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



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

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.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

So basically, Uber is naive and dumb.

And Lyft had to one-up them by taking on a policy so dumb that even a first grader could probably see the stupidity in it.


----------



## PCH5150 (Jan 13, 2017)

I guess these companies are unaware of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

PCH5150 said:


> I guess these companies are unaware of the 2nd Amendment.


Does no one understand how the Bill of Rights works???


----------



## PCH5150 (Jan 13, 2017)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Does no one understand how the Bill of Rights works???


I do, what are you getting at? (Honest question, not trying to start an argument)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

PCH5150 said:


> 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 (Jan 13, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2015)

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._​


----------



## Blackout 702 (Oct 18, 2016)

*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 (Jan 1, 2015)

Blackout 702 said:


> 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 (Jan 13, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 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 (Oct 18, 2016)

a


Michael - Cleveland said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2015)

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.


----------



## PCH5150 (Jan 13, 2017)

True, but that is a different scenario than your private vehicle. But you have a valid point.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Blackout 702 said:


> 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 (Oct 18, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 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:
> 
> ...


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 (Jan 1, 2015)

Blackout 702 said:


> I read their terms, which allow me to carry as a driver in my vehicle while using their app, and I accepted them.


Cool - then you have a different agreement and supplement than I do.


----------



## Blackout 702 (Oct 18, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Cool - then you have a different agreement and supplement than I do.


Yeah, that could be. Or you could just read this thread. Which you started.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Blackout 702 said:


> 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 (Oct 18, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 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.



Michael - Cleveland said:


> 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.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Blackout 702 said:


> 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.
> 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.


Ah... will do - my apologies.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 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. Don't believe me - then next time you're at an airport, walk your loaded Glock through security and see what happens


The Supreme Court in the 19th century recognized a right to bear arms wherever you went. It is only 150+ years later where the Supreme Court argued that the right to keep and bear arms shall not call into question "long-standing" (modern) restrictions on that right.

For instance, Dredd Scott vs Sanford, the court ruled that a Scott was not a citizen, because if he was,


> It would give to persons of the ***** race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to *keep and carry arms wherever they went*


The 14th amendment extended rights to Blacks.

The fact is that the constitution is not followed any more, and the SCOTUS members just vote based on their personal opinions of the issues these days and do not really care what the text of the constitution says or what earlier rulings held anymore. They may make references to jurisprudence and text in their rulings but it is mainly just lip service.

And you are correct that exercising your right to bear arms is likely to land you in prison. But I think the fact is that restrictions on the right to bear arms are not constitutional. At least not according to the constitution that was written in the 18th century and interpreted under the standards of the men who wrote it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Trafficat said:


> The Supreme Court in the 19th century recognized a right to bear arms wherever you went. It is only 150+ years later where the Supreme Court argued that the right to keep and bear arms shall not call into question "long-standing" (modern) restrictions on that right.
> 
> For instance, Dredd Scott vs Sanford, the court ruled that a Scott was not a citizen, because if he was,
> 
> ...


While an interesting topic to study and debate, the Dredd Scott ruling 1857, the 14th amendment (1868), the second amendment (1791) - and your (or my) opinion on how the SCOTUS rules on cases today, have nothing to do with the topic here: whether businesses like Uber & Lyft can restrict drivers from carrying firearms while performing services under agreement with them.

I do find it interesting that you don't think the SCOTUS rules on cases today with due regard to the constitution.
The reality is that for 217 years the court found no basis in the constitution to justify any individual right to bear arms.

It took a modern SCOTUS in 2008 (DC v. Heller, reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago, 2010) to decide and rule that "_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed_." somehow grants individuals, rather than state militia, the right to gun ownership. In other words, it is only today's modern SCOTUS that guarantees the right that you find: that of individual gun ownership.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

PCH5150 said:


> I guess these companies are unaware of the 2nd Amendment.


_"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."_​That is a constitutional guarantee that prohibits GOVERNMENT from infringing (passing a law) that interferes with bearing arms.
It has nothing to do with an individual's right to say "you can't come into my house with a gun" - or a businesses right to control who or what they permit in the arena of their business.

Just as the first amendment does not 'give' us the right of 'free speech - it only prevents the government from interfering with free speech and assembly:
_"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
_​
I know everyone here knows this, but it's worth noting for those outside the US:
The US Constitution is not our law. It is the basis for US law.
It prohibits government from doing certain things (like making it illegal for the federal gov't to limit a state's ability to arm a militia, or for the government to limit or control the speech of the press). Congress writes laws, the Executive administers the law, and the Judiciary interprets the law. And while the constitution doesn't change very much or very often, the people elect and change the Congress and the Executive on a regular basis - meaning our laws are dynamic by design.
That's our system.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> While an interesting topic to study and debate, the Dredd Scott ruling 1857, the 14th amendment (1868), the second amendment (1791) - and your (or my) opinion on how the SCOTUS rules on cases today, have nothing to do with the topic here: whether businesses like Uber & Lyft can restrict drivers from carrying firearms while performing services under agreement with them.
> 
> I do find it interesting that you don't think the SCOTUS rules on cases today with due regard to the constitution.
> The reality is that for 217 years the court found no basis in the constitution to justify any individual right to bear arms.
> ...


