• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Protection

Christinebitg

Well-Known Member
It's different, though, if the crime happened in their home while on Sect. 8, or, whether or not they were receiving the benefits, on Sect. 8 housing property.
I can't speak to how it is run in New Jersey. In Texas, it doesn't matter where the crime was committed or when.

Christine
 

Lissetti

Hufflepuff Honey Badger
Moderator
Author
My response to a potential physical assault by pax is to stop the car, grab your phone and keys and get out and away from the car. Call 911, tell them what is happening. Also inform them you are carrying a weapon, what type it is, and that if the pax gets out of the car and comes for you and you are unable to get away, you are prepared to use your weapon on the pax.

As for Uber/ Lyft......I can get a new job. I can't get a new life.
 

Fargle

Well-Known Member
To your first point, actually you don't own the property, but once your rent is paid, you do "own" the apartment for the allotted time.

In the scenario of an apartment lease that said no guns, obviously, no one's going to come and arrest you for having them in your apartment if they are properly registered, as that is your Civil Right. I'm not arguing that. You have not broken any laws in that regard. You would have, however, broken the terms of the lease agreement, and the landlord could put you out for it, and the courts would support them in doing that.

It's the same situation with Uber. It's not their car. It is, however, their brand, and their service of thinking drivers with passengers. They have certain rules for this, and flows drivers and passengers agree to these rules or they're unable to use the service.

Carry your gun if you wish. If you are abiding by the law, I'm not going to tell you you can't. Absolutely you can. If you are going to violate an agreement that you signed, however, you do need to be aware that that agreement can be pulled by the other party. Uber can deactivate you for violation of terms, and no judge is going to find in your favor for this.
Where are you getting the information that leads to your proclaimations? Nowhere on the US is it legal for a landlord to forbid renters from having guns or do anything to punish them for the same. NOT LEGAL. An illegal rule is not valid.

WTF do Section 8 rules have to do with any of this?

Uber policy prohibits drivers from carrying firearms. I used to carry pepper spray, but if you use it on a passenger, you likely will be deactivated.

This is nonsense. Uber does not have a car. Rideshare drivers own vehicles and are "independent contractors" on the Uber platform. At worst, Uber can remove a driver from their platform for violating policy. They can't sue you...they are not present. They can't file criminal charges, they are not a victim.
Uber will not deactivate you for using pepper spray. Just stand up for yourself. See my "carjacked" thread. In any case, it's not legal for them to make or enforce any rules against firearms or pepper spray. Ask them yourself to prove to you it's legal. They won't do it.
 

SuzeCB

Well-Known Member
Where are you getting the information that leads to your proclaimations? Nowhere on the US is it legal for a landlord to forbid renters from having guns or do anything to punish them for the same. NOT LEGAL. An illegal rule is not valid.

WTF do Section 8 rules have to do with any of this?



Uber will not deactivate you for using pepper spray. Just stand up for yourself. See my "carjacked" thread. In any case, it's not legal for them to make or enforce any rules against firearms or pepper spray. Ask them yourself to prove to you it's legal. They won't do it.
First, let me address the Section 8 issue. That was in response specifically to Christinebitg. I'm not going to get paid something said to someone else here with you.

As to my other statement, regarding landlords being able to forbid tenants from having guns, please allow me to direct you to several different websites regarding the matter.

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/what-limits-can-your-landlord-put-on-gun-possession

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2017/08/can-my-landlord-ban-gun-ownership.html

https://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2018/05/nj_apartment_developer_bans_guns_in_building.html

https://americantenantscreen.com/can-landlords-prohibit-gun-ownership/

https://arpola.org/can-say-no-guns-rental-property/

https://www.buildium.com/blog/gun-rights-and-property-manager-rights/


The long and short of it is this: unless the particular State the property is in has a law on the books specifically banning them from doing so, the landlord may assert his or her property rights, and these will supercede a gun owners rights, so long as it is in the lease that the tenant has signed.

You may not like it, but this is how the courts have found.

For the record, I don't like this little fact either.
 

Christinebitg

Well-Known Member
WTF do Section 8 rules have to do with any of this
You brought up the issue of constitutional rights versus contractual obligations.

The ToS pertains to a contract. If you don't agree to them, you don't get on the app. If you think that you can later assert that you're not bound by the ToS, you are mistaken.

Christine
 

Fargle

Well-Known Member
You brought up the issue of constitutional rights versus contractual obligations.

The ToS pertains to a contract. If you don't agree to them, you don't get on the app. If you think that you can later assert that you're not bound by the ToS, you are mistaken.

