Contracts between two people that contravene constitutional rights are not enforceable. -- Re-read the article.
Any way you slice it, one side or the other in any court decision has to abide by a Governmentally [constitutionally] imposed ruling against what they see as their own interests. The other side has the coercive power of that decision backing their interests.
Quite true. You don't agree with the way our rule of constitutional law works? -- Do business elsewhere.
You are obdurate in your inconsistency. Why is it you believe the 2nd amendment takes precedence over the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th?
I don't believe that. -- You seem to believe/demand that your right to parking lot property takes precedence over our right to carry arms in vehicles. -- That's inconsistent with our Constitutional principles.
Why are you against the free exercise of so many sections of the Constitution?
Why are you against the free exercise of 2nd amendment section of the Constitution?
Our gov't has the duty to enforce the Constitution against infringements of our right to carry arms.
Sounds like force to me.
Sounds like gun grabbing to me.
No one is grabbing your guns; they are simply saying that you should take yourself and/or weapons elsewhere than upon private property where they are not welcome.
Why do you insist that arms are not welcome in an employees vehicle?
Would you feel better with this for a solution: posted at the gate is a sign that says "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder, and shot on sight." Then, when he exercises HIS 2nd amendment rights in defense of HIS property rights, you would realize that YOUR 2nd amendment rights don't trump them because you say so.
You want employers to post on their parking lots -- "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder --"? That's your solution? -- Thanks.
Opinion pieces do not carry the weight of fact. If you think you cannot voluntarily contract away rights, then I suggest you try deserting the military or publishing trade secrets you have contracted not to reveal. See how far your freedom of the press or unimpeded travel gets you.
Try trespassing on a military base, onto an airplane or into the White House "bearing arms". You'll find out that while you may own and bear arms, you cannot do it there, or in many other locales, without permission. And, if you try, you'll find out that after being convicted by due process, you might never have the right to vote, move freely, associate with certain people, work for many employers or bear arms again, as part of your punishment. Assuming you put the weapon down slowly and back away carefully when arrested, that is.
You don't agree with the way our rule of constitutional law works? -- Do business elsewhere.
You haven't a clue how our rule of constitutional law works if you believe any one right has automatic precedence over any other. Doing business includes the hiring of employees. Don't agree with the way private property and freedom of association works in the United States? Bear your guns elsewhere. I understand the Horn of Africa is a free-carry zone. Maybe someone there will be willing to hire you at gun point.
You want employers to post on their parking lots -- "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder --"? That's your solution? -- Thanks.
No, my solution is for the two parties to come to a private, non-governmental agreement. Your solution is to use force to impose your passage with arms. But if you grant yourself the indisputable power to go where you will armed, then don't whine when others use their right to bear arms to defend themselves from your undesired presence on their property.