Your math is off...
2017-1857 = 160 years ago that the court felt there was a right to bear arms, since the Supreme Court in that ruling listed carrying arms wherever you went as a right of a citizen.

Yeah 160 years is a long while... but the fact of the matter is, there used to be a right, and now there is not. The Heller decision affirmed a right to *keep* a *handgun* in the home but basically used language suggesting that all manners of other restrictions on the right are justifiable in stark contrast to that of the court in the 19th century which practically took the right to carry for granted.

You don't find it slightly interesting how a court in the 19th century uses the phrase "wherever" and the current court ruling basically said the opposite, that "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and says it should not cast doubt on bans on guns in "sensitive places."

If that was always the way the court felt, why didn't Dredd Scott decision talk about guns in the house instead of "wherever"?

Is it not obvious that at the time of Dredd Scott, it was considered, as the court put it, a right of the citizen to carry arms "wherever he went?" Or did the court in 1857 just make that up randomly? Maybe the NRA bribed the justice to say that in 1857 before the NRA was founded?

Back during prohibition, they amended the constitution to ban alcohol. Notice how they didn't do that during the "war on drugs?" That's because the government no longer is really bound by Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution in any meaningful way. Have you ever read Article 1, Section 8? Unfortunately, most Americans have not read the constitution. When I was in K-12 school we did not read the constitution other than the preamble and a dumbed down version of the bill of rights that in my textbook literally said the 2A was the right to form the National Guard (which is ridiculous since the National Guard did not exist when the 2A was written.)

Where in Article 1, Section 8 does Congress have the power to create a 2000 foot gun ban circle around each school (effectively banning guns in urban areas except transport under lock and key), or ban machineguns or ban guns on certain federal public lands like National Conservation Areas? Links between any of these acts and interstate commerce is so tenuous that if that is the rational you could justify any law whatsoever with a similarly tenuous connection.

Prior to prohibition there was no "Right of the people to drink intoxicating liquor" specifically listed in the bill of rights, but yet it was still unconstitutional to ban alcohol without a constitutional amendment. Isn't that interesting? People used to believe the government was limited to powers mentioned as powers in the constitution. Banning drugs or banning guns are powers not mentioned in the constitution. Just like prior to prohibition, banning alcohol was not a power of Congress.

Federal law defines the militia as all able-bodied males between 17 and 45. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 If militia strictly refers to state governments in the constitution, why has federal law not defined it in that way before?

And it is pretty hard for the militia to fight say, ISIS terrorists that attack (like in San Bernardino), or pretty much any other type of threat, if every member is forbidden to carry a gun.

If "the people" means state governments, do you feel that the 4th amendment allows the federal government to confiscate, without warrant or cause, any personal belongings from any person other than state officials?

Does the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government" only mean that state officials can petition the federal government or assemble, but the federal government is free to arrest people who form peaceable groups or complain about the government?


----------



## Blackout 702 (Oct 18, 2016)

Trafficat 
Excellent posts, and sadly the very definition of casting pearls before swine.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Trafficat said:


> Your math is off...
> 2017-1857 = 160 years ago that the court felt there was a right to bear arms, since the Supreme Court in that ruling listed carrying arms wherever you went as a right of a citizen.


My math is correct - Dredd Scott was a court ruling - not a constitutional amendment. The ruling was against Dredd Scott (who sued for citizenship - not gun rights). The discussion by the justices, while important opinion, does not have the force of law. The second amendment was adopted in 1791 - and it wasn't until 2008 that the SCOTUS settled the argument of an individual's right to bear arms. That's 217 years.
Great discussion here - thanks - but I believe you are seeing what you want to see and ignoring the facts (just as you probably believe I am  ).


----------



## Blackout 702 (Oct 18, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Dredd Scott was a court ruling - not a constitutional amendment. The ruling was against Dredd Scott (who sued for citizenship - not gun rights). The discussion by the justices, while important opinion, does not have the force of law.
> 
> Great discussion here - thanks - but I believe you are seeing what you want to see and ignoring the facts (just as you probably believe I am
> 
> ...


It seems you may be (intentionally?) missing every single point that you comment on.

1. Dredd Scott was a court ruling. Yes, a court ruling wherein grave concerns over conferring rights that every free citizen enjoyed were discussed.

2. The ruling regarded citizenship, not gun rights. Yes, and yet gun rights were so recognized and commonplace that they were specifically mentioned as being common to all free citizens. (Starting to see a pattern here?)

