[Abogado]

I agree that on the owner's property their property rights should be supreme - in most cases. The problem is where those property rights interfere with another's rights off the property. An owner's right to dictate behavior of visitors on their property does not extend to a grant of immunity from liability for the effective disarming of the individuals who visit the property where the individual's disarmament results in the individual being unable to protect themselves off the property. Besides, in the real world, this feel good "no guns allowed" knee jerk reaction only makes victims of people who otherwise might be able to fight back - the homicidal maniacs obviously don't care about being fired by the time they go on their rampage.

[gitmo]

I don't think we can give property rights supremacy over the right to bear arms. Property rights aren't even enumerated in the Constitution, although they most definitely fall into the Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But the Second Amendment is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that doesn't talk about the Government. The 1st Amendment says the CONGRESS shall make no law ... The 3rd talks about the military quartering soldiers in private homes. The 4th is protection against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.

But the Second Amendment quite simply says ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I read that to mean that no one can infringe that right. Not the government nor anyone else.

So I think it's a mistake to assume a unenumerated right takes precedence over the most broadly defined of all the enumerated ones.