Uber Vehicles Now Officially Gun-Free Zones

uber-changes-firearms-policy

The ride-sharing company Uber, who made it’s first appearance on Concealed Nation back in April after one of it’s drivers successfully stopped an attempted mass shooting with his firearm, has changed its stance on firearms in their vehicles. The exact reason for the policy change is unknown at this time, but it’s indeed a recent change. We have reached out to Uber for comment and are awaiting a reply. So, what’s different? . . .

Firearms are now prohibited in Uber vehicles, per their new policy.

UBER FIREARMS PROHIBITION POLICY

We seek to ensure that everyone using the Uber digital platform—both driver-partners and riders—feels safe and comfortable using the service. During a ride arranged through the Uber platform, Uber and its affiliates therefore prohibit possessing firearms of any kind in a vehicle. Any rider or driver found to have violated this prohibition may lose access to the Uber platform.

What an uber disappointment. Whatever prompted the change in policy, they were certainly (seemingly) more open to firearms back in April when they issued a statement after their driver saved the day:

The Uber driver had dropped off a passenger minutes before the shooting occurred, said Uber spokeswoman Jen Mullin. She had no comment on the driver’s actions other than to say the company requires all its drivers to abide by local, state and federal laws pertaining to transporting firearms in vehicles.

Another popular ride-sharing service, Lyft, has had a similar policy in place for some time. So if you’re a firearms enthusiast and need a ride, better call a standard cab.

It’s a real shame, too, because we stood behind Uber for their response to their driver saving lives. After all, had he not been there –and armed– people would have likely died as a result.

“As a reward for saving lives with a gun, no more guns for you.” – Uber

comments

  1. avatar Ken says:

    This makes Uber drivers easy targets and it makes the riders fools for using Uber.

    1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

      I loved uber. Too bad I’ll never ride again. I encourage others who have carry permits to cancel yor uber and tell then why

    2. avatar Ray Ficara says:

      Uber is not a cab service. It’s an App. The drivers have no cash. You pay via smart phone and that includes the tip. Only a brain dead loser living in a cave with no access to information would think they have money in the cab.

      Ray

      1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        I, uhh, know a few of those. In fact I helped one just tonight, to program thier universal remote to operate the DVD-blue ray player. Cause the kids lost the original remote and the simple, 5 step instructions where a little over their head. Also, they were unaware that the other remote, sitting on the coffee table, operated the TV. This person was trying to operate the menus with the little side buttons.

        NEVER under estimate stupid people, in my honest opinion.

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        Pizza places have advertised for years that “driver carries less than $20 cash”, and pizza guys still get mugged ALL THE TIME, and are sometimes killed when they don’t have any cash to hand over. Relying on criminals to make intelligent, in-depth evaluations in their victim selection process is a bad idea…

    3. avatar borg says:

      In ILLINOIS only real property can prohibit firearms. Additionally this policy would be illegal to enforce against an on-duty or off-duty cop in Texas due to Texas state law in much the same way NFL banning off-duty cops was declared illegal. I would hope for their sake that they do not try to push the issue.

    4. avatar borg says:

      I emailed Lyft which is their competitor and pointed out that enforcing the policy against police in Texas and received a response stating they will enforce it against everyone. Based on the response they effectively stated that they will willfully violate state law and demand that Texas police disarm like everyone else. I saved the email.

  2. avatar working4change says:

    cool made choice NOT to use uber extremely easy.

  3. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    Concealed is concealed

    1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

      My thoughts also. Is an Uber associate going to pat me down and have me pass through a metal detector? No? Then they can get bent. As an Uber driver or passenger you don’t work for Uber(except in soviet california) so I could give a frack.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Unfortunately for anyone foolish enough to continue to drive for Uber after this announcement a recent IRS announcement has confirmed that they are in fact employees of Uber, NOT Independent Contractors. They must therefore abode by Uber regulations as any employee (including me at my place of employment, unfortunately) must.

        1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

          Seems Guber is being hypocritical, and they were/are arguing STRONGLY that the drivers are sub-contractors (own boss). If they agreed drivers should be able to make their own determination on firearms in THEIR vehicles, it could be strong evidence supporting that argument. If they are demanding determination on what personal property is carried in the vehicles, then I would agree with governments stance on being employees

        2. avatar Dan says:

          That would mean they have to take taxes out of your paycheck as well as monitor time incase you go over 40 hours.
          You sign a waiver saying you are a sub-contractor.
          I was a Uber driver and signed up as a rider also.
          I have now quit driving for them and removed the appp for rides off my phone.

