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!