Christine
Right. And why is Section 8 relevant?

First, let me address the Section 8 issue. That was in response specifically to Christinebitg. I'm not going to get paid something said to someone else here with you.

As to my other statement, regarding landlords being able to forbid tenants from having guns, please allow me to direct you to several different websites regarding the matter.

https://realestate.usnews.com/real-estate/articles/what-limits-can-your-landlord-put-on-gun-possession

https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2017/08/can-my-landlord-ban-gun-ownership.html

https://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2018/05/nj_apartment_developer_bans_guns_in_building.html

https://americantenantscreen.com/can-landlords-prohibit-gun-ownership/

https://arpola.org/can-say-no-guns-rental-property/

https://www.buildium.com/blog/gun-rights-and-property-manager-rights/


The long and short of it is this: unless the particular State the property is in has a law on the books specifically banning them from doing so, the landlord may assert his or her property rights, and these will supercede a gun owners rights, so long as it is in the lease that the tenant has signed.

You may not like it, but this is how the courts have found.

For the record, I don't like this little fact either.
I read those (mostly outdated). What I get from them is that banning guns in rentals is explicitly illegal most places and quasi-legal elsewhere. In those elsewheres, you're asking for expensive trouble to ban guns.
 

SuzeCB

Well-Known Member
Right. And why is Section 8 relevant?


I read those (mostly outdated). What I get from them is that banning guns in rentals is explicitly illegal most places and quasi-legal elsewhere. In those elsewheres, you're asking for expensive trouble to ban guns.
How is 2018 outdated?

And the thing about Sect. 8 wasn't relevant to the exchange between you and me, as I pointed out. It was an offshoot of this between me and Christinebitg. You are the one that dragged it into our sub-topic, not me.
 

Fargle

Well-Known Member
How is 2018 outdated?

And the thing about Sect. 8 wasn't relevant to the exchange between you and me, as I pointed out. It was an offshoot of this between me and Christinebitg. You are the one that dragged it into our sub-topic, not me.
Ah.

2018 isn't the outdated part. It's that the articles were working with outdated concepts, the most important being that gun ownership has been reaffirmed as a civil right.
 

Larry$$$

Active Member
Can you load the gun with blanks so you can fire off multiple rounds in air without killing someone just to scare them.
 

SuzeCB

Well-Known Member
Ah.

2018 isn't the outdated part. It's that the articles were working with outdated concepts, the most important being that gun ownership has been reaffirmed as a civil right.
Of course it's a civil right. So are property rights, and the Supreme Court has upheld property rights as superseding gun rights. That's the point. Unless a particular state has actually made it illegal for them to do so, landlords do you have the right to say you cannot have guns on the property.
 

Christinebitg

Well-Known Member
Can you load the gun with blanks so you can fire off multiple rounds in air without killing someone just to scare them.
That just sounds like a bad idea.

If you need to draw on a passenger, you need to be prepared to use deadly force.

I don't carry a firearm. But if I did, taking it out of a purse or holster would be when my life is threatened.

Let's make matters worse. If you pull it out and it only has blanks in it, suppose your rider is armed. That weapon probably does NOT have blanks in it. You'll be the one who loses that shootout.

Christine
 

BCS DRIVER

Active Member
I will attempt to address carrying a gun as it pertains to ride share drivers in Texas.
I am a lifelong resident of Texas.
I possess a License to Carry in Texas.

Texas is a Castle Doctrine State and a Stand Your Ground state.
Castle Doctrine: Your home is your castle. This extends to a vehicle owned by you. You may carry a loaded handgun, within reach, in both of these places without fear of prosecution.
Stand Your Ground: If presented with a life threatening or fear of imminent bodily harm situation a person has no duty to retreat. Defensive measures, including deadly force, are allowed under these circumstances without fear of prosecution, both criminal and civil.

These pertain to licensed and non licensed citizens. In years past it was a violation of law for a licensed person to not reveal to a peace officer when, if stopped by them, that you were armed. This law has changed whereby there is no duty to inform. Please note I said licensed. In the case of non-licensed I have no knowledge since it does not apply to me.

A prohibition by any company or corporation that says their employees/contractors/partners may not possess a handgun at their place of work ( their car in this case) does not trump state law and cannot result in prosecution by law enforcement. It can, and likely will, result in their dismissal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/30/uber-driver-florida-fatally-shoots-man-who-threatened-him/1142088002/

I doubt this driver is still driving for UBER. But he is alive.

