I continue to believe that you're self-defense right trumps someone else's property right as long as you're behaving lawfully - at least in places of public accommodation that regularly invite members of the public onto the premises. Concealed carry helps ensure that you can have the effective means of self defense without triggering hoplophobes (fear of guns) that might see you with a firearm in an unfamiliar context.
Private property is another story entirely. An individual must have complete control over that, and that is assured in constitutional as well as traditional law.
How exactly is it "right" for a business owner to dictate whether or not I can effectively defend myself when visiting their place of business? When someone invites me onto their property, but prevents me from lawfully protecting myself (effectively creating a criminal / terrorist / psychopath attracting "massacre zone") shouldn't they take responsibility for it?
Same thing goes for schools, government buildings and installations.
While constitutionally recognized rights are unrelated to each other, I think we've got the prioritization of rights upside down.