The case in Oklahoma hits the nail on th head. While OK enacted a law against the prohibition of guns in locked motor vehicles in parking lots, a restraining order was issued to block the law from taking effect.
The plaintiffs (Whirlpool, with Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce and others filing friend-of-court briefs) based their case on a prior SCOTUS decision that a guy had no 1st Amendment right to hand out handbills in a mall. Excerts from the brief:
In Lloyd Corp Ltd v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972), persons sought to distribute handbills in the interior mall area of a privately owned shopping center. The owners stopped them. SCOTUS framed the issue as whether "respondants, in the exercise of First Amendment rights, may distribute handbills on private property contrary to wishes and contrary to a policy enforced against all handbilling." The court reasoned that the invitation to the public is to come to the mall to do business with the tenents and, thus, there "is no open-ended invitation to ... use the [mall] for any and all purposes, however incompatible with the interests of both the stores and the shoppers whom they serve." The court cautioned "it must be remembered that the First and Fourteenth Amendments safeguard the rights of free speech and assembly by limitations on state action, not on action by the owner of private property used nondiscriminatorily for private use only."
Now consider the differences between this claim to exercise 1stA vs 2ndA rights:
1. Did the 1stA exercisers come to the mall to do business with the tenents? No - even if they bought something to be "customers", their 1stA exercise was not part of their act of being customers. Would a 2ndA exerciser come to the mall to do business with the tenents? Yes - they would come to the mall as customers, employees or vendors and not to simply be there with a gun.
2. Would any owner, tenent or customer of the mall be aware of, or participate in, the 1stA exercisers exercise of their 1stA activities? Yes -had they sat there with handbills in a sack, then no issue, but they had to hand them out and/or be heard/seen to be exercising their supposed 1stA right.Would anyone be aware of or participate in a 2ndA exercisers act of CCW? No - carrying a concealed gun is like printing the handbill on a t-shirt worn under another shirt while coming to the mall. In fact, had a large group of people printed the text of their handbill on t-shirts and walked around the mall together with the text visible while going through the motions of looking and buying, they would be doing what SCOTUS has said is protected 1stA freedom of expression. The big difference is that the handbillers had to be doing something visible, audible and tactile to be performing their supposed 1stA action, while a a person engaged in 2ndA CCW (or storage of a firearm in a car in a parking lot) requires no special participation or interaction with others to do so.
The key that invalidates the above arguements, is whether CCW, or guns in private cars in parking lots, DO have an interaction and/or require participation with others for expression of a 2ndA claim. And what is being said by the Plaintiff in Whirlpool vs OK? They, the Brady Campaign and anti-gun scholars are all saying that because having a gun in the workplace requires everyone to suffer a proven and well-accepted greater risk of fatal injury, and that much as laws regulate and minimize risks of injury by toxics, fires, falling, crushing, etc., laws must regulate and minimize the risk of injury (violence) by guns in the workplace. The best way to do that, they say, is to ban them: "One of the most reasonable and effective ways to decrease the likelihood of such violence is for employers to prohibit employees from bringing weapons onto the employer's property.... Even more importantly, it seems clear that OSHA would view a firearm at work as presenting a recognized hazard - a hazard which is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm."
So losing this case is about more than deciding property rights vs RKBA - it is about accepting that having guns creates a danger that must be regulated by prohibition them on the private property of others. If this is true, then why isn't it true about guns on public property? No arguement there - if one, then the other, eh?
How can the Oklahoma win the case without reference to a valid purpose for brining guns on private property? If not for self-defense, then not for hunting and target shooting, as if a gun is inherently dangerous, then why it is kept/carried is not a distinguishing point. The flaw is, of course, that guns are not the danger, it's the criminals bearing malicious intent that are the danger - but we know how that gets twisted.
There is no way to discard the bath water without discarding the baby. Property rights and 2ndA RKBA will not be uncoupled in the winning or losing of this case. The NRA knows this, and continues to push for RKBA in places we work and play.
I think, practically speaking, one has to make a tough choice here between veiws on private property, agreements and RKBA.
I think you'd have a horrible time trying to enforce it regardless, especially if you applied it to all your customers. However, if you ran a store that primarily served a population that was religiously opposed to pork products, such a sign would likely cause most people to voluntarily avoid bringing pork products onto the premises. It would have to be pretty obvious that your store primarily served such people though. If it was just your personal objection and had nothing to do with those you served then people would probably start throwing pork products at your store.