          If I do ride with them I’m not telling if I’m armed or not.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      If I was an uber driver I’d totally ignore that policy. What, am I just going to lay down and die because uber might fire me (after I’m already dead)?

  4. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Uber is headquartered in San Francisco, so I’m not really surprised. After they had to answer all those uncomfortable questions in April, they probably drafted this policy so it was ready to go when “the opportune moment” arrived.

  5. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    I carry concealed fo fuck their rule. None of their business.

  6. avatar Seth says:

    This is more unenforceable than the no tipping policy. I doubt anyone who actually uses the service and carries will change their behavior.

  7. avatar brentondadams says:

    Yeah, let me get right on that…

  8. avatar Bob109 says:

    Based on timing, the decision is probably political. The bright side is carjackers may be less random on who they target taking some pressure off us who will never use Uber.

  9. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Another Operation Chokepoint victim?

    1. avatar Benny the Jew says:

      Isn’t everyone?

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Indirectly, yes.

  10. avatar Paul says:

    As others have posted here and elsewhere. Concealed is concealed, especially when it pertains to the rider.

  11. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    State of Georgia, they can ban ya but unless driver sees concealed firearm on my hip and tells me to get out (chance of being spotted is next to zero) then it has no weight at all. If I was a driver, well lets just say they could unlist me but no way would I do that kind of job without carry. Better to have no job and be alive than the other way ’round.

    All of the above said, likely their lawyer/insurance did the calculation of how much it would cost if they got sued successfully and this way they would have some sort of policy they could point to as an out.

  12. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    Looks like I can still bring my coral snake venom dripping dagger or my custom combat chainsaw. Sweet.

    1. avatar bob says:

      Screw the dagger just bring the coral snake! Totally different head, totally.

  13. avatar Leadslinger says:

    This policy change may hurt them in their court challenge that drivers are employees.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/18/us-uber-california-idUSKBN0OX1TE20150618

    1. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      key statement from article: “But the commissioner said Uber controls the tools driver use, monitors their approval ratings and terminates their access to the system if their ratings fall below 4.6 stars.”

      Uber is making a decision about what the drivers do in their own vehicles. sounds like an employer to me. and if so, they owe a lot of $$ for taxes, SS, workers’ comp. I hope the liberal greed for tax revenue bankrupts them

      1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        +1

      2. avatar SpeleoFool says:

        That’s an interesting angle, and I hope they get nailed on it.

  14. avatar rsalaud says:

    Time to switch to Lyft. Uber has also done some pretty nasty things in the past (other than this).

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Lyft is even worse. They ban all “weapons”, and reserve the right to determine what they consider a weapon.

      Their reasoning is that “the mere presence of a weapon might make another community member distressed.”

      1. avatar Royal Tony says:

        “the mere presence of a weapon might make another community member distressed”. Very telling of progressive ideals. Don’t want to distress the cattle!

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      They might as well require a magnetic sign on the door of the car that reads “Driver carries cash and a debit card with access to several hundred dollars more. DRIVER IS NOT ARMED.”

  15. avatar donald Buckles says:

    Any second amendment supporter should just simply boycott the service.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      That’s the right answer, of course. Wherever possible, don’t give your money to people who wish to limit your natural rights.

      1. avatar DJ9 says:

        I don’t know the details of how these ride companies work, but I’d like to suggest that it might be an effective protest tactic to summon a car, only to tell the driver when s/he arrives (with great disappointment in your voice) that you cannot use the service after all, due to their rules about weapons (which you took the time to read more carefully while you were waiting for the car to arrive).

        After they get some feedback from their drivers on the subject, and total-up how much time is being wasted on rule-stopped runs, perhaps they would see the light and modify their policy.

  16. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    I’ve never used Uber. I probably never will – especially now. Should I ever have to, though, their policy can go pound sand.

  17. avatar ihatetrees says:

    Like someone above said, “Concealed is concealed.”

