Carrying a gun anywhere you want is not a civil right.
That is legally true. IMHO, that should be changed such that carrying is a civil right and can only be taken away in specific circumstances that can pose a clear and present technical danger.
For example, carrying by the MRI which will cause your gun to go off or be dragged to the machine.
Thus, carriers should be a protected class. But that's just my view. Does this view conflict with the property rights crowd - yes - but some of them still argue for the right to oppose segregation and I have little use for that view.
We are beginning to sound a little like spoiled children - IT's NOT FAIR!
I have a right to keep and bear arms. You have a right of ownership of your property. If I want to go onto/into your property, don't I have an obligation, prior to entering, to accept your permission as you grant it?
Don't we acknowledge the fact that the 2nd amendment is there to enable the keeping of our other inalienable rights?
I have a right to carry a weapon. I do not have a right to come onto your property. I need your permission for that. You get to set the terms of that permission. There is no "rights" conflict in this.
If I want to carry my weapon more than meet your terms of permission, I may make my choice to not accept your terms. In doing so I am refusing your permission. There is no "rights" conflict in this.
I do not have the right to being a special class, because I am not a special class. You owe me nothing because I carry a filearm, because I are not required to carry a firearm. Carrying a firearm and accepting your terms of entry onto/into your propery are my choices, which I have the right to make. There is no "rights" conflict in this.
Getting permission onto/into your property under my own terms is not my right. There is no "rights" conflict in this.
But I know, it's still not fair.
End of Rant.