3. The discussion does not have the force of law. No claim was made that it did, just that the discussion put to rest any doubt about the obvious accepted meaning of the Second Amendment. (There's that pattern again.)

The entire point was that when court justices were discussing the most basic recognized rights of all free men, the ownership and carry of firearms anywhere at any time for any reason without any further qualification such as belonging to an organized group such as a state militia was clearly seen as being among them. You must at least see that.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Blackout 702 said:


> It seems you may be (intentionally?) missing every single point that you comment on.
> 
> 1. Dredd Scott was a court ruling. Yes, a court ruling wherein grave concerns over conferring rights that every free citizen enjoyed were discussed.
> 
> ...


It's as if you are not listening to yourself. Justices discussions - as you agree - are not law. Those justices expressed their opinions - but did not rule on the law of an individuals right to bear arms, so...
1. We agree: "Dredd Scott was a court ruling" denying Mr. Scott citizenship rights. (and if you'd like to go further, the discussion the justices had later, after federal emancipation, were indeed quite different on the issue).
2. We agree that the ruling in Dredd Scott was about citizenship.
3. The justices discussion points - which ensued under then current law - became moot 11 years later when the 14th amendment was passed.


----------



## Blackout 702 (Oct 18, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It's as if you are not listening to yourself. Justices discussions - as you agree - are not law. Those justices expressed their opinions - but did not rule on the law of an individuals right to bear arms, so...
> 1. We agree: "Dredd Scott was a court ruling" denying Mr. Scott citizenship rights. (and if you'd like to go further, the discussion the justices had later, after federal emancipation, were indeed quite different on the issue).
> 2. We agree that the ruling in Dredd Scott was about citizenship.
> 3. The justices discussion points - which ensued under then current law - became moot 11 years later when the 14th amendment was passed.


*smh*

The point of CITIZENSHIP became moot with the 14th. The obvious contemporaneous recognition of the right of every free citizen to own and carry firearms anywhere, at any time, for any reason, was captured in that recorded discussion like an insect in amber. Deny it all you'd like, but it is as clear as the nose on your face how society in general and court justsices in particular regarded the intention and observation of the 2nd well within the dates that you claim otherwise.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

> Excellent posts


Thanks Blackout.



> 3. The justices discussion points - which ensued under then current law - became moot 11 years later when the 14th amendment was passed.


The decision over whether a black man could be a citizen may have been rendered meaningless by the 14th amendment which took away any question in that matter.

But I didn't find a provision in the 14th amendment that took away the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms, as was affirmed to be a right of the citizen.

I think one misunderstanding of the concept of state militias that some may have can also be clarified by the constitution in Article 1, Section 10, which forbids, without consent from Congress, states keeping troops or ships of war in times of peace. That seems to me to be contrary to the notion of state militias being troops that are members of professional standing armies controlled by the states. Private ownership of war ships was common (which is why Congress has the authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal), but they were not authorized to be under state control during times of peace.


----------



## Blackout 702 (Oct 18, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Private ownership of war ships was common, but they were not authorized to be under state control during times of peace.


Private ownership of not only war ships, but the heavy armaments such as cannons and mortars and large quantities of (again, privately owned) gunpowder that they carried. This also shoots a hole in (ha) the argument that our bewigged forefathers only addressed the ownership and carriage of muskets, flintlocks, and the like.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Blackout 702 said:


> *smh*
> 
> The point of CITIZENSHIP became moot with the 14th. The obvious contemporaneous recognition of the right of every free citizen to own and carry firearms anywhere, at any time, for any reason, was captured in that recorded discussion like an insect in amber. Deny it all you'd like, but it is as clear as the nose on your face how society in general and court justsices in particular regarded the intention and observation of the 2nd well within the dates that you claim otherwise.


It is astonishing to me that you keep pointing to a discussion among justices in the nineteenth century - a discussion with no force of law and which occurred in the context of a case made moot by a constitutional amendment 11 years later - as some sort of precedent for individual gun ownership rights, when the very notion of an individual gun ownership right did not come before the court until 2008. So shake your head all you like, the fact is that if the issue had been settled in the nineteenth century, it would not have come before the court in the 21st.


----------



## Blackout 702 (Oct 18, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It is astonishing to me that you keep pointing to a discussion among justices in the nineteenth century - a discussion with no force of law and which occurred in the context of a case made moot by a constitutional amendment 11 years later - as some sort of precedent for individual gun ownership rights, when the very notion of an individual gun ownership right did not come before the court until 2008. So shake your head all you like, the fact is that if the issue had been settled in the nineteenth century, it would not have come before the court in the 21st.


