Even if I truly don't understand this (and I do), I'm not lying. I'm not being dishonest.
Yes you are. I explained this to you already and you are still spouting the same junk about how property rights are irrelevant. Pruneyard wasn't a case about property rights, it was a case about how expansive a state constitution can be. SCOTUS ruled that a state can have more protection of certian rights than the federal constitution. California has this. Thats why in this case, the people were able to hand out papers IN THE COMMON AREA OF THE MALL.
In most other states, this would not have been the result because their constitutions run parallel to the federal constitution. Thats why in Lloyd Corp v Tanner, the exact same set of facts yielded a different decision, and that decision was based on property rights.
At the base of everything is that as LOCAL LAW (the California State Constitution, which is a local law from a Federal viewpoint) is being used to TRUMP property rights? That is a fact, and it is inarguable.
This is utter nonsense. The california constitution is not a local law. We can now add federalism to the list of topics that you are skewing.
If this was a more protected right, such as that of freedom of religion or freedom of speech, SCOTUS would have ignored Cali state constitition.
Nope, thats not how federalism works. The court is not free to ignore the state constitution if it expands on the federal constitution.
But since it was NOT a right held up to that high standard (property rights) SCOTUS allowed local law to override it.
Just like how the Florida law would be perceived; it would override property rights.
This is why you're wrong and why you have demonstrated you are not competent to discuss this issue. Even if what you said was correct about property rights vis-a-vis the state constitution, the state constitution is not the same as a local law. A piece of legislation does not have the same weight as a constitutional provision. You keep intentionally misleading people by saying that a constitutional provision and local law are the same. They aren't. Thats your dishonesty.
Florida does not share the same expansions that california does, especially in respect to the 2nd amendment. As I already explained to you, the florida constitution gives no greater protection than the 2nd amendment. As such, this law does not have the constitutional backing that the people did in Pruneyard. As such, that case isn't on point, and its analysis is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the other analysis, namely whether the activity has any relation to any purpose for which the business exists. Unless the business is a gun store/range, carrying isn't related to any purpose of a private business.
Hence the courts rationale...
"Nor does property lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes. Few would argue that a free-standing store, with abutting parking space for customers, assumes significant public attributes merely because the public is invited to shop there. Nor is size alone the controlling factor. The essentially private character of a store and its privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modern shopping center. "