Now this is a reasonable constraint on gun rights. Or is it?

[Kent_Clark]

In Missouri, it’s allowed UNLESS the property owner says it’s not allowed:

Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch. The owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person may prohibit persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the premises and may prohibit employees, not authorized by the employer, holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying concealed firearms on the property of the employer. If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer of the business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying a concealed firearm is prohibited. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed carry endorsement from carrying a concealed firearm in vehicles owned by the employer;

Note that while the Missouri law says “possession of a firearm in a vehicle…shall not be a criminal offense” it doesn’t say that employers can’t forbid it.

[UltraVires]

I disagree with the NRA here. The only reason that blacks, Jews, etc. are “protected classes” when it comes to places of public accomodation is because of legislative action (the 64 CRA) and not because of any constitutional right.

A private business has pretty much absolute control over what they will or won’t allow as long as it doesn’t run afoul of the law.

For the same reason, the Florida law is perfectly legitimate as well. I can’t see how you can say that the 64 Civil Rights Law would be okay, but the Florida Gun Law would be a violation of property rights. You might say that Civil Rights are good and guns are bad, but that is the exactly the type of thing that a legislature decides…

[WF_Tomba]

I will add my opinion to those who are saying that both the employers and the legislature are entirely within their rights in this case.

I have every right to forbid you to keep your gun in my corporate parking lot, and the state has every right to forbid me to forbid you to keep your gun in my corporate parking lot. It is a policy debate, not a constitutional one.

[Rhythmdvl]

@WF Tomba

It is a policy debate, not a constitutional one.

Nitpick:
It’s a policy debate whenever it’s in the hands of the legislature (debating, passing, considering repeal, etc.). Once it’s passed and there’s a question of enforcebility that’s beyond the mundane (e.g., jurisdiction), when it’s a question of whether or not the government has the authority to compel you to accept guns in your parking lot, then it starts reaching Constitutional levels (just not necessarily gun-related ones).