You are asking the wrong question. A person doesn't have to gain anything to have rights. I predict that any law which forces private property owners to tolerate firearms owned by others on their property could be struck down by the US Supreme Court.
A law which requires someone to tolerate your bearing arms on another's property, in effect, prohibits that person from excluding you because you are bearing arms. Similar laws do exist in some circumstances with regard to racial discrimination. If you are suggesting that a law prohibiting discrimination against a person bearing arms, then that is much broader than a law concerning what people may have in their parked cars.
I would support laws which prohibit discrimination against those who bear arms, but I think that practicality concerns dictate that private property rights take precedence.
I still maintain that mandating that arms be allowed in corporate parking lots would achieve 99 percent of the benefit with virtually NO legitimate private property concerns.
the rights of private proprietorships to control their parking areas would be preserved,
What is being "preserved"?
What does a private proprietorship gain by acting against our Constitutional mandate that the RKBA's shall not be infringed?
You are asking the wrong question. A person doesn't have to gain anything to have rights.
You claimed something is "preserved" by infringing on my right to have a gun in my car.
They gain the right to be secure in their private property.
My gun locked in my car is not a security threat to their property. Can you agree?
I believe that few will choose to take a stand against firearms in the face of competition from corporations which are not allowed to infringe the right.
You may not carry on my private property even if I choose to carry on business on that property.
A gun locked in my car is not being "carried" on your property. Can you agree?
There is no right to incorporate and be granted limited liability. That is a legal privilege granted by legislatures based on expected benefits to the whole people. One of the benefits can be the extension of the right to keep and bear arms to corporate parking lots.
You are making part of my argument for me. Thanks. Are we in agreement then on the other parts above?
I predict that any law which forces private property owners to tolerate firearms owned by others on their property could be struck down by the US Supreme Court.
A law which requires someone to tolerate your bearing arms on another's property, in effect, prohibits that person from excluding you because you are bearing arms.
Having a gun locked in my car while at work is not "bearing arms on another's property". Can you agree?
Similar laws do exist in some circumstances with regard to racial discrimination. If you are suggesting that a law prohibiting discrimination against a person bearing arms, then that is much broader than a law concerning what people may have in their parked cars. I would support laws which prohibit discrimination against those who bear arms, but I think that practicality concerns dictate that private property rights take precedence.
And I ask why parking lot property rights should take precedence over our right to keep a gun in our cars. Can you explain?
I still maintain that mandating that arms be allowed in corporate parking lots would achieve 99 percent of the benefit with virtually NO legitimate private property concerns.
There are lots of privately held companies in the USA. Why do you want them to have the power to ban guns in employees vehicles?