Lol, ok. Thanks.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> It is astonishing to me that you keep pointing to a discussion among justices in the nineteenth century - a discussion with no force of law and which occurred in the context of a case made moot by a constitutional amendment 11 years later - as some sort of precedent for individual gun ownership rights, when the very notion of an individual gun ownership right did not come before the court until 2008. So shake your head all you like, the fact is that if the issue had been settled in the nineteenth century, it would not have come before the court in the 21st.


So a court decision in the 19th century mentioning a right to carry a gun wherever you went does not even establish a "notion" of an individual gun ownership right? Are you saying that the court, when they were talking about the right to carry arms wherever you went, was referring to the right of Blacks to join the military?

The notion of an individual gun ownership right preexists the United States itself, and was discussed in depth by many of the folks who actually wrote the constitution. See the federalist papers for example.

Also, there are state constitutions with very similar wording to the national constitution, and 19th century cases where restrictions on arms were thrown out based on those state constitutions.

An individual right to arms is not a new idea at all.

The first federal gun restrictions weren't until the 1934, which led to US vs Miller almost immediately afterwards. Even then, everyone believed it was an individual right. The notion that the 2nd Amendment only protected the right of state governments to possess firearms is the real modern invention that seems to have sprung up in the last 50 years or so. During Miller the court did not even question the fact that there was an individual right to bear arms. It went without saying. If, as you suggest, there was no notion of an individual right, then the court wouldn't have needed to assess whether the arm fell under the second amendment, because Miller would not have any right to arms anyway, thus making discussion of the specific weapon irrelevant.

The court only questioned whether a short-barreled shotgun was an arm that was protected. The court in Miller ruled that short-barreled shotguns could be banned because (supposedly) the 2nd Amendment only protected the right to own military-type weapons useful to a militia (and apparently the court was not aware of the extensive military use of short barreled shotguns). Miller was not a member of the state guard. The conviction of Miller was upheld, not because he had no right to possess guns, but because he was possessing a gun that, according to the court, had no legitimate military use and thus there was no right to own that gun.

Don't you think that if it was presumed that no one had a right to guns except government defense forces, the court would not waste their time quibbling over the type of gun involved? It isn't as if Miller was a member of a state defense force being prosecuted for serving his defense force with his gun. He was a bank robber.

And here again, the SCOTUS essentially contradicts itself from the past. In Miller the court said the 2A only protected military-type weapons, and in Heller they specifically said that the 2A did not cast doubt on bans on full auto weapons and only protected civilian weapons in common use at the time. Which is silly by the Miller standard since assault rifles are the most common military arm in the world (and sub-machineguns were common during the Miller era), and Heller's standard is silly by its own accord since in many countries it is common for a civilian to own an assault rifle as their one firearm that they use for everything from militia service to hunting, and the only reason they are uncommon in the United States for civilians is because federal law has forbidden the manufacture or sale of new assault rifles made after 1986 and made them tedious and expensive to acquire since 1934.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Trafficat said:


> So a court decision in the 19th century mentioning a right to carry a gun wherever you went does not even establish a "notion" of an individual gun ownership right? .


That's not what I or Blackout 702 said.
It was NOT a court decision. He was pointing out the discussion that justices had prior to ruling on a completely separate and different issue. The issue on individual gun ownership rights reflected some of the justices opinions at that time - a time prior to the 14th amendment. The court did not take up or rule on the issue of individual gun ownership rights until 2008 - two centuries later.


----------



## SatMan (Mar 20, 2017)

Have any of you seen the videos of what and airbag can do to someone sitting on one when it goes off? Just install a couple of them in your back seat and give yourself some time to exit stage left when they go off...LOL


----------



## wb6vpm (Mar 27, 2016)

Honestly, I find 2a arguments hilarious. To start, let me say, I enjoy firearms, I grew up with them, but I do not own any at this time due to having small children, I feel better not having to worry about my small kids finding them. When the 2a was written, it made sense. Nowadays, it does not. In the 1790's, everyone owned a musket. This was also the weapon of choice for the military, so it was a level playing field for a militia to stand up to a standing army and try to right a wrong. Now, here in the 21st century, a militia does not stand a chance against a determined invader, since they could take out the entire militia with a drone strike, heavy armored vehicles (tanks, APC's, etc.), or to the extreme, a tactical nuclear strike. None of these, the average individual has a snowball's chance in hell of ever owning or even in some of the more advanced methods, ever even seeing with their own eyes. The Constitution was meant to be an ever changing document as the country changed to be updated with the countries ideals, and beliefs. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was the biggest proponent of wanting a regularly scheduled review/re-ratification of the Constitution to ensure that it continued to represent the people of the United States.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

wb6vpm said:


> Honestly, I find 2a arguments hilarious. To start, let me say, I enjoy firearms, I grew up with them, but I do not own any at this time due to having small children, I feel better not having to worry about my small kids finding them. When the 2a was written, it made sense. Nowadays, it does not. In the 1790's, everyone owned a musket. This was also the weapon of choice for the military, so it was a level playing field for a militia to stand up to a standing army and try to right a wrong. Now, here in the 21st century, a militia does not stand a chance against a determined invader, since they could take out the entire militia with a drone strike, heavy armored vehicles (tanks, APC's, etc.), or to the extreme, a tactical nuclear strike. None of these, the average individual has a snowball's chance in hell of ever owning or even in some of the more advanced methods, ever even seeing with their own eyes.


