Uber Bans Guns

[Ben]

Uber has banned guns for both drivers and passengers. Previously, they followed local laws. An Uber driver recently saved lives with his CCW.

I'm curious regarding the legality of this. If they were a regular taxi company supplying the vehicles, I wouldn't see any legal issues. They're really more of a "clearinghouse" though. It will be interesting to see if there are any legal challenges.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/20/uber-banning-riders-drivers-from-carrying-guns/?intcmp=latestnews

[zxcvbob]

There won't be legal challenges, the rule will just be ignored.

[Ben]

There won't be legal challenges, the rule will just be ignored.

"Concealed means concealed" would be my first thought as well. I doubt I would ever use Uber, but if i did, and had to use my gun while doing so, what do I care if after that they 'prohibit me from using the app"?

[lee n. field]

There won't be legal challenges, the rule will just be ignored.

Most likely.  I would, as driver or rider.

[MechAg94]

It is a silly rule for a number of reasons.  The fact that is will not be followed is the least of it. 

[Tallpine]

What is "Uber"

[MillCreek]

What is "Uber"

The opposite of "Ober".

[zxcvbob]

Weeks ago, an Ãœber driver was armed and stopped a mass shooting.  This new rule is obviously a reaction to that; someone hasn't thought this thru...  Stopping a shooting spree before the maniac killed a bunch of people is a bad thing?

Or else they really have thought about it and their ideological purity is more important than the lives saved (because it was someone else's lives, not theirs) and they truly are evil.

Evil or stupid, take your pick.

[Jamisjockey]

I vote it's actually for lawyer proofing.  Now they can say they banned possession of guns for drivers and passengers and that they're not liable for people violating that policy.  That's pretty much why any business bans weapons. 

[Perd Hapley]

What is "Uber"

An amateur, part-time taxi/ride-sharing service, managed via mobile phones and such.

[SADShooter]

I vote it's actually for lawyer proofing.  Now they can say they banned possession of guns for drivers and passengers and that they're not liable for people violating that policy.  That's pretty much why any business bans weapons. 

Bingo. They want to deflect legal liability or media exposure/criticism.

[MillCreek]

I vote it's actually for lawyer proofing.  Now they can say they banned possession of guns for drivers and passengers and that they're not liable for people violating that policy.  That's pretty much why any business bans weapons. 

This is what is done in the risk management biz.

[zxcvbob]

This is what is done in the risk management biz.

So it is evil then?

[Jamisjockey]

So it is evil then?

Almost as evil as Human Resources.

[lee n. field]

So it is evil then?

yep, and what jamis said

[Tallpine]

An amateur, part-time taxi/ride-sharing service, managed via mobile phones and such.

So it means about as much as AT&T or Verizon banning the carry of guns while using their cellphones ?       

[Perd Hapley]

So it means about as much as AT&T or Verizon banning the carry of guns while using their cellphones ?       

Much less.

[cordex]

That it is unenforceable and done to appease lawyers is beside the point in my book.

I choose not to support companies who publicly reject me, whatever their reasons. If they say they don't want me giving them money, I respect their wishes rather than giggling as I try to sneak them cash.

[MillCreek]

Almost as evil as Human Resources.

Even risk management and legal bow to the Acme of Evil that is Human Resources.

[RevDisk]

So it is evil then?

Risk Management is about identifying risks and determine options to mitigate those risks. Legal can and does weigh in, but ultimately the executives make the decisions. Feel free to blame HR, risk management or legal, but ultimately the executives have to make the call on anything that's not obviously illegal.

I would likely make the same call. Make it against the rules for drivers to avoid the legal minefield. I absolutely would not say anything about the customers other than "Users must follow all local, state and federal laws."

[birdman]

Risk Management is about identifying risks and determine options to mitigate those risks. Legal can and does weigh in, but ultimately the executives make the decisions. Feel free to blame HR, risk management or legal, but ultimately the executives have to make the call on anything that's not obviously illegal.

I would likely make the same call. Make it against the rules for drivers to avoid the legal minefield. I absolutely would not say anything about the customers other than "Users must follow all local, state and federal laws."

Except they did, and it's no Bueno for customers either. 

[Firethorn]

Except they did, and it's no Bueno for customers either. 

Technically speaking, given that all the drivers are supposed to be contractors, they're customers of Uber as well.

I'd use the gun ban as yet another 'piece of evidence' in court to show that Uber drivers are actually employees, and thus need to be paid hourly and given benefits. 

[cordex]

I'd use the gun ban as yet another 'piece of evidence' in court to show that Uber drivers are actually employees, and thus need to be paid hourly and given benefits. 

Just so you could kill Uber for the gun thing?  Or for some ill considered social justice reason?

[Firethorn]

Just so you could kill Uber for the gun thing?  Or for some ill considered social justice reason?

Kill them for the gun thing.  I just know that California recently judged a driver to Uber to be an employee and not a contractor(for various reasons), and I disagree with that assessment.  However, the more control you exercise over your independent contractors, the more employee-like they are, and banning guns in Uber's contractor's vehicles is very much a step of control.

I also support holding any company that bans carrying of legal firearms for self defense responsible for the safety of their customers and employees. 

IE ban people from carrying and one's hurt by a gunman that illegally carried a firearm in?  The gunman isn't the one 'solely' fiscally responsible for the person's injuries.  The company is on the hook as well.  I bet in that case the signs would come down quick.

[Ron]

Isn't the act of banning guns assuming or acknowledging some responsibility for driver and passenger safety?

It seems they would have been better off saying their policy is that everyone should follow local, state and federal laws, like Rev said.