CCW while using Waymo or Uber

[elemental]

Both Waymo and Uber have policies that restrict your ability to carry while using their service. I understand the first thing is concealed, but has anyone thought about how to handle it or has anyone had an experience with them?

 

[9mmContagion]

Who’s going to know?! F them!

 

[FCRII]

Been riding pre Bruen in ride shares with concealed weapons. Don't care if I get banned when the only moment they will know I have it is if it saves my life. 100s of rides never had a problem and I am fully aware of tons of drivers with the same mentality & it violates their terms as well.

 

[Gawernator]

Both Waymo and Uber have policies that restrict your ability to carry while using their service. I understand the first thing is concealed, but has anyone thought about how to handle it or has anyone had an experience with them?

Nobody is ever going to know unless you literally flash the gun around. Worst case you get banned from the platform. But dude there's illegal immigrants with felonies driving around for Uber, you really think they give a f**k?

 

[RustVendor]

pretty sure Wolford v Lopez applies: publicly accessible private property cannot restrict legal carry.

 

[Gawernator]

pretty sure Wolford v Lopez applies: publicly accessible private property cannot restrict legal carry.

They can decline to serve you

 

[Hindsight]

pretty sure Wolford v Lopez applies: publicly accessible private property cannot restrict legal carry.

It's not that they can't restrict you, it's that they can't have a vampire rule in place.

I'm unsure how trespassing for a paid service like these ride share companies would work, but I have to assume it would amount to just an end to the service and future denial of services/being banned from future use.

More important would be I don't think an Uber will ever be an issue if it's still 3rd party drivers using their own vehicles, but I wonder if they ever get around to installing thermal scanners or such in their cars that could detect weapons. Not trying to give them ideas here and I'm sure there would be sufficient backlash from privacy rights advocates and groups, but I feel like that's more realistic for a self driving car like Waymo.

 

[RustVendor]

They can decline to serve you

I don't know if they can actually, legally at least. In practice the robots can do what they want and have no penalty

 

[RustVendor]

It's not that they can't restrict you, it's that they can't have a vampire rule in place.

I'm unsure how trespassing for a paid service like these ride share companies would work, but I have to assume it would amount to just an end to the service and future denial of services/being banned from future use.

More important would be I don't think an Uber will ever be an issue if it's still 3rd party drivers using their own vehicles, but I wonder if they ever get around to installing thermal scanners or such in their cars that could detect weapons. Not trying to give them ideas here and I'm sure there would be sufficient backlash from privacy rights advocates and groups, but I feel like that's more realistic for a self driving car like Waymo.

That's the thing though, them declining to serve is a vampire rule. It's the same as a restaurant not serving you for the same. That was the basis of the case is a CCW holder going about their normal day utilizing normal publicly accessible services

 

[Hindsight]

That's the thing though, them declining to serve is a vampire rule. It's the same as a restaurant not serving you for the same. That was the basis of the case is a CCW holder going about their normal day utilizing normal publicly accessible services

I don't think it's the same thing. The vampire rule was about needing to have signage expressly granting permission otherwise it wasn't legal to carry.

In Waymo's case, it's in their terms of service/use. Kind of like how Costco bans weapons on premises and violation of those terms means revoking membership, being asked to leave, etc.

Wolford v Lopez was relatively narrow in scope and part of why we still have to litigate May v Bonta for resolution/relief on the sensitive places issue.

 

[RustVendor]

I don't think it's the same thing. The vampire rule was about needing to have signage expressly granting permission otherwise it wasn't legal to carry.

In Waymo's case, it's in their terms of service/use. Kind of like how Costco bans weapons on premises and violation of those terms means revoking membership, being asked to leave, etc.

Wolford v Lopez was relatively narrow in scope and part of why we still have to litigate May v Bonta for resolution/relief on the sensitive places issue.

the only way it wouldn't be the same is if we don't consider Costco open to the public due to the membership requirement. But you wouldn't be able to have a term of service based on almost any other characteristic like race for instance. But as with most of the law, it's open to interpretation and up to the whims of the judges. I don't see May v Bonta going much further than it has because "sensitive places" have been a part of every 2a case since Heller. Every state has some form of SB2, ours is the worst because of the parks issue but Texas for instance restricts carry in Bars or liquor stores, restaurants that derive over 50 percent of their sales from alcohol, in addition to hospitals, amusement parks etc.

 

[Gawernator]

That's the thing though, them declining to serve is a vampire rule. It's the same as a restaurant not serving you for the same. That was the basis of the case is a CCW holder going about their normal day utilizing normal publicly accessible services

You’re confusing the government making a default ban under punishment of law vs a private org declining to serve you. They can decline to serve anyone they want and having a weapon isn’t a protected class like that.

But obviously in real life we all know it’s not something they can really enforce anyways.

 

[RustVendor]

You’re confusing the government making a default ban under punishment of law vs a private org declining to serve you. They can decline to serve anyone they want and having a weapon isn’t a protected class like that.

But obviously in real life we all know it’s not something they can really enforce anyways.

ok you are right, but they would have to specifically ask you to leave and there's essentially only a penalty only if you refuse to leave. There's no penalty for ignoring the sign as far as I can tell

 

[Gawernator]

ok you are right, but they would have to specifically ask you to leave and there's essentially only a penalty only if you refuse to leave. There's no penalty for ignoring the sign as far as I can tell

yes exactly, so basically who cares