Kind of funny to say, when you consider that the U.S. military has been fighting it's longest war in history against a bunch of peasants armed with small arms and improvised explosives. The USA has drone strikes and heavy armored vehicles, yet these peasants have been quite a thorn in the side of the USA.

And before the USA was there, the same methods in Afghanistan were used to toss out the Russians...



> The Constitution was meant to be an ever changing document as the country changed to be updated with the countries ideals, and beliefs. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was the biggest proponent of wanting a regularly scheduled review/re-ratification of the Constitution to ensure that it continued to represent the people of the United States.


That's why the founders came up with a constitutional amendment process. Shouldn't that be used instead of a constitutional ignorement process? You need a 2/3 majority to amend the constitution. At best, the gun banners have a razor thin majority. The whole reason for having a constitution is so that pure democracy doesn't let a simple majority trod over essential rights.

Even without a 2nd Amendment, Congress has no right under Article 1 Section 8 to ban guns, except in DC.

100 years ago if you wanted to ban alcohol you amended the constitution. Today, when you want to ban drugs or guns you just pretend the constitution doesn't apply.


----------



## mikes424 (May 22, 2016)

I would certainly agree with Uber and Lyft if we were employees and no guns while driving was a condition of employment. However, we are independent contractors. So can the no guns policy extend to independent contractors? I don't know. Any lawyers out there with an opinion?


----------



## Spotscat (May 8, 2017)

My question is this -- How are Uber or Lyft going to know if I have a firearm?

I'm not going to carry it on my hip like some modern-day version of Wyatt Earp, nor am I going to have a shoulder holster like a Hollywood undercover cop. It isn't going to be dangling from a string off of my rear-view mirror, and it sure isn't going to be out in the open where any rider can see it.

When the passengers get in the car, I'm not going to ask them "Hey, wanna see my revolver?", and if they ask me if I carry, I'll tell them that Uber and Lyft policies prohibit me from carrying a firearm while on-duty.

Whether or not I carry while on-duty... let me close with this - "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Spotscat said:


> My question is this -- How are Uber or Lyft going to know if I have a firearm?
> 
> I'm not going to carry it on my hip like some modern-day version of Wyatt Earp, nor am I going to have a shoulder holster like a Hollywood undercover cop. It isn't going to be dangling from a string off of my rear-view mirror, and it sure isn't going to be out in the open where any rider can see it.
> 
> ...


Good points, but personally I'd prefer to be allowed to open carry. And since I run other businesses that are gun related, I'd like to feel like I could talk to passengers about what I do without worrying that they will report me to the Uber. Every day the pax say "Do you do any other job than Uber" and every day I feel like I need to lie about who I am because if I tell the pax I am a pistol instructor someone is going to report I have a gun in my car, even if I don't (or they don't see one), and get me banned for life. And if I'm driving home from the shooting range, I shouldn't have to worry that a passenger will freak out about a spent shell casing in my trunk and get me banned. I'm also a reloader, so I save all my brass.


----------



## westsidebum (Feb 7, 2015)

Uber and lyft defy state and municipal laws when ever it is convenient until defiance is not profitable. If you live in a state where you are allowed to keep a fire arm in car and you feel it makes you more secure not doing so because of uber or lyft is stupid. Neither company has a right to bar you from a practice that is lawfull and constitutionally protected especially if you are an independent contactor. Use common sense and discrete carry and never tell a pax you are armed unless you are under threat of emminent danger. Nobodys business and you have the right of self defense always


----------



## SalenaWatson (Jul 28, 2017)

Thanks to all. This is very helpful fo me.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

FWIW, there are some court decisions that threw out laws forbidding weapons on public transit.

_"* To the extent permitted by applicable law"_

This may work against Uber. The car is mine. I'm a contractor who pays Uber for the use of their services. How is it in any way legitimate or legal for anyone to dictate what I do in/on my own property?


----------



## NoDay (Jul 25, 2017)

Being a person who has been licensed by Oklahoma's CLEET and OSBI to conduct firearms courses in accordance with our SDA, you can already see where I stand on the right to bear arms and ability to carry. 

The fact the OP was pointing out, is that these companies have rules restricting the use/carry of firearms while on-duty. They'll have it in our contracts, thus if you were deactivated for violating these rules, don't be surprised. If you carry while on-duty, fine. If your customer has no idea, even better - smart even. 

