Christ, there's a lot of misinformation in here!
WRONG
You cannot carry on private property when the landowner (or his authorized agent) tells you "no guns on my property." Signs on the door are an effective means of notifying people that guns are prohibited, but they are not required--a landowner could instead leave his door clear and whisper in everybody's ear, and that would still be binding notice.
In this case, the landowner has chosen to post, providing notice to all, but is now authorizing Silverant specifically and individually to disregard the sign. Getting that in writing is a good idea as a defense to later confusion, but so long as the person giving permission is an agent of the landowner, the permission is effective.
(Whether he is, in fact, an agent is another matter, but I think it would be an uphill battle to argue that an executive-level employee--a VP, in this case--isn't an agent of the company.)
WRONG
A landowner may generally set whatever rules he feels like on his property, subject to certain discrimination laws. Those laws largely apply to certain protected classes: race, sex, religion, handicap, etc. So long as he doesn't hit those buttons, he's generally free to set rules for his guests, even if different guests get different rules.
Half-wrong. You're correct in that your constitutional rights don't end at the property line; you're wrong in thinking that the Constitution has anything at all to do with your relationship with a private individual. The Constitution limits itself to your relationship with the government (more specifically, the Federal government, though some parts have been incorporated to the states as well). Right now, the Second Amendment hasn't even been held to be an individual right outside the District of Columbia, which has special legal status. We're all hoping and praying that SCOTUS incorporates the Second to the states in McDonald v. Chicago, but until that happens, the Second Amendment is (legally) moot out here in the several states. Even after we win, it will still only control your relationship with government entities, not private property owners.
WRONG
You cannot carry on private property when the landowner (or his authorized agent) tells you "no guns on my property." Signs on the door are an effective means of notifying people that guns are prohibited, but they are not required--a landowner could instead leave his door clear and whisper in everybody's ear, and that would still be binding notice.
In this case, the landowner has chosen to post, providing notice to all, but is now authorizing Silverant specifically and individually to disregard the sign. Getting that in writing is a good idea as a defense to later confusion, but so long as the person giving permission is an agent of the landowner, the permission is effective.
(Whether he is, in fact, an agent is another matter, but I think it would be an uphill battle to argue that an executive-level employee--a VP, in this case--isn't an agent of the company.)
WRONG
A landowner may generally set whatever rules he feels like on his property, subject to certain discrimination laws. Those laws largely apply to certain protected classes: race, sex, religion, handicap, etc. So long as he doesn't hit those buttons, he's generally free to set rules for his guests, even if different guests get different rules.
Half-wrong. You're correct in that your constitutional rights don't end at the property line; you're wrong in thinking that the Constitution has anything at all to do with your relationship with a private individual. The Constitution limits itself to your relationship with the government (more specifically, the Federal government, though some parts have been incorporated to the states as well). Right now, the Second Amendment hasn't even been held to be an individual right outside the District of Columbia, which has special legal status. We're all hoping and praying that SCOTUS incorporates the Second to the states in McDonald v. Chicago, but until that happens, the Second Amendment is (legally) moot out here in the several states. Even after we win, it will still only control your relationship with government entities, not private property owners.
