My point is since the COTUS does not give a property owner the power to remove my right to carry, this power must come from statute
1. I think you and I disagree about the nature of law. This whole idea of government giving people powers/rights etc gets it backwards IMHO. But I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here, and maybe we can leave that issue aside for the purposes of this discussion.
2. You are right that a property owner does not have the (legitimate) power (i.e. right) to remove your right to carry without your consent. However, a property owner DOES have the right to deny you access to the property that they own. That is, in fact, WHAT IT IS to own a piece of property! They can, of course, waive that right and alow you onto their property. But, they can also require some condition of you in exchange for waiving that right. That is, they can say: you may enter my property, but in exchange you must agree not to carry a loaded firearm. Similarly, you can put conditions on allowing me into your home. For instance, you might ask that I remove my shoes before I walk on your carpet. If I refuse to do that, you can ask me to leave, and legally, I would be obliged to do so. It's YOUR property, after all. In doing so, you are not forcing me to remove my shoes, and your request does not interfere with my right to wear shoes you are just deciding to hold on to your right to refuse access to your property.
Really? What property were you given by God?
Most importantly, I was given my life, my liberty, and the ability to pursue the ends that I choose. The products of my labor are probably indirectly given by God insofar as I trade my life and time for them and so on.
Property ownership comes from government. If that were not the case, then Mexico would still belong to the Aztecs, and LaMecha would have a valid claim to all of the US southwest, the Apache would own the plains, and the Seminoles would own Florida.
You could claim that government is required to ENFORCE property rights. In some objective sense, people who have had things stolen from them DO have legitimate claims to ownership of the stolen things. These specific cases are difficult, though, because the people who were stolen from are presumably no longer alive (though perhaps their ancestors have some kind of claim insofar as the ancestors of plunderers have an advantage over them because of it). And yes, in a sense perhaps it was a lack of governmental protection (or maybe just a lack guns...) that allowed them to be (in some cases) stolen from and (in some cases) murdered. Actually, its hard for me to say much of anything about these cases because I am generally uninformed about the specifics... But I don't really see how they work as examples of how property ownership COMES from government. In fact, I don't even really see how this is supposed to work, unless we are talking about some kind of socialism or something...??
Even owning property does not grant a property owner plenipotentiary power to do as you please.
It is true that owning property does not necessarily grant total sovereignty (or at least one could argue this to be true where a 'legitimate' government holds power). In this country, one might claim that this is because of the Constitution, a contract which grants sovereignty to 'the people'. What this means, for the most part, is that we can only exercise our property rights insofar as they do not interfere with other people's property rights. When our rights interfere with eachother, we can turn to the government to resolve our differences. In this case, though, the property owner's right to exclude you from their property does not interfere with your right to carry a weapon because you are perfectly free not to enter their property.
The other cases you mention here are all very difficult and controversial, probably more difficult that the case we are discussing here. However, in most of these cases, a distinguishing factor is that these policies focus on unchangable aspects of people. Whereas you could chose to follow the property owners rules regarding weapons in order to gain access to the property, a Hispanic person could not simply choose not to be Hispanic in order to buy your house. Again, these are very complicated cases. I have held jobs that required me to be able to lift 100 pounds on a regular basis. Did these employers violate the rights of people who aren't able to lift 100 pounds and would never be able to (like my wife for example) by permanently barring them from inclusion? This could go WAY off topic here... Got any non-controversial examples?
and explain how your company has a policy that by entering your property, they consent to allowing you to punch them in the nose, and see where that goes.
This last case you mention is a funny one. I think that you COULD probably legally make that a condition of entering property if you wanted to (though most people probably wouldn't agree to the deal).
In other words, property rights come not from the creator, nor from the constitution, but form statute. In my state the statute says that you cannot prohibit carry merely by posting a sign. There it is. The law is the law. Don't like it? Get your legislator to change it, because it is certainly not unconstitutional the way it is.
Actually, statutes are just written laws which clarify how constitutional law is supposed to apply to a specific situation and are subordinate to constitutional law which is subordinate to God's law (or 'the laws of nature' if you'd rather call it that). In Florida (I'm guessing this is your state), my understanding is that the legislators there feel that merely posting a sign is not sufficient notification to warrant a tresspass conviction. However, this does not mean that you are in the right when you knowingly carry a firearm onto property where you are aware that the owner forbids it as a condition of entry. I'm not sure how that court case would play out, but I think you would lose...
