Now you are just moving the goal posts.

Or you are failing to follow the simile.

If we are saying it is related to a 2nd amendment thing, then yes the court CAN use due process to deny someone of those rights. So there is logic in that explanation.

If anything, I am moving closer to the goal posts as someone made a 2A issue out of it and making it closer to equal.

Not everything that involves a gun is a 2A issue, and it is silly to react in such a way. It burns down the power of the argument on something that is not really related.

Property rights, dictating what someone can or can not do on owned property. Not stomping on your RTKBA.

Everything that involves a privately owned gun by definition is a 2a issue in some way or another in this country. Whether or not one decides to argue a case in court from that angle is another matter. And before you whip out your example again, no of course ones 2a right is not infringed if a store refuses to sell a gun on a case by case basis.

In addition yes a court can use due process to deny someone 2a rights FOR CAUSE. Not just because a judge says so, he has to use the law properly to find cause for denying those rights.

The same as with the point you are making. A court can deny a property owner the right to do a certain activity on his property for cause. I.e. a neighbors right to peaceful enjoyment of their property being infringed by the property owner in question. I.e. a nuisance noise.

Sent from Proxima Centauri B through the ether using FTP transmission technology, Honey Encryption, and Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwiches