People who believe that some corporation's "property rights" are more important than citizens' right to life and the protection of it, should consider their own property rights: Do you live near a drainage ditch?
One of my employeers owns 4-6 acres with an old house on it she lived in. She and her plumber husband wanted to build their dream house, a log cabin. They checked with the building inspector; no problem. Checked the town maps; no problem. Began building next to a stream that started as runoff from the orchard uphill, ran under the road, into another drainage ditch and another orchard. The State Conservation office stoped them; its a "protected stream".
Court settlement: they replant 3,000 plants along the stream. They build the house.
The Army Corps of Engineers shows up; they have authority to grab any wetlands in the country. They hand it over to the EPA; another settlement: rip out all the plantings, plant different plants. Effective difference: Zero. Validity of a court decision: Zero.
As a parting shot, the EPA officials say "don't blame us, its all Bush's fault" for not giving them enough funding.
So You think You own your land?
Now they can ask me to leave their property if they don't like that I am carrying, and I can choose to stay away from them if I want to carry.
But if most available employment is from corporations where I am a sitting duck for any crazy or crook, then my employment opportunities are limited and that marginalizes me and all gun owners.
We become second-class citizens in economic terms, along with with the rest of our rights.
It makes our right to life impossible to protect on a daily basis, and eventually allows bad people to make what was common sense and common in the culture into a crime.
I think the corporation's "rights" will just have to take second place to the second ammendment.