I see the points made in both sides, but I lean towards WildRose from a logical viewpoint.
The property owner has an absolute right to establish the rules applicable within the borders of his property. However, as we so often state right here, rights come with responsibilities and choices have consequences.
When an owner exercises his rights in such a way as to restrict my rights, does he not then assume the responsibility for that restriction? Remember that by being open for business in a notorious manner is a tacit invitation for me to enter his property. Does his choice, which negates my choice, not come with the consequence of standing in my stead?
His right to make this choice, which is a de facto abrogation of my right, cannot be made free of responsibility or consequence, just as my choice to exercise my right to carry arms comes with its own set of responsibilities and consequences.
Ammo can get you though times of no money better than money can get you through times of no ammo.