PW, excellent feedback!
To answer a few of your questions, I found this:
63-98-102. Uniform firearm laws.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right ... the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.
I think from that reference, it is clear that if a piece of property is considered, in any way, to be at least partially public then only the State Legislature can make rules regarding firearms. That being said, I would draw reference again to item (5) above where it says "either [on] public or private property"... I agree with you, the court cases don't seem to have been fought to make this clear and solid to private property owners... however, what the Legislature has said here seems clear enough.
Read it again (I certainly had to!). At first reading you might say "AHA, but it says the gov't can't create a law that limits our 2nd Amendment rights on private property, it says nothing of the private property owner". I would like to point out what ELSE it says: "... [government] authority may not enforce any [rule/law] pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession of firearms on... private property." Clearly were the police to bring you up on charges for disturbing the peace or trespassing when you were merely carrying a concealed weapon they would be enforcing a law with the intent to restrict your possession of said firearm.
So, while you are right that places like the e-Center will continue to push the issue until someone gets tired of it and takes them to court, I think the statute is pretty clearly on our side and offers a reasonably strong defense. An example??? The school issue. It would seem that if ANYPLACE were up amongst the off-limits places it would be schools, but not so -- the law clearly allows concealed carry on school grounds.
Also, in reading the citation above it is pretty clear that EVEN PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS cannot restrict your right (they can SAY they do, but LE are not allowed to enforce any such restriction -- though I am sure you are right in that many times LE will enforce it not knowing better and thus start a long ugly battle, that I think a properly defending CC holder would win). In order to comply with that law but give control back to private property owners AT THEIR RESIDENCE (and Churches too), the Legislature wrote 76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence
So if the legislature had to write a "special case" law to give people the right to restrict firearms from coming inside their own houses, then obviously private property owners are not free to do whatever they wish... otherwise, for what purpose did the Legislature feel the need to write this "special case" law???
The argument "no one is forcing you to go there" holds up to a certain logic... but in the end, it's the exact same argument used during the racial debate and that argument lost; it's not a valid argument.
When it comes to the airport argument, 76-10-523.5. Compliance with rules for secure facilities
, states that certain areas defined as "secure facilities" are off-limits to packing. On that list you will find the secured areas of the airport (though there are other threads on this site that talk about the airport's abuse of this right).
OK, to recap... I agree with you in regards to what would happen INITIALLY (i.e.: places like the eCenter will likely think they can search and forbid you, and some or most LE might likely think they can enforce a disturbing the peace/trespassing law and you will likely be hauled off to the judge). Who knows, there are likely even judges that won't take the time to really read the law and will judge you on what they THINK the law should say. However, properly defended and taking the issue all the way to the State Supreme Court, I believe the law is clearly on our side and the individual would win ULTIMATELY.