The “No Weapons” Policies Are Illegal and Unenforceable

Carbuncle

Well-Known Member
You are more likely to be murdered doing this job than any other in almost every nation where the industry exists. Because you’re and independent contractor according to these companies they cannot legally prevent you from taking legal steps to protect yourself. If you are legally permitted to own a firearm, so long as you are in compliance, you cannot be legally penalized for this.

 

Driver_Down

Well-Known Member
Nice one carbuncle.

Personally I’ve yet to carry since ccw is practically impossible to get here in ca and I have a personal opinion about persons who generally like to carry knives they tend to be scummy type persons.
 

Carbuncle

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Nice one carbuncle.

Personally I’ve yet to carry since ccw is practically impossible to get here in ca and I have a personal opinion about persons who generally like to carry knives they tend to be scummy type persons.
At close range a knife is a far better option. My brother was ASF and I learned a lot about the differences between which weapons are most effective under given circumstances.

It’s almost impossible to take a knife away from someone without being severely injured and possibly killed. It’s much easier to take a gun from someone then use it against them.

I’ve dabbled in a variety of MA, including Krav Maga. You learn the best course is to escape but if escape is not an option my weapons of choice are knife, pepper spray, thick rubber baton, and gun in that order.

I’ve had a lot of different weapons pulled on me. Guns are usually used more to intimidate and power trip. But when someone pulls a knife or bat I’m usually more concerned because those types tend to be less predictable and more unstable. And when someone fires a shot at a person they usually run or move away but when someone tries to stab you they’re right on you and keep slashing and jabbing.

You can easily punch 20 holes in someone in just a few seconds. That’s quite an advantage.

Consider also that cops miss their target 70-80% of the time, even at close range.

So far this year several Uber and Lyft drivers have been murdered and many more have been assaulted.
 

To Mega Therion

Well-Known Member
Yes, consider your position and that of the pax. How are you going to shoot someone in the seat behind you? However, you can stab someone behind you using a reverse grip.
 

Carbuncle

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Nothing illegal about it at all.
Yes it is. Both companies have been successfully sued for deactivating drivers who had legal weapons.

Because these companies insist we’re contractors they can’t tell us we can’t take steps to protect ourselves, in what is the deadliest industry in the nation regarding workplace homicides, without risking litigation. They just know they’ll get away with it more often than not.

In this case the lawyers didn’t do very good research because they could have easily proven that drivers’ lives are continually at imminent risk. Since this was tossed several drivers in the US alone have been murdered, including a pregnant Lyft driver in AZ this year:


READ THIS:

 

Demon

Well-Known Member
Yes it is. Both companies have been successfully sued for deactivating drivers who had legal weapons.

Because these companies insist we’re contractors they can’t tell us we can’t take steps to protect ourselves, in what is the deadliest industry in the nation regarding workplace homicides, without risking litigation. They just know they’ll get away with it more often than not.

In this case the lawyers didn’t do very good research because they could have easily proven that drivers’ lives are continually at imminent risk. Since this was tossed several drivers in the US alone have been murdered, including a pregnant Lyft driver in AZ this year:


READ THIS:

The article you posted agrees that there's nothing illegal about drivers voluntarily agreeing not to be armed while on the platform.
 

Carbuncle

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
The article you posted agrees that there's nothing illegal about drivers voluntarily agreeing not to be armed while on the platform.
If that’s what you got out of the article you didn’t read it critically.

The judge tossed it - without prejudice, meaning they could refile - because they failed to prove injury or imminent threat. This means the lawyers the driver retained did a ? job on their research and failed to present all the evidence proving drivers are ALWAYS at imminent threat working in the deadliest job in the nation and most of the world.

It really isn’t difficult to prove how dangerous this job is.

The lawyers also failed to point out that the contract that inexperienced, untrained, uneducated drivers are agreeing to is a contract of adhesion and not an independent contractor agreement.

It’s utterly baffling how many bad lawyers there are in this country. But this was Florida so I’m not as surprised.
 

Korean Ant

Well-Known Member
The LORD is my light and my salvation-- whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life-- of whom shall I be afraid?
 

Carbuncle

Well-Known Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
If that’s what you got out of the article you didn’t read it critically.

The judge tossed it - without prejudice, meaning they could refile - because they failed to prove injury or imminent threat. This means the lawyers the driver retained did a ? job on their research and failed to present all the evidence proving drivers are ALWAYS at imminent threat working in the deadliest job in the nation and most of the world.

