Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Uber Threatens to Revoke Access for Drivers and Passengers Who Carry

Friday, June 26, 2015

Uber Threatens to Revoke Access for Drivers and Passengers Who Carry

On June 10, San Francisco-based Uber Technologies Inc., operators of the popular Uber ride-sharing cell phone application, altered company policy to prohibit its drivers and passengers from possessing firearms while using the service. Under the “Legal” portion of Uber’s website, the company posted the following:

UBER FIREARMS PROHIBITION POLICY

We seek to ensure that everyone using the Uber digital platform—both driver-partners and riders—feels safe and comfortable using the service. During a ride arranged through the Uber platform, Uber and its affiliates therefore prohibit possessing firearms of any kind in a vehicle. Any rider or driver found to have violated this prohibition may lose access to the Uber platform.

In an email exchange with Newsweek, an Uber spokesperson claimed that the change was to “ensure people are safe and comfortable using Uber,” and that it was made after “assessing our existing policies and reviewing recent feedback from both riders and drivers."

While the primary intention of the policy may be to restrict the concealed or open carry of firearms by Uber’s drivers and passengers for self-defense, if strictly construed, the policy would not even allow for the transportation of locked and unloaded, or disassembled, firearms.

Uber operates on a decentralized business model where individual drivers and passengers register with the service and use the company’s cell-phone application to coordinate for rides and subsequent payment. With such a decentralized workforce and diverse customer base, Uber’s blanket firearm ban to “ensure people are safe,” rejects the notion that individuals are best suited to determine how to provide for their own safety, arrogantly asserting that a uniform rule against firearms is appropriate for all circumstances.

It’s unclear how Uber intends to police this policy, if at all. If a driver or passenger were to violate the policy and carry a concealed handgun, it is likely that the only time this would come to the attention of Uber’s corporate office would be after an instance of armed self-defense.

Further complicating the matter, unlike a restaurant or retail chain that might bar firearms from property they lease or own, Uber does not own the vehicles operating under the service. In many instances Uber drivers are using their personal vehicles; which they are, of course, allowed to carry in as long as they are in compliance with state law. Similarly, a driver who lets a passenger carry in their vehicle would not be complicit in any violation of Uber’s property, but simply violating a policy of the service.

It’s unfortunate that Uber feels the need to restrict the lawful behavior of its drivers and passengers, particularly when the company so relishes its decentralized business model. In fact, Uber has actively fought the notion that it is responsible to its drivers, contending that their providers are not employees, but rather, independent contractors. This attempt to exert control over how drivers may provide for their own safety, while at the same time claiming that the company should not be held to the traditional standards of an employer-employee relationship is especially hypocritical.

The change in policy comes two months after an Uber driver, and Right-to-Carry permit holder, successfully halted a violent attack by shooting a man that was firing into a crowd in the Logan Square neighborhood of Chicago. No charges were filed against the Uber driver. Following the incident, the Chicago Tribune reported, “The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court.”

Further, recent events have revealed the significant danger Uber’s no-gun policy poses to its drivers. A mere two weeks after Uber announced the policy change, one of its New York City drivers was robbed at gunpoint by a man armed with rifle. The armed robber was apparently unconcerned with the company’s new mandate.

There’s an old saying in the gun rights community that goes, “I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.” Meaning that a person would rather risk the legal ramifications of illegal carry than sacrifice their personal safety. We’re not encouraging anyone to violate Uber’s policy, but some drivers or passengers might come to their own conclusion that they’d rather risk losing access to a cell phone application than control over their own security.

TRENDING NOW
Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Ban on Concealed Carry

News  

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Court Strikes Down Unconstitutional Ban on Concealed Carry

D.C. Circuit Court Rules in Favor of Constitutional Right to Carry a Gun in Public for Self-Defense

Former Bloomberg Lackey Comes Clean on True Anti-gun Agenda

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, July 21, 2017

Former Bloomberg Lackey Comes Clean on True Anti-gun Agenda

Back when Mark Glaze was executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and later Everytown for Gun Safety, he went to great lengths to portray his master’s anti-gun positions as moderate. Glaze used ...

Washington: Gun Bills Go into Effect

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Washington: Gun Bills Go into Effect

On Sunday, July 23, a number of bills that passed from the 2017 legislative session went into effect that impact your Second Amendment rights.

The Need for National Reciprocity

News  

Friday, July 21, 2017

The Need for National Reciprocity

A report from the Crime Prevention Research Center estimates that the number of concealed carry permits issued last year was the largest increase ever – continuing a four year trend of record setting increases in ...

“She Persisted” – Gun Owner Fights Unlawful “No Return” Gun Policy

News  

Friday, July 21, 2017

“She Persisted” – Gun Owner Fights Unlawful “No Return” Gun Policy

On July 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed that law enforcement officials in New York acted unlawfully with respect to guns confiscated from a Nassau County woman in 2012.  

California: DOJ Introduces Proposed Regulations Adding “Privacy Notices” to Firearm-Related Forms

Monday, July 24, 2017

California: DOJ Introduces Proposed Regulations Adding “Privacy Notices” to Firearm-Related Forms

On Monday, July 24, the California Department of Justice introduced another set of proposed regulations, this time for the purpose of adding required “privacy notices” to certain firearm-related forms.

New Law Expands Hunting Opportunities in North Carolina

News  

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

New Law Expands Hunting Opportunities in North Carolina

Law Promotes Sportsmens’ Rights & Sound Wildlife Management

Supreme Court Asked to Review Maryland's Gun Ban

News  

Friday, July 21, 2017

Supreme Court Asked to Review Maryland's Gun Ban

A group of Maryland citizens, with the support of the National Rifle Association, filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court on Friday seeking to reverse a Court of Appeals ruling that stripped some of America’s most ...

Grace V. DC Ruling Under Pressure: D.C. Appeals Concealed Carry Order, Gets Administrative Stay

News  

Friday, June 3, 2016

Grace V. DC Ruling Under Pressure: D.C. Appeals Concealed Carry Order, Gets Administrative Stay

Washington, D.C. has once again lapsed into its usual pattern of denying Second Amendment rights with a federal appeals court ruling on May 27 that effectively blocks a lower court order that briefly made D.C. ...

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.