"What you're suggesting is that the land owner might now..."
No I am not suggesting that. I'm saying that the words “…he can ban anything he wants on his property, including his parking lot. Forcing him to do otherwise is a violation of his rights” suggest that.
"...he made an implied contract..."
As a property owner I might quote (with minor changes): "My observation is that the supposed "implied contract" is not in fact a contract. For starters, nobody signed it, least of all me--so this is a contract that binds me against my will."
And also: "You're claiming I'm a party to a contract that I never agreed to, that you can't even state with any certain detail, that provides no clear enumeration of responsibilities nor specific provision of penalties for breach... in other words, a "implied contract" is nothing like a "contract"."
You may or may not have realized it, but you are suggesting it: if you're on his property illicitly, you're already a dead man and have no complaint. So "banning your life" on his property means that he allowed you onto his land, but then changed his mind. By allowing you onto his land in the first place, he waived his right to do that.
As a property owner I might quote (with minor changes): "My observation is that the supposed "implied contract" is not in fact a contract. For starters, nobody signed it, least of all me--so this is a contract that binds me against my will."
You'd be mistaken; an implied contract differs from a "social contract" in a critical way. Namely, you did freely and consensually enter into the contract, as proven by your own actions--in this case, inviting me onto your land. Implied contracts are--quite rightly--upheld in court all the time. Not as often as they should be, though, because some laws interfere in the right of contract. Thus many cases are decided on law when in reality the law is improper, and the case should have been decided on fact.