Two minors riding through San Francisco in a driverless vehicle were arrested after the car’s operator reportedly detected a firearm inside, pulled the vehicle over and contacted police, prompting gun rights activist and YouTuber Colion Noir to question how much control passengers are willing to surrender as autonomous transportation becomes more common.
Noir discussed a USA Today report about the incident, which said police stopped the autonomous vehicle shortly before 4 a.m. and found an unserialized AR-style firearm, suspected marijuana and mace inside. He readily acknowledged that the circumstances surrounding the two young passengers looked suspicious, but said what interested him more was the role the vehicle and its private operator played in bringing police into the situation.
According to the report cited by Noir, Waymo said the vehicle was pulled over after the company detected a violation of its terms of service involving a firearm.
For Noir, those words – “terms of service” – turned what might otherwise have been an unusual gun arrest into a much larger conversation about technology, private rules and how people may exercise legal rights inside services they do not control.
Police Find Firearm After Waymo Stops
Noir began with the basic facts while making clear that he was not trying to defend the passengers themselves.
The two minors were reportedly traveling in a Waymo in San Francisco when authorities received information that passengers had a firearm.
Police then conducted what was described as a high-risk vehicle stop and arrested both occupants.
According to the report Noir cited, officers found an AR-style “ghost gun,” meaning a firearm without a traditional serial number, along with suspected marijuana and mace.
“Two minors, four in the morning, an AR with no serial number, weed and mace in the car,” Noir said, adding that he was willing to assume from those facts that they were “probably up to no good.”
Still, he argued that ending the discussion there would miss the more interesting question.
The vehicle had not been stopped because an officer happened to see a gun through the window during an ordinary traffic encounter. Noir said Waymo itself reportedly detected the firearm-related policy violation and caused the vehicle to pull over.
Noir Focuses On The Terms Of Service
Noir repeatedly returned to Waymo’s reported explanation that the incident involved a violation of its terms of service.
“This has nothing to do with California gun law,” he said while discussing that portion of the report. “This is their policy.”
His concern was what that kind of automated enforcement could eventually mean for a person who is otherwise legally carrying a firearm.
Noir speculated about a future passenger openly carrying a gun and getting into an autonomous vehicle, only for an onboard camera to recognize the firearm.
Would the vehicle simply refuse the trip?
Would it stop somewhere and order the passenger out?
Could it contact police, or even take some other action automatically?
Noir made clear that those were hypothetical questions rather than descriptions of what Waymo currently does in every firearm-related situation.
The distinction is important. The San Francisco incident involved minors and other alleged contraband, while the lawful-carry scenario Noir described was his attempt to test how far a private policy could theoretically extend.
Private Rules Could Matter More As Cars Become Autonomous
Noir said he understands why transportation companies establish restrictive firearm policies, especially when liability is involved.
From a company lawyer’s perspective, he argued, there is little obvious benefit in encouraging passengers to bring firearms into vehicles while there may be significant perceived risk in allowing them.
“From a lawyer standpoint, I get it,” Noir said. “I don’t like it, but I get it.”
His larger concern is that transportation is becoming less like owning and controlling a personal machine and more like accessing a network operated by someone else.
That difference becomes especially significant with a fully autonomous vehicle because there is no human driver sitting in front who can make an immediate personal judgment about what is happening.
The software, cameras, company policies and remote systems become part of the ride itself.
For passengers, that creates a new question that did not really exist with conventional cars: what happens when the vehicle’s rules conflict with something the passenger believes he has a legal right to do?
Noir Warns About Rights Being Limited Through Liability
Noir expanded the argument beyond autonomous cars and said he worries that liability concerns could increasingly shape how businesses treat firearms.
He argued that restrictions affecting gun owners do not always have to arrive through legislation.
Instead, he said, they can emerge through insurance requirements, advertising rules, platform policies and private terms of service.
Noir connected that concern to his broader criticism of social media companies and other businesses that place limits on firearm-related content, although his claims about why individual companies adopt those policies were presented as his own interpretation.
In his view, companies often act because they are risk-averse rather than because every executive personally opposes gun ownership.
That is an important distinction within his argument. A corporation can impose a restrictive rule simply because its attorneys or insurers believe the rule reduces exposure, even if the company never takes an ideological position on firearms.
Noir fears that if enough services adopt similar policies, exercising a right could become practically difficult even where the government has not prohibited the underlying conduct.
Earlier Incident Adds To His Concern
Noir also cited another reported incident involving a Waymo vehicle and teenage passengers.
In that case, two teenagers were allegedly drinking and firing what turned out to be a toy that shot water beads from inside the vehicle.
Noir said the autonomous car reportedly stopped after detecting the behavior, and he used that case to show that the San Francisco firearm incident was not the first time a Waymo ride had been interrupted because of passenger conduct.
He was particularly fascinated by the concept of a car being able to alter a trip because the company operating it determined that riders had broken the rules.
That is where the technology becomes more complicated than an ordinary rideshare.
An Uber or Lyft driver can decide that a passenger is behaving dangerously and pull over, but there is still a person making that decision in real time.
With an autonomous vehicle, the enforcement system can become much more automated and less visible to the passenger.
Noir Says He Is Not Ready To Give Up Control
Noir said he personally owns a Cybertruck and enjoys using its automated driving technology, but he remains uncomfortable with transportation in which he has no practical ability to take control of the vehicle himself.
He admitted that his views could change over time, noting that he once said he would never own the truck he now drives.
Even so, the thought of a vehicle potentially making decisions about where he can travel based on something detected inside the cabin bothered him.
“The idea that the car can lock me in and route me to a police station because it saw a gun that’s a violation of their policy,” Noir said while describing his hypothetical fear, “that terrifies” him.
Again, he was not saying that Waymo had announced a policy of locking lawful gun owners inside vehicles or automatically driving them to police stations.
He was describing the type of scenario he worries autonomous systems could make technologically possible.
That difference between what happened and what could theoretically happen is essential to understanding his argument.
The Bigger Question Is Who Controls The Ride
The actual San Francisco case described by Noir involved two minors, an unserialized firearm and other circumstances that he himself said made the passengers difficult to defend.
Yet he argued that unusual cases often reveal capabilities that matter later in more ordinary situations.
His concern is ultimately about control.
In a privately owned conventional vehicle, the driver decides where the car goes and when it stops.
In an autonomous ride operated by a company, those decisions can also be influenced by software, sensors, remote support systems and company policies that passengers accepted before stepping inside.
There are obvious safety reasons for those systems to exist, particularly when dangerous behavior is occurring inside a vehicle.
But Noir believes gun owners should still pay attention to how those tools are designed and what policies govern them as autonomous transportation becomes more common.
The two minors may have been the people arrested in this particular case, but for Noir, the more lasting question is what happens when driverless cars become ordinary and the passenger discovers that the vehicle itself can enforce rules he did not expect it to enforce.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