    Also, Uber’s policy statement (emphasis mine): Any rider or driver found to have violated this prohibition may lose access to the Uber platform.

    De-listing a driver via a weak allegation could, I suspect, be a legal problem. Sidebar: I’d PREFER an Uber driver with a CCW.

    De-listing a user in a free-state could, in a social media world, get the Uber driver some subsequent ‘bad reviews’. And what is a driver supposed to do if a lot of his business is off duty cops or taking people to a gun range? Decline the business and tell the customer ‘no’?

    Heck, even in true blue slave toilets like NYC or San Fran, a driver snooping/complaining about customers’ carry habits may cause the driver negative business consequences.

    There’s just too may bad outcomes and unknowns to enforcing this policy. Which is why it’s effectively nothing but boilerplate legal compliance crap for filing and forgetting. If Uber is around 3 years from now, not one driver or user will have been de-listed because of firearms issues.

  18. avatar Fred says:

    Good. No one should use Uber or Lyft. I used to drive for both for a while and they don’t really pay unless you take on high-risk activity, such as drunks in bad areas. Near the end I only “trained” Lyft drivers, which amounted to getting paid to have someone drive to me and talk to them for fifteen minutes, no miles added to my vehicle. At best a driver can pull the exact amount of depreciation out of their vehicle with an older car and then claim a loss on their taxes and get the government to give them some money, but most people are just pulling the equity out of their car and giving Uber or Lyft a donation to drive people around. Most of the drivers don’t get this and really don’t care about doing the simple math or that their tax preparer tells them they made a loss as long as the government gives them money, and they certainly don’t care that their activity is not covered by their insurance and would result in a cancellation if the company found out.

    As for passengers, if you don’t mind weird smells, uncomfortable social interactions, and crazy driving with someone that may or may not have had to pass a background check (for example neither did one on me, but I have a CCW/CPL). Not all the drivers are “foreigners”, but they’ll tell you after any time driving for these companies you lose your manners and will to drive safely. A few have told me they drive crazy, make the ride awkward socially, or do other things just to get back at riders who don’t tip, which is about 95% of them.

    Uber and Lyft are money-makers for the owners because the drivers bring all the assets, they carry all the risk, they do all the work, and the company makes all the money. Since the company makes all the money they company makes all the rules too, which should classify them as an employer, but they skirt that with a contract you sign that is identical to an employee contract but says “Independent Contractor” on it. But that isn’t as bad as the initial premise of the “service” which relies on bending the ride-sharing laws into Taxi territory and ignores laws in both categories. It’s an ingenious form of exploitation.

  19. avatar FedUp says:

    Dear Uber:
    My car is my private property, not yours.

  20. avatar Doofus says:

    So, as usual . . . we’re back to penalizing the law-abiding, while the criminals laugh at everyone’s face. One wonders what the thinking process is here . . . or if there’s any thinking process going on at all. Because . . .

    Mr. Criminal: “Sh*t, time flies – I’m late for that home invasion ! Better call me an Uber . . . Ah, nah, I’m fragged – can’t carry my gun on an Uber ride! Guess I’m walking !”

    Mr Law-abiding CCW: “Sh*t, time flies – I’m late for dinner with my buddies! Better call me an Uber . . . Frag, they don’t allow guns anymore. Guess I’m gonna have to leave mine in the safe. This sucks”

    1. avatar Fred says:

      The thought-process is always to limit corporate liability of it’s employees, I mean independent contractors. If they really were independent contractors they could do as they please and the company wouldn’t worry about liability.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        I am not a lawyer, so this escapes me – How is it that an employer that requires its employees to be disarmed as a condition of employment is not held liable for that employee’s death while on the job at the hands of an armed attacker?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Who knows? Ask pizza delivery companies. They put their drivers in harm’s way continuoisly – often, to inevitable result. And yet, they’re never held accountable.

        2. avatar Tim says:

          Because the driver is not being forced to be an über driver. Don’t like your employer, get a different job.

  21. avatar Frank says:

    Pfffft. I use Uber here in VA when I have been or plan to drink. I’m obviously not carrying at those times so as a customer that’s kind of a non issue for me. If I ever need to take a sober ride I’ll be carrying. Concealed means concealed…another non-issue.

