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
Editor’s Note: I would like to point out that only a left coast San Francisco based company with it’s head so far entrenched up it’s own rectum would take an example of when a law abiding gun owner stopped a mass shooting and knee jerk react to it by enacting a policy that, if it had been previously enacted and followed, would have allowed a mass shooter to kill more people.
This is why liberalism is a mental disorder.
Take a look at an article I wrote when the policy by UBER was first enacted and it’s immediate and inevitable outcome:
Send this to friend
