The popular ride-sharing service Uber has banned firearms for both passengers and drivers since 2015—bizarrely instituting the ban after a heroic driver stopped a crazed gunman in Chicago. Now one Uber driver in Florida is suing the company, asserting that the policy violates state law.
Courthouse News Service reports that Jose Mejia has filed a class-action lawsuit in Fort Lauderdale federal court, alleging that Uber’s no-guns rule runs afoul of the Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act, which was passed in 2008. “You may or may not agree with the Second Amendment, but it is not up to Uber to unilaterally decide drivers’ constitutional rights or their rights under this law,” said Mejia’s attorney, Elizabeth Beck.
Another Florida Uber driver, Mary Ann Krivda, voiced her support: “If someone can get into your car with a concealed weapon, there’s no reason you should not be able to carry a concealed weapon, too. It’s your car, and anything can happen.”
ABA Backs Gun Confiscation Without Due Process
The fact that the American Bar Association (ABA) has a committee named the Standing Committee on Gun Violence should make this week’s news not too surprising. On Tuesday, the ABA House of Delegates passed a resolution that would support courts issuing restraining orders enabling law enforcement to confiscate guns—without due process—from the individual targeted by the order.
The petitioner must provide evidence that another person poses a serious threat to himself or others for the order to be granted. In addition to having all firearms seized, the subject of the restraining order would be prohibited from obtaining a firearm while under the order.
The ABA has previously made its pro-gun-control stance clear. On its website, the group states that it doesn't believe the Second Amendment should be an impediment to “reasonable measures” such as “regulations limiting what persons can buy or possess guns.” Now, they also seem to be fine with infringing on the Fifth Amendment along with the Second.
HPA Supporters Counter VPC Suppressor Lies
Following an alleged “study” by the anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC) claiming suppressors are a threat to public safety, supporters of the Hearing Protection Act currently under consideration in Congress are disputing the gun-ban group’s “findings.”
Countering a VPC statement that “Making silencers more easily available to the public would have deadly consequences,” Jeremy Mallette, social media director for Silencer Shop in Austin, told Guns.com: “Whether you are outside or in a building, it does make a loud noise. It’s grasping at straws to vilify responsible shooters who just want to protect their hearing.”
Mallette believes there is much misunderstanding about suppressors, and VPC making false claims doesn’t help alleviate that confusion. “You can’t conceal a handgun anymore with one on, and on a rifle, it would make the rifle very unwieldy. That’s my biggest retort. (VPC) thinks silencers would be useful in these shootings, and that’s just not the case.”
Armed California Man Protects Wife, Daughters From Intruder
When a man, who said he was seeking help, banged on the front door of a San Pasqual Valley home early Wednesday morning, the residents told him they would call a taxi. But a few minutes later, the same stranger broke through the back door—and the homeowner grabbed his rifle to protect his wife and two daughters.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that deputies responding to a 911 call arrived to find the intruder barricaded in the master bedroom. The homeowner had fired his gun several times before the suspect ran to the room and locked himself inside. After escorting the family outside, police surrounded the house and ordered the suspect to surrender.
When the intruder finally came out, he was found to have multiple gunshot wounds and was transported to a nearby hospital. After receiving treatment, the suspect was arrested for the invasion as well as an unrelated warrant.