  22. avatar Gunr says:

    Anytime the phrase “Gun Free Zone” is used it should also incorporate the three letters “EFC” (except for criminals)

  23. avatar Bob says:

    Seems to me there’s a leftie in charge who’s just acting out in an emotional tantrum. Because we all know it’s the guns that are the problem…

  24. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    It MIGHT have something to do with the legally armed CHICAGO driver using his firearm in a DGU. I don’t know or care…haven’t taken a cab or uber in many years(like 30).

  25. avatar Sammy says:

    Uber stupid. I will be awash in schadenfreude when Uber tanks.

  26. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

    Uber should outlaw Christmas tree smelly things hanging in their employees vehicles too.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    Attention all carjackers! Attention all carjackers! UBER drivers have been disarmed. I repeat, UBER drivers have been disarmed. That is all.

    1. avatar SpeleoFool says:

      I wonder how many Uber drivers have already been victims of crime. Could you sue Uber for disarming you if you were? I’d guess not….

    2. avatar Dustin says:

      I don’t know of any Pizza Delivery Company that fails to forbid it’s drivers from being easy targets.

      I’ve never met anyone who delivers pizza who does not disregard this.

      Uber can have all the policy it wants. Only fools disarm. All they’re doing is making it easier to kill their own drivers, just like the Pizza assholes…

      I could never take Uber seriously. Now, even less so.

      1. avatar Gunr says:

        There ought to be a law!……………..oh wait, there is!

  28. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    … get back at riders who don’t tip, which is about 95% of them.

    I just took my first uber ride yesterday. I didn’t tip.

    When the Uber instructions specifically state not to tip, why would I think that I should tip?

    Since I’m paying with my credit card and there’s no way to add a tip to it, am I supposed to carry around enough cash in small denominations to make the tip? That’s annoying. The Uber drives agree to a no-tip service. If nobody was willing to drive for the rates that Uber pays, then presumably Uber would raise the rates. If the ranks of the mathematically-challenged are numerous enough, then Uber may never need to. That’s not my problem.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      Lyft has in-app tipping and most people still don’t tip. Portions of Uber’s FAQ that includes the tipping topic has not been revised since Uber launched and some FAQ answers are outdated or completely wrong at this point. Kinda funny as a “tech” company they don’t even keep their FAQ updated. On the other hand there were certain riders that tipped religiously.

      If you want a laugh, a few decent points, and a ton of angry people there is an Uber drivers forum.

  29. avatar David Thompson says:

    Uber vehicles are now officially a me free zone.

  30. avatar CHP says:

    Better put a sign on the door. La. law requires a sign on the door of a business to refuse concealed carry entrance. I wanna see what they do with that. Putting it on your website is insufficient.

    1. avatar dh34 says:

      That car is going to look kind of silly with a TX 30.06 and 30.07 notifications in 1″ lettering in both English and Spanish on the side of the car.

  31. avatar Dustin says:

    They were unable to perform a background check on the correct person when I applied to drive for them. They applied information they found for a completely different person, not even a similar name or address, and disqualified me on that premise. Lols. Uber is utterly incompetent. I would expect this kind of stupid from them.

  32. avatar Grindstone says:

    Installing metal detectors in the car?

    Fvck ’em anyway. I own my own vehicles for a reason.

  33. avatar Bonega says:

    I think Uber is should consider this policy on a state-by-state basis.

    Here in Oregon, a CHL trumps no-gun signs for public places such as hospitals, most government buildings and public transit. It’s the public transit part that I think would apply. I rarely take public transit and I am not a lawyer, but if I can conceal carry on buses and light rail then I would assume that would extend to taxi services.

  34. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Did Dirk’s Girlfriend over at MDA claim this as a “Victory” yet?

  35. avatar Gs650g says:

    Keep your mouth shut and heater hidden. Concealed is what it means

  36. avatar Greg says:

    Uber expressing more control over the driver may be enough to seal the deal for those suing the company claiming they are employees and entitled to benefits and better pay.

  37. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Criminals rejoiced upon hearing Uber Nazi’s proclomation of a National Socialist gun free fire zone. Uber alles.

  38. avatar Paul says:

    I fail to see how Iberia can control the firearms behavior of the passengers when it does not own the cars. I doubt that it leases or otherwise controls the cars directly, and in any event a legal carrier is protected u derived the local law and depending on the state its constitution as well. I was not aware of the tax court’s opinion that the drivers are employees, which should bankrupt Uber. Any lawyers cafe to comment with knowledge?

