Yes. did you read the case?
Between the Pruneyard citation and this direct citation the legal standing is pretty clear. Especially when you include as precedent all the other laws that have withstood constititional challenge.
Same question to you. Did you read the case? I'll hit some of the highlights for you.
As the court states, the Penn-Central inquiry is the test used to determine whether this law is valid. The factors are...
the character of the governmental intrusion, the degree of the interference with the reasonable, investment backed expectations of the property owner, and the economic impact of the action
All your assertions that property owners "don't have rights" go to the first factor. Thus, if you are correct, the court should find this factor deficient. Lets talk a look shall we.
The court starts out by saying...
There are five specific characteristics of the governmental intrusion in this case that are unique, and in the courts view, result in a severe deprivation of property rights.
Uh oh. That doesn't look good. The court states that the law is a..
direct and serious deprivation of the right to exlude which as explained above, is the most treasured and fundamental of all property interests
That sure doesn't sound like "no property rights" to me. Then the court talks about your favorite case, Pruneyard...
Regardless of ones view of the importance of the right to bear arms, it cannot be disputed that forcing a property owner to allow loaded and unloaded firearms on his property is more onerous than allowing the peaceful distribution of leaflets on his property.... The court finds the character of the governmental intrusion distinguishable from that at issue in Pruneyard because in Pruneyard, the physical invasion involved first amendment expression that posed no danger to the shopping center or its patrons.
So lets see. You just said that Pruneyard is authoritative on this issue. Again I ask you, did you bother to read the case? Clearly not.
The court continues...
Plaintiffs liberty interest in excluding firearms from their business premises is significantly more compelling than liberty interests in excluding activities percieved by the land owner to cause a thread to safety
Yup, Pruneyard sure is controlling
No property rights here.
In sum, the court finds that the "character of the governmental intrusion to be severe because the law eliminates Plaintiff's right to exclude percieved danger from their corporate property.
First factor in favor of property owners. That pretty much destroys all of your assertions regarding the rights of property owners. But lets keep going.
The next two factors are economic factors. This is what lost the argument for the plaintiffs. NOT that they didn't have any property rights. And here's why.
In this case the plaintiffs have not made ANY allegations OR presented ANY evidence of economic harm.
There you have it. The plaintiffs did not have a losing argument, they didn't present one. They gave NO evidence of economic harm. Had they done so, they would have won the case. The court explicitly says this in footnote 42 when they say...
Although plaintiffs have not done so in this case, other business or property owners may be able to show that forced entry of firearms onto their property causes economic harm
They then cite to workplace violence studies. This right here is the court saying "if you would have done this you would have won, so in the future, anyone else who sues, use this info for this factor."
Thats why the court has such a hard time making this ruling...
It does not seem logical that a state can force a property owner to allow the invasion of firearms onto his property... This court however must interpret the law as it exists and does not find suport for the proposition that the law is a regulatory taking under any of the possible theories
In other words, because you guys dropped the ball and didn't give us ANYTHING to work with for the economic prong, we can't help you becasue that would be changing the law. And thats why they ding the gun owners with OSHA. Different analysis, but the same result.
Bottom line, this case is COMPLETELY SUPPORTIVE of everything I've been saying. EVERYTHING regarding property rights was decided in the favor of the property owner. Had they presented even a meager amount of evidence regarding economic impact they would have won. Thats why similar laws in California, Utah, Texas, Montanta, Missouri, Indiani, Georgia, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana and Indiana have been rejected. Precedent my rear.
You would have probably known this had you read the case. You didn't. Thats why I've been waiting for someone to bring it up. You holding this up as an example of how property owners have no rights is dishonest because 1) its not true and the court blatantly said that and 2) you didn't even bother to read the case. Thus you were making statements without any knowledge of their truth.
Thanks for playing.