it sets up a list, and in that list the qualifier 'lawful' applies only to the items "hunting" and "other purposes;" implicitly recognizing that it is never unlawful for a Citizen to keep and bear arms for his own security and defense as it forbids *ANY* law which would abridge that right.
In fact, it is theoretically possible to take a gun into a NM courthouse [NOT against the law, btw] in defiance of "court rules" [they would accuse you of contempt of court] BUT 'contempt of court' applies ONLY to lawful orders of the court, and because no law may abridge that right that order cannot be lawful. {Even further argument may be made that the disarming of Citizens not even indicted with violating a law is a violation of due process and that since the Supreme Court has ruled, multiple times, that law enforcement officers have no obligation to protect a private citizen that any guarantee by the State that its officers DO/CAN/WILL protect unarmed jurors is nothing but a legal lie.}