On January 1, 2016 family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that this person’s possession of a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.
Earlier this a Chicago Uber driver with a valid concealed carry permit shot and wounded a wouldbe gunman who open fire on a crowd of people. After that Uber made this their policy.
UBER FIREARMS PROHIBITION POLICY
We seek to ensure that everyone using the Uber digital platform—both driver-partners and riders—feels safe and comfortable using the service. During a ride arranged through the Uber platform, Uber and its affiliates therefore prohibit possessing firearms of any kind in a vehicle. Any rider or driver found to have violated this prohibition may lose access to the Uber platform.
Which if you copy and past this link you will see.
https://www.uber.com/legal/firearms-prohibition-policy
We spoke to many Uber drivers some are for and some are against.
We ask you the uber patron or partner would you feel safe if you knew your driver was carrying or if your passenger was carrying.
Salt lake city -Utah Supreme Court issued a strong endorsement of self-defense as public policy in a claim arising out of private action. In Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court held that an employee’s right of self-defense trumps an employer’s right to fire an employee, including an employee who can usually be terminated without specific cause (an “at-will” employee.)
The case stems from an incident in January 2011, when six workers were fired after they fought with a shoplifter who pulled a gun on them inside the Layton Wal-Mart. The company had claimed the employees violated Wal-Mart’s policy of disengaging, withdrawing and alerting authorities.
The case involved two incidents where a total of four Wal-Mart employees were fired after using force – in self-defense – against armed shoplifters. In the first case, three employees at the Layton, Utah, store confronted a customer who hid a laptop computer in his pants. After employees escorted him to the store’s security office, the shoplifter drew a gun and grabbed one of the employees, pressing the gun to his back. The other employees grabbed the man, seized his gun, and held him for the police.
In the second event, two employees at a West Valley City, Utah, store grabbed a shoplifter after she tried to run away. She pulled a pocketknife and threatened to stab the employees unless they released her. Afraid of what would happen if they let go, they kept hold while a customer helped grab the knife.
Utah law reflects a policy favoring the right of self-defense, and that policy is of sufficient magnitude to qualify as a substantial public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, but only under the narrow circumstances where an employee cannot withdraw and faces.
Therefore it is this courts finding that Wal-Mart's policy violated the 2nd ammendment and that their employees have the right to carry a concealed firearm while they are at work.
