Barr is no defender of property rights.  The right to own property implies the right to control who comes onto your property, and what items they bring with them.  To oppose anti-smoking legislation is not to believe that any smoker who so wishes may sit down in my living room and smoke his pipe, and to support free speech does not imply that people have the right to walk into my kitchen to deliver a lecture. 

In particular, defending the right to keep and bear arms does not require, or justify, laws prohibiting companies from setting policies on the carrying of firearms on their property.  The second amendment prohibits the government from denying to citizens to right to own weapons, and to carry them on their own property, or on the property of others when this is allowed by the owner.  Barr, though, seems to feel differently:

• "The Georgia General Assembly session is about to begin, and self-styled "property rights" advocates once again are criticizing the National Rifle Association for daring to urge passage of legislation that would remind Georgia citizens that their right to lawfully possess a firearm, as guaranteed by Constitution and law, cannot be arbitrarily denied them simply because they might chose to exercise that right in or on a publicly-accessible parking lot."

This concept of publicly-accessible property allows Barr not to state the obvious:  that the parking lots in question are private, owned by businesses which permit employees and others to park their at the pleasure of the company.  Would he be similarly outraged if a business simply closed its parking lot, choosing not to permit anyone at all to park there?  It isn't clear why that would be more justifiable than restricting what may be kept in cars in the parking lot.  For a supposed libertarian to taunt private property advocates is absurd.  Worse, Barr seems unable to differentiate between government and private concerns:

• "However, apparently in Mr. Fleming's universe, such individual rights as these can be arbitrarily denied by allowing governments or other entities (such as a business that maintains a parking area open to the public) to prohibit a person from exercising those rights on their property, even though that property is open to the public."

It is a basic principle of libertarianism that there is a fundamental difference between government and private businesses.  The government, under libertarian principles, may not restrict free speech, for instance - while a company certainly may control what is said on its property, or a newspaper, for that matter, may decide what stories to run.  In both cases, what the libertarian opposes is coercion or the initiation of force.  The business owner is simply exercising his private property rights, while the government seeks to restrict behavior bearing no connection to their own property.  Barr, though, simply shoves both together - government or other entity - ignoring the important differences.  That the parking lot is open to the public does not help - if my door is open, may you walk in with a gun, even if I display a large "no guns" sign?  It is an open question whether or not Barr would permit a restaurant owner to disallow customers from carrying shotguns into the restaurant.  Barr, though, goes even further:

• "One might want to query Mr. Fleming and other opponents of the parking lot bill to determine if their expansive view of "property rights" would similarly empower the owner of a publicly-accessible parking lot to deny entry of a vehicle containing not a firearm but a Bible, the possession of which also is guaranteed by the Constitution. I suspect "property rights" purists like Mr. Fleming might squirm a bit on that one."http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=911

One would think Barr would be the one to squirm here.  A man campaigning for the Libertarian Party's nomination for President, who simply disregards property rights as irrelevant to proper law, ought to squirm a bit.  To Barr, it is obvious that a company should be forced to allow people to carry Bibles onto their property.  To a libertarian, it is obvious that the company should not be.  This is simply more evidence that Barr is no libertarian.

On the topic of property rights, let's consider the rights of people to keep their own property.  Ron Paul supported this right, which is why he campaigned to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing.  Barr gets half of this right, but instead of nothing, wants to replace the income tax with a national sales tax.  In 1992, the Republicans managed to run a candidate who promised no new taxes.  What irony it would be if the Libertarians ran a candidate now who instead promises new taxes.

• The best approach would be to adopt a national sales tax, replacing the Internal Revenue Service and all federal income taxes as well as payroll taxes. The Fair Tax is an example of a well-researched alternative to the current oppressive system of taxation. Our goal should be to reduce both the tax burden on Americans and the intrusion in their lives resulting from IRS enforcement of the income tax.

Certainly, no one can take issue with eliminating the IRS.  The Fairtax, though, is revenue-neutral, meaning that not one cent less would flow from the private sector into Leviathin's jaws.  The burden would be somewhat shifted, though, as the sales tax is regressive, shifting the burden from the rich to the poor.  A sales tax, like a property tax, is simply feudal rent, and has no place in a free society.  The libertarian position is to allow the government to take less money, not to change the topic by switching the method of collection.  The name is also absurd - there can be no fair tax, as it is inherently unfair for one party to take away the property of another without consent.