Uber doesn't want your business.

[Bean Counter]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/21/technology/uber-policy-gun/index.html

[Fl0und3rz]

So they will be conducting background checks on their drivers and passengers, weeding out the predators and criminals, and ensuring the physical safety of their patrons, then? 

I can understand the argument re: private property rights, exclusion of weapons on premises, etc.  But isn't this somewhat unique in the annals of anti-2A sentiment.  They don't even own the private property being used, and to all accounts I have seen, there are no non-public places being used for which UBER could justify such a policy on private property rights.

What's next, MSFT using their EULA to restrict 1A/2A freedoms?

I understand this is just a weasel worded policy from corp. lawyers attempting to limit liability, but it seems really retarded.  I'd like to see a lawsuit that assigns liability to UBER for harm to one of its drivers or passengers attributable to this policy.

[ghosthunter]

Another company to mark of my list. 

[JimmyHoffa]

I wonder how the opposite would work?  Have armored taxi with armed driver and the passenger had to be armed.

[HawkCreek]

I'm not a member or a user of that but it's called concealed for a reason. How exactly will they know? Are they going to reject someone from getting a ride or begin a driver just because they have a concealed carry permit?