Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Carrying on bicycles

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    I have seen the discussion in the past regarding the requirement to have a CPP if carrying on a bicycle since a bicycle is defined as a vehicle. I found some interesting information that I think makes it worth revisiting this discussion. During the discussion on carrying on the ferry system I found some interesting information and wrote the following comment.


    "However, this brings up an interesting although off topic point. While getting this citation I found a case in Washington where a bicyclist's DUI was overturned on the grounds that when the state added the words "including a bicycle" to the RCW they did not intend to apply DUI laws to bicycle riders. Could it be argued using the same logic that neither did they intend to apply concealed carry laws to bicycle riders? Here is a link to the case summary.

    [ulr]http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rilj/9801/ri980102.htm [/url]
    In fact I'll start a new thread."

    If you follow the logic of their argument the fact that the words "in a vehicle" were used by the legislature indicates that they were thinking about cars or trucks, as well as the concept of "locked in the vehicle and hidden from view" which obviously would be impossible on a bicycle.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    This is pure speculation. The reason you need a permit to carry in a vehicle is because your firearm is not easily observed, IOW, it’s concealed by the car. Thus, it isn’t really possible to open carry inside a car. The same isn’t true for either a bicycle or motorcycle.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Mainsail wrote:
    This is pure speculation. The reason you need a permit to carry in a vehicle is because your firearm is not easily observed, IOW, it’s concealed by the car. Thus, it isn’t really possible to open carry inside a car. The same isn’t true for either a bicycle or motorcycle.
    Yes it is speculation, that's what I said. I also, however, cited a case in which a bicycle was specifically exempted from laws that were applied to vehicles ie DUI.

    However I believe that the conclusion from previous discussions (which no one produced any actual evidence to refute) was that openly carrying on a motorcycle or a bicycle required a CPP due to the "vehicle" definition in the RCW.

    If anyone has since found a court case or an AG opinion that exempts motorcycles and bicycles from the requirements of section 9.41.050 I would love to see them posted here.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    In Oregon, without a CPL you must have your handgun in plain sight so the officer can see it. That means on the console, dash or on the seat. This per several OSP officers. So definitions vary per their wording.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    In Oregon, without a CPL you must have your handgun in plain sight so the officer can see it. That means on the console, dash or on the seat. This per several OSP officers. So definitions vary per their wording.
    FYI

    166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms.[/b] (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:[/b]

    (b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle;

    So sounds like if it isn't concealed you are OK.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    In Oregon, without a CPL you must have your handgun in plain sight so the officer can see it. That means on the console, dash or on the seat. This per several OSP officers. So definitions vary per their wording.
    FYI

    166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms.[/b] (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:[/b]

    (b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle;

    So sounds like if it isn't concealed you are OK.
    I was just repeating what a half dozen OSP officers told me when asked about carrying in a vehicle without a CPL. I would assume they would know as everyone said it does stress them outif they can easily see the handgun when they walk up to the vehicle. Seems they knew what they were talking about.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North of Seattlle, South of Canada, Washington, USA
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    What is the RCW definition of a "vehicle?"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Morris wrote:
    What is the RCW definition of a "vehicle?"
    Vehicle includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles.

    RCW 46.04.670

    That is why the question comes up. The RCW includes bicycles as a vehicle but the court has already thrown out the idea that you can get a DUI on a bicycle, arguing that the DUI laws, which were written before bicycle was added to vehicle, were never intended to apply to bicycles. So could we make the same logical extension to carry laws?

  9. #9
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Per http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.050 :

    (2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: ...

    Unless you have a bicycle that has a shroud around the rider, you're not carrying "in" it. The same argument can be applied to unenclosed motorcycles.

    Can anyone cite case law about this?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    heresolong wrote:
    Morris wrote:
    What is the RCW definition of a "vehicle?"
    Vehicle includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles.

    RCW 46.04.670

    That is why the question comes up. The RCW includes bicycles as a vehicle but the court has already thrown out the idea that you can get a DUI on a bicycle, arguing that the DUI laws, which were written before bicycle was added to vehicle, were never intended to apply to bicycles. So could we make the same logical extension to carry laws?
    If you want to use this as the definition then you had better read the rest of it. The three bolded RCW's deal with licensing, registration, and manufacturing. Other than that the state consideres a bicycle a vehicle.

