why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
I have his permission [in most cases mandated by local ordinance's] to park my vehicle on his lot while working.
My gun in my vehicle trunk in no way violates any of his rights. -- Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation of my right to carry a gun to & from work.
No, you don't.
You deny reality. Most local parking ordinance's mandate off street company parking.
You have his permission to park it with no guns inside.
Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation....
His conditions don't have to be "rational".
Quite a few States now differ. They agree that we have a right to carry arms to & from work, and are protecting that right from irrational infringements made by people like you.
It's his. When you buy zucchini, it's yours. You can eat it, or carve it into a totem pole, or fall down and worship it, or use it as a baseball bat, or sit on it and rotate. It's yours. It doesn't look like we'll ever agree on this simple idea. But that does tell me one thing about you, and if I were your boss I'd probably fire you--not because of the gun in your car, but because I can be sure you will not respect property in other ways. If I lend you a company car to do company business, you would most likely drive it on your errands as well, because "you have my permission to use it." With similar reasoning, you will routinely violate any of my rules that you don't consider "rational," and will use things I didn't want you to use, in ways I didn't want you to use them, for purposes I didn't want you to use them for. And of course you'll steal. Oh, you won't embezzle or anything, but I already know I'll recognize all sorts of items when I visit your home, such as office supplies. After all, you "have my permission to use office supplies"...
Another bunch of irrational personal remarks, made because you can't argue your position in a logical manner. Be ashamed izzy.
Irrelevant. Quite a few other states have unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What does that prove?
you can't argue your position in a logical manner.
You have not tried once so far to logically argue why a person doesn't actually have the power to decide who does and who doesn't use his property, or how his property is used. Try now.