My recommendation for any driver wishing to carry a handgun while on line and accepting rides:
1. Carry it on your person. Don't have it in the glove box or center console.
2. Why #1? If confronted with a violent situation with a pax pull over, take keys, you have the handgun already, get out of your vehicle, call 911.
3. If the pax gets out and then threatens to kill you or threatens imminent body harm you now have the justifiable means to defend yourself.

As for myself personally, I'd much rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 

Fargle

Well-Known Member
Of course it's a civil right. So are property rights, and the Supreme Court has upheld property rights as superseding gun rights. That's the point. Unless a particular state has actually made it illegal for them to do so, landlords do you have the right to say you cannot have guns on the property.
Property rights mean freely exchanging property with other people. For example: I give you X dollars and you give me Y boxes of things. Civil rights, by definition, cannot be taken away unless the posessor is convicted in a court of law some crime. They cannot be signed away. That's all. Why is this such a tough concept for you?

A prohibition by any company or corporation that says their employees/contractors/partners may not possess a handgun at their place of work ( their car in this case) does not trump state law and cannot result in prosecution by law enforcement. It can, and likely will, result in their dismissal.
As I pointed out many times before, this power is contingent upon the rulemaker owning or at least renting the place of work. In numerous states, a worker's car parked in an employer's parking facilities is immune to such rules provided the guns are securely stowed.

An Uber driver's car doesn't even approach that scenario. The car is always on public property or areas where a random member of the public would be free to carry concealed arms provided that a permit, if required, is also carried. Uber and Lyft have the same rights to dictate weapons policy as my day job employer (I work at home) does; that is, none at all. But neither company will admit this nor will they tell you why their stance is correct other than by resorting to circular logic.
 

SuzeCB

Well-Known Member
Property rights mean freely exchanging property with other people. For example: I give you X dollars and you give me Y boxes of things. Civil rights, by definition, cannot be taken away unless the posessor is convicted in a court of law some crime. They cannot be signed away. That's all. Why is this such a tough concept for you?



As I pointed out many times before, this power is contingent upon the rulemaker owning or at least renting the place of work. In numerous states, a worker's car parked in an employer's parking facilities is immune to such rules provided the guns are securely stowed.

An Uber driver's car doesn't even approach that scenario. The car is always on public property or areas where a random member of the public would be free to carry concealed arms provided that a permit, if required, is also carried. Uber and Lyft have the same rights to dictate weapons policy as my day job employer (I work at home) does; that is, none at all. But neither company will admit this nor will they tell you why their stance is correct other than by resorting to circular logic.
You must be right. You are just so much smarter than not only me, but also all of those judges and lawyers and lawmakers. Maybe you should run for King. :rolleyes:
 

tjuber

Member
When you take the CCW course there is a lengthy part of the course that goes over the legality of self-protection and the bottom line is that unless your life is in real danger, you will be the one who goes to jail if you use your gun. Someone can beat the shit out of you and if you shoot them, you are in trouble.

Something to keep in mind.
That is NOT true, if someone is beating the shit out of you, you have every right to defend yourself ( just don't shoot them in the back). Just find a good self defense lawyer, and carry self defense insurance if you have CCW.
 

Christinebitg

Well-Known Member
Why is this such a tough concept for you?
I have free speech guaranteed to me by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But I signed an employment agreement with my previous employer, a Fortune 500 company. It says I can't contact their employees for a year, for the purpose of recruiting them to a new company.

If I violate that agreement with them, they can (and would) sue the daylights out of me. And they would win a large monetary judgement.

Do you see any similarities there?

Christine
 

Fargle

Well-Known Member
I have free speech guaranteed to me by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But I signed an employment agreement with my previous employer, a Fortune 500 company. It says I can't contact their employees for a year, for the purpose of recruiting them to a new company.

If I violate that agreement with them, they can (and would) sue the daylights out of me. And they would win a large monetary judgement.

Do you see any similarities there?

Christine
That's a non-compete clause and is usually illegal.

You must be right. You are just so much smarter than not only me, but also all of those judges and lawyers and lawmakers. Maybe you should run for King. :rolleyes:
The fact you trotted out that strawman tells me you ran out of other arguments. There's nothing magic about this. All you need is good reading comprehension and a solid grounding in logic.
 

reg barclay

Well-Known Member
Moderator
You must be right. You are just so much smarter than not only me, but also all of those judges and lawyers and lawmakers.
Have judges and lawmakers actually decided that Ubers' policy in this regard is legal and/or constitutional, or is it just that their policy has never been challenged? This is a genuine question, not rhetorical.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
U San Francisco 5
Working4peanuts Miami 2
goodfella718 New York City 8

Similar threads


Top