However, lets now look at the perspective of police interaction. DUI Checkpoint/traffic stop, car accident, etc. 
I am not aware of a single State, where a citizen is not required to inform police of the presence of a loaded weapon on your person or in vehicle. 

The potential hotspot lies with the customer. If they do not like firearms, they will report you and may deactivate your account. 

Does anyone know if Uber/Lyft insurance which says carrying while on duty could violate any guarantee of coverage? 'Such as any violation of driver-partner TOS will void this insurance policy.'


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

I've read those rules but i'm going to follow the example of management and break all rules i don't aggree with until i get caught.

over 2 years on uber, never got caught,

Now the insurance issues have pushed me completely off uber.

So these are the possible outcomes of your career if you carry or not

A Carry a gun, never need it, don't get fired
B Carry a gun, need to use it, get fired, never work again,

VS
A Don't carry a gun, *you die*, you never work again.
C Don'y carry a gun, never need one, don't get fired.

I don't see the downside to carrying... just saying.


----------



## Damien Snavely (Sep 19, 2017)

I Browsed through and didn't see... What about instances where the driver is off duty law enforcement?


----------



## NoDay (Jul 25, 2017)

Damien Snavely said:


> I Browsed through and didn't see... What about instances where the driver is off duty law enforcement?


If I remember the terms conditions from the weapons section correctly, it said something like 'except where prohibited by law'. 
So if you find a law that supersedes that of normal carry laws and states a LEO must carry. Then an LEO would be good to go. However, I don't know of any laws which state LEOs must carry while off duty. I know FBI agents carry all the time, no sure if there is a law to back them up or if its FBI policy.

An LEO could email these companies to clarify. Might take a few attempts before they actually read it through. 
these are my best guesses not an LEO nor lawyer.


----------



## Damien Snavely (Sep 19, 2017)

IN TX, officers are never truly considered off duty and many departments do require that officers carry when off duty... So it could be argued that they're required to carry... I suppose it could be something as simple as keep it concealed and no one knows


----------



## Damien Snavely (Sep 19, 2017)

Heard back from lyft... They say no even for law enforcement... Still waiting for Uber to respond but I'm expecting the same


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Damien Snavely said:


> Heard back from lyft... They say no even for law enforcement... Still waiting for Uber to respond but I'm expecting the same


I'm thinking there is a chance it won't be the same. Lyft is dumber than Uber.

My guess is that Uber will refuse to give a direct answer and just provide a link to the policy which describes "except as required by law" blah blah blah.


----------



## Damien Snavely (Sep 19, 2017)

Theirs did have the asterisk for "to the extent allowed by law..." I'm unaware of any law here in TX that gives them the authority to say I can't carry in my own vehicle


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Damien Snavely said:


> IN TX, officers are never truly considered off duty and many departments do require that officers carry when off duty... So it could be argued that they're required to carry... I suppose it could be something as simple as keep it concealed and no one knows


All that means is that a LEO isn't qualified to drive rideshare (because they cannot comply with the company's policies).


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Here is a thought: U/L have gotten around many laws by claiming they are merely a tech company, they just bring people together, they dont take responsibility for individuals or cars or anything.

They can enforce No Weapons on their SF premises, but I question the legality of trying to enforce that in a private vehicle. Not that I'm about to tempt fate, lol. But this seems like Facebook saying No Weapons while you browse.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

PCH5150 said:


> I guess these companies are unaware of the 2nd Amendment.


Where in the 2nd amendment says you can't get fired or deactivated for bearing arms?

Many companies have the same policy


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Kodyhead said:


> Where in the 2nd amendment says you can't get fired or deactivated for bearing arms?
> 
> Many companies have the same policy


Exactly - this isn't about 'law' - it's about a company's "policy".

It's not illegal to speak your mind freely, privately or in public (first amendment) - but that doesn't mean that a company cannot have a policy against profanity in the workplace. The same applies to the right to bear arms (second amendment). A company has every right to prohibit the carrying of firearms while performing work for the company.


----------



## URMomsBox (Dec 8, 2017)

I was browsing old threads and well this one caught my eye... My take on both lyft and uber.... F em...I will always drive with at least one firearm on me or in short arm reach, generally have two firearms. One apex for a right hand draw...And in the left door pocket in a Blackhawk IWB holster with a small towel covering it. i practice off hand shooting... And God forbid I ever have to use it... They can eat my arse and deactivate me... At least if I am successful in protecting myself...ill be around to be deactivated.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Both Uber and Lyft are being prudent. Since neither company properly vets thier drivers, have never met most of thier drivers and will give access to most anyone breathing........ a prohibition of weapons is very smart.

If a driver is killed.....there will always be another to take his place. If a rider is killed, they have to pay to make it go away.

