CCW while using Waymo or Uber

[Gawernator]

Nah . . . I think I’ll just keep it concealed, just like I’ve been doing for the last 15 or so years.

Dude it’s only $25 a year to join SAF. I did it for the post office lawsuit and it’s nice to put something towards funding our rights

 

[Gawernator]

Look. Waymo technology identified a firearm, flagged it, notified LEO, and pulled over without any warning. The kids were idiots and clearly not following the law, but in this conversation, their conduct is secondary to the main point being made.

Well I guess if I start waving around rifles inside my taxi I’ll be concerned

 

[elemental]

Why do you think that? Witnessing a misdemeanor is enough for a citizen's arrest in CA

That's not really how that works, but let's say it is. You still need to KNOW (not believe) that they are committing a crime and present an immediate risk.

§ 837. Private persons; authority to arrest​

Arrests by private persons. A private person may arrest another:

1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.

2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.

3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

A private party does not have qualified immunity if they are wrong. And don't even get me started on "qualified immunity"

 

[Gawernator]

Nobody ever said the kids were abiding by the law, nobody said that their lawbreaking shouldn't be prosecuted, and nobody said that the stop shouldn't have been made. People are, however, examining the rest of the circumstances surrounding the entire incident to see what kind of precedents it sets involving the 2A and services similar to these. For example, would waymo flag a CCW and proceed in similar fashion if the person was abiding by the law otherwise? I'm sorry this is so hard for you to understand. I wish you fellas a good one!

Uh yeah? I’m pretty sure a normal taxi driver would call the cops if you waved around a loaded rifle in the back of the car. Tf lol

 

[RustVendor]

That's not really how that works, but let's say it is. You still need to KNOW (not believe) that they are committing a crime and present an immediate risk.

§ 837. Private persons; authority to arrest​

Arrests by private persons. A private person may arrest another:

1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.

2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.

3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

A private party does not have qualified immunity if they are wrong. And don't even get me started on "qualified immunity"

Yes that's the code as you can see. And you are right there's no qualified immunity so you better be right. But I can't find anyone even claiming they were arrested or detained, and its still a potential felony to merely open carry a firearm. I would really like to see the recording of these kids as I imagine there is other corroborating evidence, it's unlikely they were sitting in silence they were probably digging themselves a very deep hole

 

[elemental]

Yes that's the code as you can see. And you are right there's no qualified immunity so you better be right. But I can't find anyone even claiming they were arrested or detained, and its still a potential felony to merely open carry a firearm. I would really like to see the recording of these kids as I imagine there is other corroborating evidence, it's unlikely they were sitting in silence they were probably digging themselves a very deep hole

Agree. Without the recording we can't say who know what when. Yes I'm sure the kids weren't helpping their case.

 

[RustVendor]

Agree. Without the recording we can't say who know what when. Yes I'm sure the kids weren't helpping their case.

i do agree with you that it will be problematic if they use like a heat mapped camera to detect firearms, but as far as I can tell it's within their rights as a private company to do so. But you can legally carry on the bus LOL

 

[elemental]

i do agree with you that it will be problematic if they use like a heat mapped camera to detect firearms, but as far as I can tell it's within their rights as a private company to do so. But you can legally carry on the bus LOL

It wouldn’t be brandishing if you can’t see it with your eyes. Even printing is not considered brandishing.

 

[RustVendor]

It wouldn’t be brandishing if you can’t see it with your eyes. Even printing is not considered brandishing.

thats correct but they could kick you out. If they "detained" you they may have liability and you could collect damages though. I actually think these autonomous taxis are a huge problem in general, there's been a ton of issues with them.

 

[bluebird95]

Uh yeah? I’m pretty sure a normal taxi driver would call the cops if you waved around a loaded rifle in the back of the car. Tf lol

Boy, some of these responses make me realize how we got to this point when it comes to our rights.

A lot of folks seem focused on the sensationalized details-“Two juveniles waving a rifle around in a Waymo!” Obviously that's bad, but it doesn't address the underlying issue.

The question is, what happens when private companies have technology capable of detecting a firearm that a human driver wouldn't otherwise know was there? If that technology can identify a concealed firearm, flag the passenger, stop the ride, and potentially involve law enforcement, what happens when the person is a law-abiding CCW holder who hasn't committed a crime?

There's a fundamental difference between saying, “Waymo should report someone visibly committing a crime,” and saying, “therefore we shouldn't care how its surveillance technology is used or what happens when it's applied to otherwise lawful conduct.”

And yes, Waymo is a private company with rights of its own. It can establish conditions for using its service, including firearm restrictions. That's not really what's being disputed.

But where does “it's a private company, so that's the end of the discussion” lead? What if autonomous transportation becomes the norm, or a downtown area effectively requires people to use privately operated transportation? Would private ownership mean the operator can use increasingly sophisticated technology to monitor passengers, detect otherwise lawful activity, and potentially involve law enforcement without any meaningful questions about privacy or individual rights?

We've seen similar concern with technologies like Flock cameras and automated red-light enforcement: once technology makes it possible to monitor or identify something at scale, the question isn't only whether it can be done, but what kind of limitation and oversight should apply to how the capability is used.

