Dictating the contents of a vehicle is trying to enforce a property claim. It also deprives me of my RKBA while not on company property during my commute. You don't get that do you?
Nonsense. If I say, "red cars can park on lot A", I'm not dictating the color of your car. I'm saying who's allowed on lot A.
It also deprives me of my RKBA while not on company property during my commute.
No it doesn't: you're free, for example, to carry a weapon in the car, and store it in a gun locker next door to your employer's property while at work. In fact, that's one of the "infinite possibilities" I mentioned earlier but didn't think of until now. You can keep a gun locker in your van, and charge your gun-toting co-workers to store their guns in it while at work. You, meanwhile, will park your gun-van down the street. You'll have to pay to park there, but you'll still make a profit at the end of the day.
When you say, "That rule prevents me from having a gun en route to work," you're confusing inconvenience with actual force. You aren't forced to travel without a gun. It's merely very inconvenient. Itty boo.
No, it's trying to enforce an employment contract which you presumably agreed to.
It also deprives me of my RKBA while not on company property during my commute.
No. You are free to park off the property, gun and all. Your RKBA is something the Government is not allowed to infringe upon. Whatever you contractually agree with another free citizen doesn't pertain. Just as your right to free speech and press does not allow you to violate non-disclosure contracts.