  39. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    Completely meaningless and unenforceable bull$#it. Even under the most restrictive concealed carry restrictions in liberal anti gun states, Uber has no legal standing to declare property they neither own or exercise lawful care, custody, or control of as a gun free zone.

    2nd amendment and concealed carry law aside, what exactly do the buffoons who came up with this laughable “UBER FIREARMS PROHIBITION POLICY” suggest for enforcement and compliance; first have the Uber driver search the passenger and any carry on items for firearms followed by the passenger searching the driver and vehicle for firearms? Yet another embarrassingly ridiculous liberal feel good restriction that accomplishes nothing other than assisting armed criminal predators in locating potential unarmed victims as defenseless soft targets.

    While I can’t imagine any circumstance when I ever need an “Uber platform” for transportation, if for unforeseen reason that changes and an Uber driver attempts to put me on notice that their vehicle is a gun free zone; or if an Uber passenger attempts to declare a vehicle I own a gun free zone, either scenario will elicit a sincere “&#@K YOU” response to such nonsense.

  40. avatar Derek says:

    I would be interested to see how this policy intereacts with stae laws that prohibit employers from dictating what legal to own items may be present in employees cars. Seems to me that enforcing this policy on drivers would be a violation of law on ubers part in those states and locals

  41. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    Completely meaningless and unenforceable bull$#it. Even under the most restrictive concealed carry restrictions in liberal anti gun states, Uber has no legal standing to declare property they neither own or exercise lawful care, custody, or control of as a gun free zone.

    2nd amendment and concealed carry law aside, what exactly do the buffoons who came up with this laughable “UBER FIREARMS PROHIBITION POLICY” suggest for enforcement and compliance; first have the Uber driver search the passenger and any carry on items for firearms followed by the passenger searching the driver and vehicle for firearms?

    Yet another embarrassingly ridiculous liberal feel good restriction that accomplishes nothing other than assisting armed criminal predators in locating potential unarmed victims as defenseless soft targets.

    While I can’t imagine any circumstance when I ever need an “Uber platform” for transportation, if for some unforeseen reason that changes and an Uber driver attempts to put me on notice that their vehicle is a gun free zone; or if an Uber passenger attempts to declare a vehicle I own a gun free zone, either scenario will elicit a sincere “&#@K YOU” response to such nonsense.

  42. avatar Janet Stastki says:

    I don’t read that they are back peddling. The earlier statement only said they abide by the local statutes. It says nothing condoning drivers carrying weapons. Mr. Zimmerman, I think you are twisting the facts to try to prove your case. In addition, go ahead and call a cab. Most cab companies across the country do not allow firearms in their cabs-for both drivers and passengers. This holds true for busses, trains, airplanes, etc. I guess for all of the scared paranoid people out there the only option is to drive yourself. Safest bet

    1. avatar Bonega says:

      Go back and re-read the article, without your mind-clouding bias. Ubers statement is quite clear.

      I don’t know where you’re from, but here in Oregon, public transit is not a prohibited place for carrying. Cabs around here must abide by public accessibility laws.

      1. avatar Janet Stastki says:

        I am from the very red state of Missouri. I don’t have a liberal bias. I belong to the NRA and am always behind the Second Amendment. I have a conceal and carry permit myself. I was only pointing out the facts. In Red Missouri you are not allowed, even with a very legal conceal and carry permit, to ride a bus, use mass transit, ride in most taxis. I was not criticizing the article, only pointing out that in many many places, one is not “allowed ” to carry. Facts are facts. All sides need to examine them. Like I said before, maybe if you’re worried, driving yourself may be best.

        1. avatar Bonega says:

          I see. It seems rather odd that you can’t carry on mass transit, a publicly accessible system.

          I don’t get public access space restrictions in any state, especially red states. Particularly when here in blue-ish Oregon I can carry in a school, a park, a hospital, on mass transit, in public universities and in non-secured areas of airports and law enforcement buildings. The way the law is written, I can even carry into a municipal courthouse if one of the municipal judges hasn’t said otherwise. That last one has been a point of contention, though. Not enough Excedrin at Costco for that headache.