I know two retired cops that drive. One Lyft and the other Uber. Both carry since they drive in the same city they once protected. The day may come when they have to use thier weapon. Which is better; being deactivated from a platform or being killed.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

URMomsBox said:


> I was browsing old threads and well this one caught my eye... My take on both lyft and uber.... F em...I will always drive with at least one firearm on me or in short arm reach, generally have two firearms. One apex for a right hand draw...And in the left door pocket in a Blackhawk IWB holster with a small towel covering it. i practice off hand shooting... And God forbid I ever have to use it... They can eat my arse and deactivate me... At least if I am successful in protecting myself...ill be around to be deactivated.


This is exactly why Uber & Lyft prohibit weapons. Zealots trying to be Rambo. Funny thing is that there are far more attacks on riders than drivers.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

It's a bad idea to allow cash payment. That would attract robbers. Robbers would probably be smart enough to know that Uber/Lyft/et-al prohibit weapons, and so would be emboldened.

When delivering pizza, cash is commonly accepted. But... you regularly return to the store whereupon you drop excess cash into a drop-box. That won't easily work with rideshare.



UBERPROcolorado said:


> Both Uber and Lyft are being prudent. Since neither company properly vets thier drivers, have never met most of thier drivers and will give access to most anyone breathing........ a prohibition of weapons is very smart.
> 
> If a driver is killed.....there will always be another to take his place. If a rider is killed, they have to pay to make it go away.
> 
> I know two retired cops that drive. One Lyft and the other Uber. Both carry since they drive in the same city they once protected. The day may come when they have to use thier weapon. Which is better; being deactivated from a platform or being killed.


An action can be prudent or smart and be unethical.


----------



## URMomsBox (Dec 8, 2017)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> .............Which is better; being deactivated from a platform or being killed.


I am gonna have to say being deactivated is far better than dead....I have seen a dead person a time or two in my life... Doesn't look that much fun....



UBERPROcolorado said:


> This is exactly why Uber & Lyft prohibit weapons. Zealots trying to be Rambo. Funny thing is that there are far more attacks on riders than drivers.


Considering you know nothing about me I am going to take this as a compliment and say thank you! Being I have received proper training and aquired the proper permit to carry... And shoot 2 or 3 times a month with an average of 200-300 rounds per session I would say I might be fairly proficient with my firearms.. I see no reason not to carry...if that make me Rambo Zealot... So be it. But I am going to guess you are an anti-gun "zealot" that thinks pees their pants when the subject of firearms come up. If so...good for you... Remember " please don't hurt me" rarely works.

We can still be friends though...wait... Before you answer that.... Do you vape brah?


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

URMomsBox said:


> I am gonna have to say being deactivated is far better than dead....I have seen a dead person a time or two in my life... Doesn't look that much fun....
> 
> Considering you know nothing about me I am going to take this as a compliment and say thank you! Being I have received proper training and aquired the proper permit to carry... And shoot 2 or 3 times a month with an average of 200-300 rounds per session I would say I might be fairly proficient with my firearms.. I see no reason not to carry...if that make me Rambo Zealot... So be it. But I am going to guess you are an anti-gun "zealot" that thinks pees their pants when the subject of firearms come up. If so...good for you... Remember " please don't hurt me" rarely works.
> 
> We can still be friends though...wait... Before you answer that.... Do you vape brah?


No vape. Long distance trail runner. Would kill me. As for a "brah"...don't wear one. Friends? Yes!

I am no stranger to fire arms. Retired after 30 years with a personal protection company. Here are some thoughts....

You are in a closed environment. Mobility is limited. Maneuvering a gun in such tight quarters is risky. Discharging a gun in a car is very risky. You are more likely to loose control of your weapon in a car. You may hit an innocent in closed quarters. If the threat is from the back seat-you are at a huge disadvantage if using a gun for defense. If the threat is from the outside you are a sitting duck with limited mobility. Shooting out through glass is also a bad idea.

Then there is the law suit(s) after a shooting. There has been no tort reform in our Nation, unfortunately . Thus the law suits will fly and even if you win, you still loose time and money in the long run.

Ride share is far safer for the driver than the rider. We don't carry cash. We are being tracked. Pax in the car more often than not. The list goes on. We are just not the best target around.

My vote would be to leave the armory at home and consider a few non lethal alternatives. After 2009, our company banned the use of guns inside a safe car. Carried but not used inside the cabin. As was chemicals. We went with electricity. In case of an attack from the outside, we used the vehicle as a weapon and means of escape.

Drive safe


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

UBERPROcolorado said:


> In case of an attack from the outside, we used the vehicle as a weapon and means of escape.


This one time in Iraqistan

Well let's just say they scraped the under body of the humvee into a body bag and leave it at that.

Vehicles ARE MOST DEFINITELY weapons in the hands of a skilled driver.


----------



## Expiditer77 (Dec 11, 2017)

If a rider gets crazy, abusive, or threatening, just crash REALLY HARD. Most pax don't use seatbelts. Then clear head, get out (keeping trigger finger indexed) cover the assailant until the police arrive. Render no aid. Then sue uber for allowing one of their customers to cause you to crash. Have a trophy made for your hard work benefiting the human race disposing of garbage.


