Nominally, a private landowner is king of their domain, modern practices have added hundreds of footnotes and addendums to that, but it is the original premise.
It's a rare business that owns the premises on which they operate, and a business is not a domain in any case.
Which add multiple layers for the various parties involved to add their own list of expectations as to what may or may not occur on a particular piece of property. If the land owner stipulates certain things must be allowed under terms of the lease/rental, than the other party must honor those terms. If the renter wants to place further restrictions that are not proscribed under terms of their rental/lease agreement, then they're within their rights to do so.
Well, if you to go all out originalist on it, the Constitution initially only applied to the Federal Government, it wasn't until some time later that the restrictions on the Federal Government evolved into becoming restrictions on state and local governments.
The Bill of Rights applied to both states and individuals. Here's the text:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The part about the "well regulated militia" does apply to the states, but 2A advocates insist that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" applies to individuals.
And "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" clearly does refer to an individuals right to personal firearms.
You'd have to try rather hard to read it any other way. Historical context also factors in here, when you consider the Revolutionary War and the effectiveness of the snipers and marksmen among the Revolutionaries in particular. Those marksmen and snipers didn't become frightening effective at their job due to military training, they were frightening effective shooters due to their activities within the context of their regular (civilian) lives.
The phrasing is ambiguous, and leaves an ocean worth of wiggle room, but the direct reference to
the people in ""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" makes it very difficult to think the founders considered any scenario where
disarming the individuals who comprise the population referenced as "the people" unilaterally was considered to be a good idea. What we have of their own writings likewise reflect this.
What exactly they meant by "well regulated militia" is one of those things we can only wish they were more clear on, but I highly doubt it was intended to be used as a lever to justify the unilateral removal of firearms from the (civilian) population as a whole.
But even if you can smooth over the obvious contradiction between interpretations of those two simple clauses, you still have to explain how "shall not be infringed" allows government at federal, state, county and local levels to all apply their own restrictions (aka infringements) on your unfettered right to "keep and bear arms".
From a strict originalist perspective, I agree, the Federal Government shouldn't be involved in firearms restrictions when it comes to private citizens. The second amendment is quite clear on that. What is much more grey is whether or not a strict originalist interpretation allows for states and cities to place those restrictions. I'm not going to try to argue to mental hoops others are jumping through to stake out any position they may or may not have. I'm just stating that from my perspective, the Constitution clearly states that possession of a firearm is an individual right, and the
federal government is not to infringe upon it, as the Constitution initially only restricted the Federal Level.
Listening to 2A hard-core advocates navigate through all the contradictions is like watching kayakers try to go through rapids without a paddle.
Not going to disagree.