          It might be that Oregon actually has a productive 2A PAC that has taken municipalities and agencies to court, or otherwise, for infringements. And it could be that most county Sheriff’s vocally give a crap about the bill of rights.

    2. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      Janet, thanks for your two cents worth of liberal idiocy and ignorance of life outside liberal anti-gun circles, that’s not a perspective anyone often shares in this forum.

      The majority of concealed carry friendly states don’t prohibit lawful carry on public transit or private carriers. Legislation in many of those states over the last several years prohibits employers from banning handguns secured in the private vehicles of CHL holders parked on the property of companies prohibiting concealed carry in the workplace.

      Most Taxi companies in concealed carry friendly states with a no firearms company policy for passengers don’t push the issue because of the adverse affect it would have on their business. Bus and taxi drivers don’t search their passengers.

      If an anti-gun liberal’s primary mode of transportation is public transit in just about any large urban area throughout the country, a gullible naïve anti-gun liberal would $#it if they only knew or allowed themselves to admit that public transit is also the favored mode of transportation (and target rich environment) for many criminal predators who could care less whether firearms are prohibited or not.

      The only way the ridiculous Uber Firearms Prohibition Policy can affect anyone lawfully carrying a concealed handgun is if the person carrying the firearm is foolish enough to voluntarily comply by submitting to a meaningless, toothless, and unenforceable policy.

  43. avatar jberger says:

    Go delete your account and tell them why. I enjoyed using their service when traveling, but as long as this policy stands I will not use the service.

    You’ll need to email: support@uber.com

    https://help.uber.com/h/3c38b128-d49d-4b7c-b66d-323b86d1568a

  44. avatar mike reed says:

    Florida has a law that an employer may not fire an employee for having a gun in my own car during work hours or otherwise. Punishable by 3x damages and lost and back wages. The State brings the charges and legal action. This does not apply to a leased company vehicle which I Drive for work. There are a few exceptions. Makes me want to be a Uber driver, get fired, and go for some big settlement! Go ahead Uber, make my day!

  45. Wait a minute.
    Uber…you can’t have both sides.
    You are either a software company, that has an app which allows people to contract for work in their private vehicles, thus avoiding the millions of taxes owed claimed by CA in employee taxes and such.

    Or, you employ these people and thus can push policy to dictate what happens within their private vehicle. And owe that millions of claimed taxes.

  46. avatar Richard in WA says:

    The reasoning behind this change in policy should be clear as day. It’s the near-daily news stories about a Lyft or Uber driver sexually-assaulting a fare. I am certain this is part of a PR campaign to improve their image of safety in the face of repeated driver misconduct.

    1. avatar Janet stasktsi says:

      Are you crazy Richard? How many times do you rationally think someone is sexually assaulted in a cab compared to the total number of riders? You talk abut he media hype, what about your factless argument? Statistics? Fear of what “might be out there/lurking” is what’s driving all of this paranoid rhetoric. Get an education and study the world around you.

  47. avatar Silver says:

    Carjackers and thieves thank you for your decision, Uber.

  48. avatar Retired LEO. says:

    Locally they solved uber problem, declared them taxis since they meet the legal definition of a gypsy cab. They either got a medallion multi passengerS & car inspection none passed so no uber

  49. avatar Doug Knaus says:

    In my state, Uber’s demand is merely a request, unless it takes certain actions. I wish its lawyers well in finding which state and the legal requirement. (It is HIGHLY unlikely that Uber drivers would submit to this requirement.)

  50. avatar Nick Kroehnke says:

    Concealed is concealed, gents. 😉 It’s my own business what I have in my pockets/waistband.

  51. avatar ArmedUberRider says:

    As Uber keeps stating, “it’s not a transportation company and it drivers are not employees of Uber”, therefore Uber has no standing to forbid guns in private citizens vehicles. As Uber does not own the car and the driver is not an employee of Uber they can not enforce their unsafe, unconstitutional, anti-gun policies upon private citizens driving other private citizens around the city.

  52. avatar Edouardo Dundas says:

    It’s not about cash carried, crazies look for safe targets of opportunity.
    Uber just pasted such a target on the door of every driver.
    ‘Bye, idiots. Scrubbing the app, never gonna ride again.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email