• 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

Uber Policy vs. Lyft Policy: Driver Choices for Self-Defense

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
At dinner last night with a group of fellow drivers, while discussing the news of Uber testing 'Cash Payments' and the possible targeting of drivers for robbery, the topic turned to self-defense. Lots of opinions expressed on everything from firearms (and what is or isn't a firearm) to pepper-sprays/gels, stun guns, batons, etc.

Lots of opinion - and very little fact.

What usually happens after a discussion like this, drivers took to the internet to review Uber and Lyft's policies and read as much as possible. We found that both Uber and Lyft prohibit drivers from carrying firearms (guns) in their cars (regardless of local state laws) but that the companies have very different policies when comes to drivers carrying items like pepper-spray, pepper-gel and stun-guns/tasers.

Apparently, Lyft's policy prohibits drivers from carrying any weapon at all - but fails to define what constitutes a 'weapon'. Uber, on the other hand, defers to state and local laws. Which means that Uber does not object to drivers carrying whatever is legal in their locale (with the exception of guns/firearms).

Uber's policy as published on its website addresses only firearms:

Legal
Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy

Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*

Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.

* To the extent permitted by applicable law.


Here's a posting of a statement from Uber on the subject:
(from a well-known driver/blogger on the subject of TNCs/Rideshare)




And here's Lyft's policy, from their website:

Weapons policy
To keep our entire community comfortable, Lyft has a strict "No Weapons" policy. This means that if any driver or passenger possesses a weapon in a Lyft vehicle, regardless of whether possession is legal where they are, they will be removed from the platform.

We approach this issue from a community perspective — it’s hard to know what someone else is or isn't comfortable with. The mere presence of a weapon might make another community member distressed.

Lyft reserves sole judgement on what constitutes a "weapon."

It's an interesting topic that every driver needs to be aware of...
and if you drive both platforms - you absolutely need to know what's up.
 

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
I do, what are you getting at? (Honest question, not trying to start an argument)
Well, gun control issues will always cause an argument, but here goes:
"The Supreme Court (Federal Gov't) has ruled that individuals have a right to possess a weapon in their home."
States retain the right to control the use of firearms - including the right to determine when and where they may be carried.
 

PCH5150

Well-Known Member
Well, gun control issues will always cause an argument, but here goes:
"The Supreme Court (Federal Gov't) has ruled that individuals have a right to possess a weapon in their home."
States retain the right to control the use of firearms - including the right to determine when and where they may be carried.
Agreed. In Tennessee, they have ruled that the Castle doctrine extends to any place you legally occupy, including your car or even a tent. But I know every state varies.
 

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/10/22-states-now-say-businesses-can-ban-guns-property/
22 States Now Say Businesses Can NOT Ban Guns on Their Property

Starbucks Corp. made headlines recently when its chief executive asked customers to keep guns out of company cafes. His appeal thrust the company into local and nationwide debates about the role of private business and public gun laws.

Today, some 22 states have passed laws that limit property owners’ ability to ban firearms in vehicles in parking areas, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a San Francisco-based gun-control advocacy group.

Details vary by state, but under most so-called Bring Your Gun to Work laws, employers can keep firearms out of offices and factory floors, but they can’t ban weapons in the parking lot...
[ click to read the rest ]​


Businesses That Prohibit Guns or Have No Gun Policies
https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/businesses-that-prohibit-guns-or-have-no-gun-policies/

A broad look at companies that have policies against guns. Where possible the company’s policy has been included and an external link to additional information has been added.

NOTE: These companies have published a policy. That doesn’t mean they have posted a sign at each location or that they can legally prohibit you from carrying at their locations.

[ click to read the rest ]​

--------------------------------------

It appears to me that while the Supreme Court says an individual has a right to gun ownership, that few law makers extend that to mean that a business or property owner is required to allow someone else to carry a gun into their business or on to their property.

In other words - it may be perfectly legal for an adult to purchase and own cigarettes, but property owners have the right to say "No Smoking permitted on my premises".

I gleaned this from a blog post somewhere and think it sums it up nicely:

A business establishment can have a "no guns" policy, even in states where open carry is legal.

This is because even if openly carrying a gun is legal, it isn't a legally "protected status",
so businesses can discriminate on the basis of that status if they so choose.

Similarly, it's not illegal to wear a sport shirt instead of a coat and tie, but a fancy restaurant is allowed to exclude male patrons who aren't wearing coats and ties... Tieless-ness is not a protected status, even though it's perfectly legal.
 
Last edited:

Blackout 702

Well-Known Member
Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy
Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride. That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app.*

Anyone who violates this policy may lose access to Uber.

* To the extent permitted by applicable law.

To the extent permitted by applicable law, my right to carry a firearm is recognized by my city, state, and federal governments, therefore Uber does not prohibit me from carrying a firearm in my vehicle while using their app. If they do, or if they change their position, they can update and clarify their written policy.
 

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
To the extent permitted by applicable law, my right to carry a firearm is recognized by my city, state, and federal governments, therefore Uber does not prohibit me from carrying a firearm in my vehicle while using their app. If they do, or if they change their position, they can update and clarify their written policy.
Nope. There is no constitutional guarantee for open or concealed carry of firearms - that's why states write their own laws.