    "Vehicle" includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles. The term does not include power wheelchairs or devices other than bicycles moved by human or animal power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. Mopeds shall not be considered vehicles or motor vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.70 RCW. Bicycles shall not be considered vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.12, 46.16, or 46.70 RCW. Electric personal assistive mobility devices are not considered vehicles or motor vehicles for the purposes of chapter 46.12, 46.16, 46.29, 46.37, or 46.70 RCW.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    heresolong wrote:
    Morris wrote:
    If you want to use this as the definition then you had better read the rest of it. The three bolded RCW's deal with licensing, registration, and manufacturing. Other than that the state consideres a bicycle a vehicle.
    Yeah, you are right Joeroket. Did you read the rest of the thread? Prior to the court case that I cited the state considered a bicycle a vehicle for the purposes of DUI laws. The court threw that out. The discussion here is whether there might be a case for also throwing out the relationship to concealed or open carry.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    I did read, for the most part, the rest of the thread. If you take into account that the definition of vehicle statute was modified after the case you cited, I believe it added the three exemptions for bicycle, and this RCW http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.790 I would say it is apparent that the legislature did not intend DUI to apply to bicyclists.
    Under the newly written, newer than the case cited, RCW definition of vehicle it looks apparent that the legislature wants a bicycle to be considered a vehicle unless they specify otherwise.

    Now if you look at the appellate decision they use the rational that a bicyclist is not a high danger to others. This, I do not believe, would carry over to carrying a firearm while riding a bicycle because a bicycle can't do much damage in comparison to a car but a firearm can do the same damage regardless of your method of transportation.

    Now don't get me wrong. I am only playing devil's advocate. I really doubt that a higher court would find that a vehicle as given in section 9.41 was anything other than a motor vehicle because of the useage of "in". Usually if they want something to apply to a variety of transportation devices they will use the phrase "while operating". It would shock the hell out of me if they did deem a bicycle a vehicle, but as we know stranger things have happened.

    Note: RCW 46.61.790 was written after the cited case which shows the state is now agreeing with the courts decision.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Now if you look at the appellate decision they use the rational that a bicyclist is not a high danger to others. This, I do not believe, would carry over to carrying a firearm while riding a bicycle because a bicycle can't do much damage in comparison to a car but a firearm can do the same damage regardless of your method of transportation.
    Apples and oranges comparison, not valid as far as I can see. The issue is not about the damage a firearm can cause but about what is concealed and what isn't. And on a bicycle unless you wear a long jacket your firearm is not concealed by anything, like the body of a car.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    I was going to reply but then I realized it was open carrying on a bicycle. Do you guys even realize how silly it goes sometimes?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Now if you look at the appellate decision they use the rational that a bicyclist is not a high danger to others. This, I do not believe, would carry over to carrying a firearm while riding a bicycle because a bicycle can't do much damage in comparison to a car but a firearm can do the same damage regardless of your method of transportation.
    Apples and oranges comparison, not valid as far as I can see. The issue is not about the damage a firearm can cause but about what is concealed and what isn't. And on a bicycle unless you wear a long jacket your firearm is not concealed by anything, like the body of a car.
    I guess it is apples and oranges to an extent but what you say makes no sense. RCW 9.41.050 deals with placing or carrying a loaded pistol in a vehicle, not concealment of a pistol. By law you could have it in plain site but still need a CPL to have it loaded in the car.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Now if you look at the appellate decision they use the rational that a bicyclist is not a high danger to others. This, I do not believe, would carry over to carrying a firearm while riding a bicycle because a bicycle can't do much damage in comparison to a car but a firearm can do the same damage regardless of your method of transportation.
    Apples and oranges comparison, not valid as far as I can see. The issue is not about the damage a firearm can cause but about what is concealed and what isn't. And on a bicycle unless you wear a long jacket your firearm is not concealed by anything, like the body of a car.
    I guess it is apples and oranges to an extent but what you say makes no sense. RCW 9.41.050 deals with placing or carrying a loaded pistol in a vehicle, not concealment of a pistol. By law you could have it in plain site but still need a CPL to have it loaded in the car.
    Yes, "IN" a vehicle. Just how do you put anything "IN" a bicycle? What we have isa law that got modified and became another poorly thought out and badly worded law that doesn't make sense anymore. Then the rest of us have tolive with the stupidity. Now just by adding "IN OR ON" would fix it but hell no they would rather have an ambiguous law on the books.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Agreed it is a vague law and should be re-worded to make sense and clarify exactly what a vehicle is. Like I said I would find it hard to believe a higher court would rule a bicycle counts but they have made very strange decisions vefore.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

Posting Permissions

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