Private property rights matter. So do individual rights. One doesn't automatically make the other irrelevant.

If the response to every question about surveillance and private enforcement is simply “yeah, but the guy was doing something illegal,” you're missing the underlying issue. The outcome of this particular incident doesn't answer the broader question about the mechanism being used.

That's how rights can disappear incrementally: every new restriction seems acceptable because there's always a bad enough circumstance to justify it.

 

[elemental]

thats correct but they could kick you out. If they "detained" you they may have liability and you could collect damages though. I actually think these autonomous taxis are a huge problem in general, there's been a ton of issues with them.

Kick out yes due to policy. Detain, as we have already established, that printing is not a crime and they would very much be liable for false imprisonment in that scenario.

 

[Gawernator]

Boy, some of these responses make me realize how we got to this point when it comes to our rights.

A lot of folks seem focused on the sensationalized details-“Two juveniles waving a rifle around in a Waymo!” Obviously that's bad, but it doesn't address the underlying issue.

The question is, what happens when private companies have technology capable of detecting a firearm that a human driver wouldn't otherwise know was there? If that technology can identify a concealed firearm, flag the passenger, stop the ride, and potentially involve law enforcement, what happens when the person is a law-abiding CCW holder who hasn't committed a crime?

There's a fundamental difference between saying, “Waymo should report someone visibly committing a crime,” and saying, “therefore we shouldn't care how its surveillance technology is used or what happens when it's applied to otherwise lawful conduct.”

And yes, Waymo is a private company with rights of its own. It can establish conditions for using its service, including firearm restrictions. That's not really what's being disputed.

But where does “it's a private company, so that's the end of the discussion” lead? What if autonomous transportation becomes the norm, or a downtown area effectively requires people to use privately operated transportation? Would private ownership mean the operator can use increasingly sophisticated technology to monitor passengers, detect otherwise lawful activity, and potentially involve law enforcement without any meaningful questions about privacy or individual rights?

We've seen similar concern with technologies like Flock cameras and automated red-light enforcement: once technology makes it possible to monitor or identify something at scale, the question isn't only whether it can be done, but what kind of limitation and oversight should apply to how the capability is used.

Private property rights matter. So do individual rights. One doesn't automatically make the other irrelevant.

If the response to every question about surveillance and private enforcement is simply “yeah, but the guy was doing something illegal,” you're missing the underlying issue. The outcome of this particular incident doesn't answer the broader question about the mechanism being used.

That's how rights can disappear incrementally: every new restriction seems acceptable because there's always a bad enough circumstance to justify it.

Yeah and what if my aunt was my uncle

I think we have more realistic things to worry about than fantasy taxi tech.

They’re a private company and can say what goes in their car just like I can say who or what goes in my car. You’re asking for government overreach to tell them what rides to take?

 

[RustVendor]

Boy, some of these responses make me realize how we got to this point when it comes to our rights.

A lot of folks seem focused on the sensationalized details-“Two juveniles waving a rifle around in a Waymo!” Obviously that's bad, but it doesn't address the underlying issue.

The question is, what happens when private companies have technology capable of detecting a firearm that a human driver wouldn't otherwise know was there? If that technology can identify a concealed firearm, flag the passenger, stop the ride, and potentially involve law enforcement, what happens when the person is a law-abiding CCW holder who hasn't committed a crime?

There's a fundamental difference between saying, “Waymo should report someone visibly committing a crime,” and saying, “therefore we shouldn't care how its surveillance technology is used or what happens when it's applied to otherwise lawful conduct.”

And yes, Waymo is a private company with rights of its own. It can establish conditions for using its service, including firearm restrictions. That's not really what's being disputed.

But where does “it's a private company, so that's the end of the discussion” lead? What if autonomous transportation becomes the norm, or a downtown area effectively requires people to use privately operated transportation? Would private ownership mean the operator can use increasingly sophisticated technology to monitor passengers, detect otherwise lawful activity, and potentially involve law enforcement without any meaningful questions about privacy or individual rights?

We've seen similar concern with technologies like Flock cameras and automated red-light enforcement: once technology makes it possible to monitor or identify something at scale, the question isn't only whether it can be done, but what kind of limitation and oversight should apply to how the capability is used.

Private property rights matter. So do individual rights. One doesn't automatically make the other irrelevant.

If the response to every question about surveillance and private enforcement is simply “yeah, but the guy was doing something illegal,” you're missing the underlying issue. The outcome of this particular incident doesn't answer the broader question about the mechanism being used.

That's how rights can disappear incrementally: every new restriction seems acceptable because there's always a bad enough circumstance to justify it.

The response to the surveillance was that the conservative SC has recently said that private companies can restrict firearms on their property. That actually is kind of where it ends because it's the supreme court. if a bar can pat you down and use a metal detector for weapons before you enter then why can't Uber? I'm not saying anything about how it should be, I'm just saying that's the law. As lopez stated, private restrictions on firearms is settled and goes all the way back to common law. you don't have to consent to a search, but you can be trespassed if you don't. As a private citizen you don't have any right to enter private property without consent, period.