----------



## buyanet (Dec 22, 2017)

As a cop in GA once told me: 

“I’d rather sit at my kitchen table looking for a new job than to be up in heaven saying dang I shoulda shot that [email protected]&$/&”


----------



## AMP (Apr 4, 2018)

Almost a year ago a uber driver was shot and killed in greenville sc. It is still unsolved. 
I'm not going to discuss the pros and cons for weapons in car.
I don't think if he had a gun it would of saved him.
We do how ever can put dash cams in our cars. 
I have one and I think it has helped calm the beasts when they start to get out of hand
I plan to upgrade soon. I saw one that the video is sent to the cloud and isn't saved on sd card. It also activates even when car is turned off.
In this day and time when you show up in court with video juries love it.
Now for protection:
1. Air fresher or wd40 sprayed in the face could give you enough time to distract passenger and get away.
I have both close by and neither are considered weapons.


----------



## ng4ever (Feb 16, 2016)

I had a Uber driver tell me once he was carrying. I thought that was awesome! Hey you need to be proactive about protecting yourself. Do I think he should of told me? No but whatever.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

ng4ever said:


> I had a Uber driver tell me once he was carrying. I thought that was awesome! Hey you need to be proactive about protecting yourself. Do I think he should of told me? No but whatever.


Back when taxi robberies where a thing (they have been way reduced since credit cards machines have gone in), i hear one of the warning signs that $*&%& was about to go down was asking if you were armed.

How the driver responded would determine whether or not anything would happen.

3 casual questions and a passenger could determine whether or not it was worth it to rob you.

"When did you start todayt?"

"How's your shift going?"

"Are you armed?" (are you guys armed) (Do a lot of cabbies carry weapons around here)

The answer that discourages anything happening to you are
1. A couple of hours ago
2. Meh
3. $)*% yes i am

What people think
1 "You only got paid for a handful of fares, less money in your pocket to steal
2 less money in your pocket to steal than normal
3. If #(*% goes down its gonna be a shoot out

Perception means everything when you are in risky situations.

Me wearing my Army ballcap while working could easily have discouraged many from starting $(%* with me, and i know it.


----------



## CJConnolly (Aug 2, 2018)

wb6vpm said:


> Honestly, I find 2a arguments hilarious. To start, let me say, I enjoy firearms, I grew up with them, but I do not own any at this time due to having small children, I feel better not having to worry about my small kids finding them. When the 2a was written, it made sense. Nowadays, it does not. In the 1790's, everyone owned a musket. This was also the weapon of choice for the military, so it was a level playing field for a militia to stand up to a standing army and try to right a wrong. Now, here in the 21st century, a militia does not stand a chance against a determined invader, since they could take out the entire militia with a drone strike, heavy armored vehicles (tanks, APC's, etc.), or to the extreme, a tactical nuclear strike. None of these, the average individual has a snowball's chance in hell of ever owning or even in some of the more advanced methods, ever even seeing with their own eyes. The Constitution was meant to be an ever changing document as the country changed to be updated with the countries ideals, and beliefs. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was the biggest proponent of wanting a regularly scheduled review/re-ratification of the Constitution to ensure that it continued to represent the people of the United States.


 he may have been in support of changing with the times, but the first few, I think seven, were made so they could not be changed. And if you really want to go that far, then why not extend the old method of freedom of speech to the new day. If you're going to restrict Firearms based on the fact that these Firearms we have today we're not available when they wrote the Constitution, then Facebook Instagram Twitter and all those were not available when they wrote the first amendment. So those would not be covered.


----------



## CJConnolly (Aug 2, 2018)

PCH5150 said:


> 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.


 there are no laws that's a a person who is legally able to obtain a firearm cannot open carry. There are cities that do restricted like New York City. To carry in New York City you have to have a special permit to carry. But in general as long as you are a law-abiding citizen within your state of residence, you are allowed to carry. There are still some states out there that do require you to have a permit to conceal carry. That is based on state law and usually approved by the local sheriff.



AMP said:


> Almost a year ago a uber driver was shot and killed in greenville sc. It is still unsolved.
> I'm not going to discuss the pros and cons for weapons in car.
> I don't think if he had a gun it would of saved him.
> We do how ever can put dash cams in our cars.
> ...


Use wasp spray. Guaranteed trip to the ED

Here is something to consider.

The state of North Carolina has extended the castle doctrine to include locations like hotel rooms tents and vehicles. Meaning that you have the right to defend yourself even inside your own personal vehicle.

North Carolina has also enacted a law that if a firearm owner uses his weapon in self-defense and does not have criminal charges pressed against him for that use, then no civil action lawsuits can be brought against the firearm owner.


----------

