Uber and the 2nd Amendment

Uber has a clause in place that restricts drivers from bearing arms, and if a driver is found to hold a weapon during their work hours, Uber will deactivate that driver.

Now here's the issue. It is a constitutional right for any individual to bear arms. It's written in black and white in the second amendment, and as such, it means that every able-bodied individual is protected by federal law to bear a weapon.

In this instance, Uber cannot legally demand that a driver cannot bear arms. This is compounded by the fact that Uber's contract is with an independent contractor and not an Uber employee. This means that Uber cannot demand from the other company to negate their constitutional rights.

You might suggest that this is not the issue when traveling by air, where airline officials have the right to disallow travelers to fly with a weapon. This is true when the homeland security act is enforced, and this is enforced for anti-terrorism reasons. Uber cannot enforce the homelands security act on drivers.

So basically, it is unconstitutional and illegal for Uber to deactivate a driver from bearing arms, this is compounded by the fact that the person is not an Uber employee but an independent contractor, which makes the contract between the driver and Uber a commercial contract and not an employment contract. First of all the car does not belong to Uber, it is the drivers personal property, and as such, as private domain, is the right of the driver to protect his/her domain, so in drivers case, the right to bear arms is, in fact, a statutory right to self-defense when considering the fact that as a driver is endangering themselves every day by taking customers that have not been screened.

Which now brings us to the second part of the equation, the one that has been overlooked by everyone, but not by me. Uber screens drivers but does not screen passengers. You might ask what the hell am I talking about, well look at the business model.

Uber has a contract with a driver; it is a standard commercial contract where Uber offers independent contractors the right to access Uber's customer list and get paid a fee for performing a service for Uber. This means that the contract is between the driver and Uber, not the driver and the customer.

The customer is a representative of Uber, as such, Uber is liable for its customer's actions. Since there is no contract that defines the actions of the customer during a ride, it means that Uber is accepting on itself all the actions of a customer during a ride. Therefore, when a customer attacks a driver, Uber is liable for the action and as such can be sued.

You heard it here first! Every driver that has been attacked should now sue Uber for damages, based on the fact that the passenger is an Uber customer, not the driver's customer. This is strengthened by the fact that the customer pays Uber first, and Uber transfers the funds to the driver, as is expected in a contractual operation.

So now its out, Uber cannot demand a driver not bear arms, its unconstitutional, illegal and also endangers the driver when protecting the drivers own domain!

This is a very interesting point. Since we are actually employees of ourselves, or our own companies, can Uber actually set a limitation or constraint on us from having a weapon (legally). It is our constitutional right to own one and bear one at all times.

I don’t think it stops Uber from ending the contract. Uber can end the contract without even giving any reasonable explanation since we’re independent contractors.

That’s true Bick, but guess what. If the reason is that I have a gun on my person when driving for safety reasons and I get fired for using it in self defense. Then that is enough reason to claim the 2nd and sue the ass of Uber. Guess what more, I won’t be alone in this suit, I will have 500,000 drivers joining in. I live in the US not in Canada, I have rights and I have amendments to the constitution and no f-ing company is going to take my rights away. If Uber loves to defy the 2nd then they should move to the UK, where the Brits love them soooo much!! No guns, no amendments and no Uber in London.

@Steve It’s tricky. I guess we wouldn’t know about it until someone actually does file a lawsuit against Uber for infringing on their 2nd amendment right. It would be the lawsuit of the decade!

I think it will be more than one that sues, most probably a group, since a 2nd amendment case attracts a lot of people.

Here is some more, it is taken from a Florida lawyers website, and presents the case of the Florida Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008.

This law protects employees as well as individual contractors that have a concealed weapon permit and allows them to hold such a weapon in their car so long as they are near the vehicle. According to the law
it prevents the employer or client from inquiring whether an employee or independent contractor possesses a firearm and a search of the vehicle can only be conducted in the presence of a law enforcement officer.
However, what is most important is that the employer or client may not condition employment on whether the employee or independent contractor holds a concealed weapons permit or on the employee agreeing not to keep a firearm in their vehicle. It also stipulates that the employer or client may not terminate or discriminate against an employee or independent contractor for exercising his or her right to keep and bear arms.

Basically, any State Law that prohibits the use of holding a weapon is subject to 2nd amendment constriction. Also, employers and clients cannot restrict an independent contractor from holding or even using a weapon, legally. Therefore, in the State of Florida (at least) Uber cannot restrict drivers from holding a weapon and cannot terminate the contract of the driver due to a weapon holding issue.

Here is more about this, from the state of Wisconsin:
Thee Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The State of Wisconsin expanded this to include carrying concealed weapons. Since November 1, 2011, employees and individuals that have a license to carry a concealed weapon may legally take their handgun to work in Wisconsin!!!a

Hey Steve, thanks. I also found that most States have their own gun laws but are limited to how you can apply for a gun license. They do not restrict you to own a gun, just how you can apply to own one. Also, employers cannot go beyond the State requirements, and cannot under any circumstance control a subcontractor that holds a gun permit from holding it in his own workplace. Since Uber states clearly that Drivers are not employees, and that the cars are the drivers property and not Ubers, it stands to logic and reason that the workplace is not Uber but the independent contractors. in fact, Uber makes it very clear that they are only a technology broker, offering a connection between an Uber customer and an independent contractor driver. The driver as such is in his own workspace. In this instance, Uber cannot go beyond State law and cannot restrict a driver from carrying a concealed weapon and definitely cannot terminate a contract when a driver has one or uses one for protection purposes. The bottom line is that gun toting Uber drivers need to get together and as a group, take class action against Uber for violating the 2nd Amendment.

Uber can’t deny you from carrying a weapon if you hold a concealed weapons permit in your state. You have a legal right to carry and if your state has the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law then your vehicle is covered as your “Castle”. If they deactivate you because of that then you have the right to sue to get reactivated. I live in SC and Uber can’t tell me I can’t carry. I have a CWP & we have the Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground law. Check your state laws for the same.

You can sue Uber based on your state laws, but that does not stop Uber from deactivating you as our relationship with Uber is limited to an independent contract.

I do not think it will be a winnable case.