>Depends on how it’s interpreted.
>
>“possessing and protecting property,” can be read to mean the property owner gets to protect his property from those who would bring weapons onto the property.
In such a case he should be *utterly* culpable for the protection of my life. No?
Should be, but currently not.
I believe the rights of the property owner supercede the rights of the visitor.
For example, should someone who comes onto your property have the freedom to excercsie his rights to freedom of expression as First Amendment guarantees?
And that is the defining question, If I am to be disarmed by a property owner, it is then their duty to protect me when I am not armed... but me being me I don't leave my or my families security up to another individual.
Now I carry every single day, but when I worked for a couple of other companies, I made sure I got it in writing that the owner(s) did not allow weapons on their property and told my wife that should something happen, to pull out the documents and sue the living crap out of them until she owns the property/company.