Thursday, August 24, 2017

Lawsuit Challenges Uber Ban on Exercise 0f Second Amendment Rights in Private Vehicles

In 2008, the Florida Legislature passed the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008” and the Governor signed it into law. The Act protected the rights of people in Florida to keep and carry arms in their private vehicles. An Uber driver in Florida has filed a class action lawsuit against Uber based on the 2008 law. The lawsuit contends that it is acting in the interest of the class of Uber drivers. From the lawsuit:
All those possessing a license to carry concealed weapon or firearm and offering transportation services through Uber within the State of Florida from the date this Complaint is filed through the date class notice is disseminated, excluding Defendant; the officers, directors, or employees of Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of Defendant. Also excluded are those who assert claims for personal injury as well as any federal, state, or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned to this action.
The legislature made its intent clear. It is what the lawsuit is based on. The question is, how much can a member of a contract change the rules of the contract to require an abrogation of Constitutional rights? A Mississippi law protecting the rights of employees to have a firearm in their vehicle was upheld in the Mississippi Supreme Court in 2016. The decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit(pdf).

Here is the legislative intent in the Florida statute From the Florida statute 790.251:
(3) Legislative intent; findings.--This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen's lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law.
Uber announced its anti-Second Amendment policy after Uber driver John Hendricks stopped a mass shooting by using his legal concealed carry firearm. Hendricks was widely hailed as a hero.  The Chicago Police Department gave Hendricks his gun back after investigating the incident. Several Uber drivers have appeared in the news after using private guns to defend themselves and others.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


ExpatNJ said...

"Firearms Ban
Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms in a vehicle while using our app. You can learn more about our firearms prohibition policy here. [1] If you violate Uber’s firearms prohibition policy, you may lose access to Uber."
[accessed 08262017]

[1] "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."
[accessed 08262017]

There is an Arbitration requirement, which Uber might cite to try and quash the lawsuit:

"2. Arbitration Agreement [abridged]
By agreeing to the Terms, you agree that you are required to resolve any claim that you may have against Uber on an individual basis in arbitration, as set forth in this Arbitration Agreement. This will preclude you from bringing any class, collective, or representative action against Uber, and also preclude you from participating in or recovering relief under any current or future class, collective, consolidated, or representative action brought against Uber by someone else. You and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to (a) these Terms or the existence, breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation or validity thereof, or (b) your access to or use of the Services at any time, whether before or after the date you agreed to the Terms, will be settled by binding arbitration between you and Uber, and not in a court of law. You acknowledge and agree you and Uber are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class action or representative proceeding. Unless both you and Uber otherwise agree in writing, any arbitration will be conducted only on an individual basis and not in a class, collective, consolidated, or representative proceeding."

For those who wish to let Uber know their policies are offensive to America:

Uber Technologies, Inc.
1455 Market Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103-1355
Phone: 800-664-1378

Extensive detective work searching long text on many Uber web pages was needed to find the above info; apparently, Uber does NOT want to hear how The People feel about them. I shall NEVER use Uber unless it changes all these policies.

[NOTE: This is not - nor is it intended to be - legal advice. This message does not necessarily represent any political party, candidate, endorsement/non-endorsement of any public question, or any group, business, corporation, organization, or association. Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily my own.]

Anonymous said...

An Uber driver is no different than a quick mart clerk he needs protection at work.

Anonymous said...

I have made this point on numerous sites. The supreme court has ruled that no one can deny you your constitutionally guaranteed rights. One sided contracts that attempt to deny you your rights are in my mind unconstitutional and have no force or effect of enforcement. Uber has no authority to deny any one the right of self defense or self protection. I think they need to change their opinion of what they can do. we see this kind of control freak attitude/opinion on the internet. I don't like what you say or think so I wont let you say it. There is no law that requires me to please everyone with what I have to say and my thinking is my own. Under the first amendment I will say any thing I please. If I break a law I expect to answer for It, if I violate some ones opinion they can live with it and I'm not going to loose any sleep over it. I think Uber could be sued in a number of instances. for instance a pregnant cop goes into labor on duty and an uber driver is the only immediate means of transportation and she cant give up her gun. I can think of lots of situations Uber has no power to enforce their opinions. Not many uber vehicles are court rooms and if it is legal to carry it is legal to carry any where even in public transportation. There is no law that requires a person to own a vehicle especially in large cities many people use public transportation to get to work or move about town Uber qualifies as public transportation. I think someone will win a large law suit.

Anonymous said...

An incompetent attorney will never get you a decent settlement, they are incapable of totaling up the possibilities to could win the case. If you claim a dozen violations and win just one you win. almost all of the gun laws cases should include a claim for constitutional or civil rights violations and go for the big bucks. big wins get coverage and set precedent. you win a big case in one state and the other states pay attention. fact if you win just one you get everything you sue for.