Since 'gun carriers' are not a protected class, property owners and businesses can choose to 'discriminate' against gun carrying customers. It's Uber's policy to not permit people to carry guns while using the Uber service. Both drivers and riders are, legally, customers of Uber - as we both pay them (according to our contracts with Uber). Uber has every right to deny service to anyone for any reason other than a reason protected by law (race, religion, gender, etc.).
 

PCH5150

Well-Known Member
Nope. There is no constitutional guarantee for open or concealed carry of firearms - that's why states write their own laws.

Since 'gun carriers' are not a protected class, property owners and businesses can choose to 'discriminate' against gun carrying customers. It's Uber's policy to not permit people to carry guns while using the Uber service. Both drivers and riders are, legally, customers of Uber - as we both pay them (according to our contracts with Uber). Uber has every right to deny service to anyone for any reason other than a reason protected by law (race, religion, gender, etc.).
100% incorrect. "Shall not be infringed". If you want to get technical, getting a carry permit is actually being forced to buy your constitutional rights back.
 

Blackout 702

Well-Known Member
a
Nope. There is no constitutional guarantee for open or concealed carry of firearms - that's why states write their own laws.
Yup. The constitution recognizes (note: does not grant, but rather considers it a pre-existing natural right and acknowledges it as such) my right to "bear" or carry an "arm" or firearm. If I am carrying a firearm, it has to either be visible ("open") or not visible ("concealed"). So yes, the constitution does in fact have a guarantee for open or concealed carry of firearms.

An argument could be made that none of that matters because Uber is a private venture and is simply outlining their terms of service, which as an agreement between two parties does not fall within the purview of the Bill of Rights for the same reason that there is no constitutional guarantee to "No shoes, no shirt, but you still have to provide me with service" amendment, except for the sentence added to the end of the Uber policy wherein they defer to "applicable laws," and it so happens that in my city I have at least three levels of law that recognize and protect my natural right to bear arms.

As I said, they are free to modify their terms, and I am free to agree or disagree with any future modifications, but for now, as it stands, Uber very clearly allows the carry of firearms by a driver while using their app in my jurisdiction.
 

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
And here come the 'arguments' and incorrect opinions.
It's too bad, too, because the existing laws are clear.

It is perfectly legal for states to determine when and where someone can carry firearms.
If it weren't, then it would be legal to carry them - concealed or not - anywhere you wanted.

Even the federal government and Supreme Court recognize that the second amendment does not guarantee an individual the unfettered right to bear all arms, anywhere at anytime. Don't believe me - then next time you're at an airport, walk your loaded Glock through security and see what happens.

So, you can argue the constitution till you're blue in the face, but you'll end up doing that from behind local, state or federal jail-cell bars.
 

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
As I said, they are free to modify their terms, and I am free to agree or disagree with any future modifications, but for now, as it stands, Uber very clearly allows the carry of firearms by a driver while using their app in my jurisdiction.
I don't understand why people pretend they can't read
(Uber's PUBLISHED policy on weapons is presented at the top of this thread)
... or that something doesn't apply to them:

14.2 Supplemental Terms. Supplemental terms may apply to your use of the Uber Services, such as use policies or terms related to certain features and functionality, which may be modified from time to time (“Supplemental Terms”). You may be presented with certain Supplemental Terms from time to time. Supplemental Terms are in addition to, and shall be deemed a part of, this Agreement. Supplemental Terms shall prevail over this Agreement in the event of a conflict.

By clicking “I accept”, you expressly acknowledge that you have read, understood, and taken steps to thoughtfully consider the consequences of this Agreement, that you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and that you are legally competent to enter into this Agreement with Company.​
 

Blackout 702

Well-Known Member
I don't understand why people pretend they can't read
(Uber's PUBLISHED policy on weapons is presented at the top of this thread)
... or that something doesn't apply to them:

14.2 Supplemental Terms. Supplemental terms may apply to your use of the Uber Services, such as use policies or terms related to certain features and functionality, which may be modified from time to time (“Supplemental Terms”). You may be presented with certain Supplemental Terms from time to time. Supplemental Terms are in addition to, and shall be deemed a part of, this Agreement. Supplemental Terms shall prevail over this Agreement in the event of a conflict.

By clicking “I accept”, you expressly acknowledge that you have read, understood, and taken steps to thoughtfully consider the consequences of this Agreement, that you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and that you are legally competent to enter into this Agreement with Company.​
I read their terms, which allow me to carry as a driver in my vehicle while using their app, and I accepted them.
 

Michael - Cleveland

Well-Known Member
Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
Yeah, that could be. Or you could just read this thread. Which you started.
Are you convinced that Uber and Lyft do not have the right to deactivate you for carrying a firearm in your car while driving for them? Why not test it and show your next rider and ask them to report that your carrying to Uber. Let's see what happens. Or better yet, go ahead and just write to Uber or Lyft and tell them their policy violates your civil rights and that you intend to continue to carry.
Let us know how that goes.
 

Blackout 702

Well-Known Member
Are you convinced that Uber and Lyft do not have the right to deactivate you for carrying a firearm in your car while driving for them?
I've neither said nor implied that. Uber has the "right" to deacivate my ability to use the driver app at any time, for any reason, just as i have the right to stop driving at any time, for any reason.

Or better yet, go ahead and just write to Uber or Lyft and tell them their policy violates your civil rights and that you intend to continue to carry.
Again, I never said that. In fact I said the exact opposite. It's still a short thread. Go back and read it again. It sounds like you missed a lot of it.
 
Top