It really isn’t difficult to prove how dangerous this job is.

The lawyers also failed to point out that the contract that inexperienced, untrained, uneducated drivers are agreeing to is a contract of adhesion and not an independent contractor agreement.

It’s utterly baffling how many bad lawyers there are in this country. But this was Florida so I’m not as surprised.
BTW, I emailed the judge’s office to express my disappointment in the decision and included government statistics and an article proving how incredibly dangerous and high risk the job is.

Everyone should do the same.

The whole reason we’re getting hosed is because so few people fight back.

Cowards always lose.
 

Chocoholic

Well-Known Member
I read the docs that have been linked in the above discussion, but I didn't see anything that supports the position that U/L can't prohibit drivers carrying legal weapons. The class action lawsuit tossed the case because it was a "what if", not an "I was fired" positiion by the driver that brought the suit. The data sheet has stats and suggestions on what to do, but didn't say anything about the policy's legality. So, unless you want to be the test case in CA, then follow the policy.

I'm not saying that U/L can or can't do it, I'm only saying that there's nothing shown so far here to support that position.

Having said that, my opinion is that if you feel safer with a legal weapon in the car, do it. Have it, but don't brandish it and don't even say it's there. Better to ask forgiveness than permission. Better still to be still alive to do so! For the record, as I've said so many times before, IANAL.
 

JustStef

Well-Known Member
The question is the way we are presented the contracts and subsequent updates is it legal, reasonable that drivers know what they are agreeing too? After all there is no lawyer for the driver or any kind of representation before they have to agree in order to work. It wouldn't hold up in court. In fact, I don't think much of thier contracts would pass because the average driver is "signing " under financial duress.
 

Demon

Well-Known Member
If that’s what you got out of the article you didn’t read it critically.

The judge tossed it - without prejudice, meaning they could refile - because they failed to prove injury or imminent threat. This means the lawyers the driver retained did a ? job on their research and failed to present all the evidence proving drivers are ALWAYS at imminent threat working in the deadliest job in the nation and most of the world.

It really isn’t difficult to prove how dangerous this job is.

The lawyers also failed to point out that the contract that inexperienced, untrained, uneducated drivers are agreeing to is a contract of adhesion and not an independent contractor agreement.

It’s utterly baffling how many bad lawyers there are in this country. But this was Florida so I’m not as surprised.
I did read it critically, it looks like you really don't understand the issue here.
Post automatically merged:

The question is the way we are presented the contracts and subsequent updates is it legal, reasonable that drivers know what they are agreeing too? After all there is no lawyer for the driver or any kind of representation before they have to agree in order to work. It wouldn't hold up in court. In fact, I don't think much of thier contracts would pass because the average driver is "signing " under financial duress.
Any driver can have a lawyer read over the contract and advise them before they sign.
 

Coaststarlight

Well-Known Member
No weapons policy:

Outcome 1- Obey the policy: Loose life, keep crappy rideshare gig, you are dead. Your story ends.

Outcome 2- Ignore the policy: Defend yourself with equal or greater force than attacker, loose crappy rideshare gig, live to find something else in life, dont have to have uber written on your gravestone. Your story continues...

Life's a game of choices, choose wisely.
 

Chocoholic

Well-Known Member
I did read it critically, it looks like you really don't understand the issue here.
Post automatically merged:


Any driver can have a lawyer read over the contract and advise them before they sign.
No, the article doesn't say anything about the legality or illegality of drivers agreeing or being forced not to carry weapons. Or, more specifically, the JUDGE didn't address it. The judge said that the plaintiff was not injured, financially or otherwise, so the plaintiff had no standing to file the complaint. Its the definition of a "what if" case. The court will only hear the case if there is injury to the plaintiff, and there was no demonstrable injury. Only after injury has occurred will the court hear the case and address the matter of whether U/L can prohibit legal weapons. Case dismissed!
 

Demon

Well-Known Member
No, the article doesn't say anything about the legality or illegality of drivers agreeing or being forced not to carry weapons. Or, more specifically, the JUDGE didn't address it. The judge said that the plaintiff was not injured, financially or otherwise, so the plaintiff had no standing to file the complaint. Its the definition of a "what if" case. The court will only hear the case if there is injury to the plaintiff, and there was no demonstrable injury. Only after injury has occurred will the court hear the case and address the matter of whether U/L can prohibit legal weapons. Case dismissed!
So it was posted and has nothing to do with the topic. Awesome.
 
Top