heresolong
Regular Member
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.
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.