Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Carry on motorcycle?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / Rolla, MO
    Posts
    90

    Carry on motorcycle?

    I'm looking at getting a motorcycle in the next year and will most likely be 21 by the time I get one so some of the grey areas, over 18 but under 21, in possession/transport laws would be moot. If someone is on a motorcycle what are the laws on transporting a firearm either loaded and cased or loaded and on my person openly or concealed and loaded. If it is exposed is it treated like normal open carry or fall under transportation, if it is concealed is a permit required or is it allowed to be concealed without a permit on a motorcycle similar to a car?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgangmob View Post
    I'm looking at getting a motorcycle in the next year and will most likely be 21 by the time I get one so some of the grey areas, over 18 but under 21, in possession/transport laws would be moot. If someone is on a motorcycle what are the laws on transporting a firearm either loaded and cased or loaded and on my person openly or concealed and loaded. If it is exposed is it treated like normal open carry or fall under transportation, if it is concealed is a permit required or is it allowed to be concealed without a permit on a motorcycle similar to a car?
    I'm curious about this as well. I'm looking at getting a bike inside a year too. I know that physically speaking, carry on a bike isn't much of an issue. I remember a thread on GlockTalk a while back about a guy who wrecked his sportbike while carrying a glock in an MTAC holster (IWB, no active retention) and the gun stayed in place throughout the whole incident.

    As for laws related to it, I would presume all the normal rules apply. As in, if your shirt rides up and exposes the gun, it becomes OC. That said, IANAL nor am I 100% sure of that.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Here is what the statute states...

    Here is the exert:

    RSMO: 571-030:


    3. Subdivisions (1), (5), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section do not apply when the actor is transporting such weapons in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible or when such weapons are not readily accessible. Subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply to any person twenty-one years of age or older transporting a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, so long as such concealable firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, nor when the actor is also in possession of an exposed firearm or projectile weapon for the lawful pursuit of game, or is in his or her dwelling unit or upon premises over which the actor has possession, authority or control, or is traveling in a continuous journey peaceably through this state. Subdivision (10) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event or club event.

    If you have a CCW, no problems. However, if you don't and want to ride a motor cycle further research maybe warranted. Mainly, is a motorcycle considered a motor vehicle in this case? I would say yes, it does. But IANAL.

    I got a sneaky suspicion this has been discussed before...like here. From these posts, it looks good, until you get off.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    Although this may have been covered before it is worth revisiting as with the hundreds of other things that are talked about again and again!

    Its what keeps this form going! In any case.

    With the recent passage of HB 1647 which drops the age to obtain a concealed carry permit from 21 to 18 for active duty military who are residents or are stationed in Missouri. It also precludes a penalty for "accidental exposure of a firearm by a concealed carry holder" as long as the event was truly accidental and not done in an angry or threatening manner.

    I believe this is very good for those with a CCW pertaining especially those who ride.I am one who usually CCW's but, when riding i have found my shirt to ride up accidentally form time to time & we are provided some protection now.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  5. #5
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Definitions.

    302.010. Except where otherwise provided, when used in this chapter, the following words and phrases mean:
    .
    .
    .
    (9) "Motor vehicle", any self-propelled vehicle not operated exclusively upon tracks except motorized bicycles, as defined in section 307.180;

    (10) "Motorcycle", a motor vehicle operated on two wheels; however, this definition shall not include motorized bicycles as defined in section 301.010;
    Motorcycles are defined as "Motor Vehicles" in Missouri. The same statutory requirements that apply to carry in your automobile, also apply on your motorcycle.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Nice point cshoff. That's the first time I've heard something logical with this debate. The argument that has always been brought to my attention is how it applies to the Castle Doctrine protections rather than CCW. See RSMO 563.011.2
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000011.HTM

    (2) "Dwelling", any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

    The issue as it was explained to me was how the language is written. Conveyance (look for the second reference where it goes into temporary or permanent) is separated by a comma from the rest of that section which could result in the application of "which has a roof over it" and "designed to be lodged therein at night", something that becomes very problematic as it would then rule out a convertible auto while the top down. It just wouldn't make sense. A similar argument was made on the placement of commas in 2A if any of you recall.

    A re-wording to sort out any potential confusion or intentional misinterpretation is needed. It needs to clearly separate conveyance and word it in this manner "conveyance of any kind" rather than separating conveyance from "of any kind" by a comma. All it would take is a prosecutor or dirtbag lawyer to push the envelope on the matter to make a semi-logical argument in court.

    When I rode (had CCW) I carried 100% of the time, granted that was before I became an instructor, but my mindset was that it was far too easy to injure a rider or attempt to jack the bike with me on it.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 07-24-2012 at 11:41 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    Nice point cshoff. That's the first time I've heard something logical with this debate. The argument that has always been brought to my attention is how it applies to the Castle Doctrine protections rather than CCW. See RSMO 563.011.2
    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000011.HTM

    (2) "Dwelling", any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

    The issue as it was explained to me was how the language is written. Conveyance (look for the second reference where it goes into temporary or permanent) is separated by a comma from the rest of that section which could result in the application of "which has a roof over it" and "designed to be lodged therein at night", something that becomes very problematic as it would then rule out a convertible auto while the top down. It just wouldn't make sense. A similar argument was made on the placement of commas in 2A if any of you recall.

    A re-wording to sort out any potential confusion or intentional misinterpretation is needed. It needs to clearly separate conveyance and word it in this manner "conveyance of any kind" rather than separating conveyance from "of any kind" by a comma. All it would take is a prosecutor or dirtbag lawyer to push the envelope on the matter to make a semi-logical argument in court.

    When I rode (had CCW) I carried 100% of the time, granted that was before I became an instructor, but my mindset was that it was far too easy to injure a rider or attempt to jack the bike with me on it.
    Just keep in mind that RSMO Chapter 563 has absolutely no bearing on where you can or cannot carry a firearm. This chapter only addresses where, and under what circumstances, you are justified in using force. You MUST refer to RSMO Chapter 571 for statutory requirements regarding carry of firearms.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •