private property.
That calls for an intellectual consistency rarely seen in these parts.
Leave them in your locked auto? Yes.
Bring them in the building? No.
Both retain their private property rights.
Maybe, but that isn't what the judge based his ruling on. Read the article, this is what he said: Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."
In other words he is saying the objectives of the federal government to disarm law abiding citizens overrides state powers(or rights if you prefer).
Besides being dead wrong about that, he is wrong about gun free zones having less violent crime than if people were freely armed.
Only a completely brain dead person would think that someone bent on killing others would hestitate to come to a place armed "because it is against the law". Therefore, this judge, and many others, only have one objective and that is to disarm the law abiding citizens so they can be more easily manipulated and forced into becoming good little communists.
Yup.
I've had this debate ad nauseam with some on FR. I side with private property rights over the RKBA when they conflict. The gun owner is on that property voluntarily, so it's up to him whether or not he's disarmed.
His decision is not even remotely based on the concept of private property.
But, I agree...private companies should be able to ban the possession of guns in their buildings.
On the other hand, those companies should also be boycotted.