Criminals are criminals precisely because they do not obey the law. What is the point of a new law?

Exactly!

The main problem here being that America has had these little prosthetic penises for so long that they've rooted deeply into the culture, like oxalis weed - impossible to eradicate without major upheaval.

Person in Europe: "Time to go to work I guess."
Partner: "Ok honey, have a good day!"

Person in USA: "Time to go to work I guess."
Partner: "OMG you're only taking a Glock? A bit light, don't you think? Oh that's right, your Uzi is in for repairs. Take my Kalashnikov, I've got a spare. Have a lovely day!"

Since I use them when I travel, and generally arrive on airplanes, and I do not check my luggage, I would not have a need to carry in an Uber vehicle.

If I used them locally, and wanted to carry, I just would, and not say anything. In my mind it is none of their business.

I think I like Uber, even with this rule, better than cab unions, and they are 1/2 the price. Therefore, I choose not to boycott Uber for this position.

I would agree that government's first and foremost responsibility is to protect rights and I would suggest that the Founding Fathers felt the same as evidenced in the Bill of Rights. Ultimately, any alleged failure or disagreement would end up in the Court system, but I think what you are alluding to (and I agree) is that the question is whether or not it should be a _civil_ or a _criminal_ matter. Where it concerns basic rights, I would almost have to say it is a criminal matter.

Agreed. If they remove our ability for self-defense, they should take on that responsibility and liability. I think that is good, and perhaps should be required by law. Is that going too far, to make that enforceable by the Government? It is the job of the Government to protect our rights against those who would take them away, right?

Personal choice. The more overt action is to declare that you are carrying and force them to deny you service, but the essence of concealed carry is just that and, most times, no one is the wiser. I don't think the decision to concealed carry in the face of Uber policy is a lack of integrity. Rather, it is a refusal to accept their abridgment of your natural right of self defense.

Did you carry a firearm on your ride? Now that you know their policy, will you continue to use them? I'm wondering if that becomes an issue of integrity. Or does the fact that they are inhibiting our right to self-defense (and by implication our natural right to life) justify our disregarding their policy?

Of course we advocate EVEN MORE guns, or rather, most places where we can carry those guns. The problem was not the lack of "gun-free zones." The "recent church massacre" was a "gun-free zone" until the murderer brought in his gun. Gun-control laws are not a solution, they are the problem. If the church members were armed, they might have had a chance to save at least some lives.

I'm curious to know where we disagree. Do we agree that we have a right to life?

That this implies the right to defend that life?

That this implies the right to equip ourselves with efficient tools to defend that life?

That guns are one of the most efficient tools of lethal force?

And isn't that the problem? "Gun-free zones" don't work against criminals. And making guns harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain will only tilt the playing field even more in the criminals' favor.

I don't think the problem is Chicago. Chicago recently allowed licensed (sadly) conceal carry. That is why the driver was able to be prepared when he needed to be. The driver was good, Chicago is okay. It is Uber that is the problem.

Interesting. I did not know this about Wisconsin. I wonder how many other states take this stance. I'm not aware of Texas being this way. It only makes sense. If your policy removes people's ability for self-defense, you should be responsible to defend them, and liable for the consequences of their inability to defend themselves.

I think private individuals should be legally allowed to make that kind of rule (i.e., no guns), at least applying to their own property (including their business). But perhaps this should be a legally enforceable remedy. Citizens are allowed by law to defend themselves; anyone who removes that right is legally obligated to take on the responsibility for that task themselves.

This also raises the question in my mind: Does Uber have that kind of authority and control over their passengers, their drivers, and their drivers' cars? Is the car Uber's property, such that it has the authority to make this kind of rule (and take on any liability)?

Oh, I agree with you. The question you pose is appropriate and thought-provoking: can a business pursuing its own interests within its terms of service dictate limitations on certain aspects of freedom, etc.? It's a very good question.

I would pose that in such a contractual relationship, the business may request to take responsibility for protection of certain basic rights such as safety while within the service of the business, but can not simply deny those rights. Thus if Uber chooses to ban self-defense, it then takes on the liability of providing for the defense of its customers. What say you?

If they want to enforce their policy, they can just cancel the Uber accounts of those who violate it. If they want the Government to enforce it, then I agree that they should have to post legal No Gun signs on their cars.

Regarding the free market, I hope this happens. I doubt there are enough gun owners to make it happen. I doubt enough people are convicted of the prudence of being prepared for self-defense. Most people are sheep, and trust that life is rainbows and safe, that something that requires them to utilize self-defense will "never happen to them." Perhaps a voluntary boycott will work; I'd love to be wrong about that.

I think an alternative would be to force them to boycott a willing paying customer like me. I might still use Uber, and carry concealed like I always do. Odds are they won't notice and there will be no incident. If I'm caught, they'll cancel my account and get no more money from me. They will force me to boycott them.

Or do you think, since I know their policy, that this would be a lack of integrity? Or, since their policy is essentially violating my natural right to life, is this "lack of integrity" justified? What do you think?

I think you are talking about their precise motives for making the decision. I took SaltyDog to be joking about the fact that we should not be surprised because this is a well-known liberal (read: altruist-collectivist) area.

As far as precise motives go, you may be correct. They didn't just wake up and think, "Hey, we are liberals, and liberals should opposed guns." No, they may have thought, "Hey, guns kill people (like our driver in Chicago did), so we should protect people from people with guns by not having guns." This is wrongheaded; if they were really concerned for our safety, they would not take away our ability for self-defense. They have made Uber more dangerous. But in their own minds, they may be genuinely concerned for our safety. More likely, I think, this was merely a PR move. They were probably pressured by liberal activists, and caved to their demands to have global "gun-free zones" in these cars.

I believe Uber (et al) should be allowed to make this policy. I think it is wrong, and will be difficult to enforce, but private businesses should be allowed to make their own rules in this way. If we want reform, we ought to appeal not to the Government, but the free market.

But regardless of their precise motives, the fact is that they, as a business, are infringing on our ability to self-defense. They made this rule because one of their drivers defended the lives of others. They are opposing life. This is the Code of Death.

Well, that makes my decision a lot easier. I'll never use Uber.

chicago was off my list of places to go a long time ago. although it is a beautiful city, so is san francisco because of its really crazy socialist leanings and the overabundance of bums expecting me to support them.

Stupid policy, but unenforceable. I used Uber on my last trip. Worked great. Cheap, efficient, easy. Great Capitalist setup. Too bad for this silliness.

Agreed; just like"Drug free zone" why not "Gun
free car" ..

Uber must be dominated by legal ambulance-chasers
instead of logicians. -- j
.

Correct. And I'm betting the Wisconsin law is a statute, not by common law. In the Uber situation there would have to be a state statute affixing liability on Uber where violence causes damages because of its no guns policy. Good luck getting a state legislature to pass that one.

You may be right....I'm not aware of any ability to disarm customers yet claim no liability for their safety. I know that Wisconsin law says if a business forbids concealed weapons in their establishment, they are liable for the violent actions of anyone who DOES enter with a concealed weapon. In other words, the onus in on the gun-free establishment to ensure there are no guns if they declare there are no guns. Not exactly the same as the Uber situation.

Which tilts the playing field towards crims. Righteous people usually confine their actions to what's legally permitted. Crims defy that and do what they feel they can get away with. Result? More places where crims are carrying and law-abiding citizens aren't.

owning guns does not mean you are allowed to take them where you may need them.