OC Allowed on Motorcycles and Bicycles

EM87 · Mar 27, 2009

imported post

I just got off the phone with the MSP after a lengthy discussion about OC on bicycles and motorcycles. They informed me that it is the opinion of the attorney general that it is in fact legal to OC on those devices. This was decided upon within the last year. When I asked for written proof, the officer told me that since OC is legal only because there is no statute against it, they don't have any text to send out for the same reason. (If someone comes across this AG Opinion I'd appreciate it if it could be posted here. She said that she didn't save the email with the opinion in it.) If detained by a misinformed officer, one only needs to have the officer call the Firearms Records Unit. I was told that every officer in that unit knows this policy, which means that they will be able to clear the air in case of a misunderstanding with local police. The reasoning behind allowing this is that since you're not enclosed on a motorcycle or bicycle, the weapon is not concealed.

Firearms Records Unit
(517) 322-5518

Michigan State Police
(517) 332-2521

Good numbers to keep in your phone!

xd9sc · Mar 27, 2009

imported post

You make not reference that i can see to if this was stated to MSP as with or without a CPL. In my original post I was referring to without a CPL, and you stated that it is legal on a motorcycle, which makes me believe that you are referring to with a CPL. I Have also contacted MSP about this, and I am still waiting for a reply.

EM87 · Mar 27, 2009

imported post

xd9sc wrote:

You make not reference that i can see to if this was stated to MSP as with or without a CPL. In my original post I was referring to without a CPL, and you stated that it is legal on a motorcycle, which makes me believe that you are referring to with a CPL. I Have also contacted MSP about this, and I am still waiting for a reply.

This is in regards to a person without a CPL. If a person has a CPL then they can already legally carry in a vehicle so there would be no question.

SpringerXDacp · Mar 27, 2009

imported post

EM87 wrote:

xd9sc wrote:

You make not reference that i can see to if this was stated to MSP as with or without a CPL. In my original post I was referring to without a CPL, and you stated that it is legal on a motorcycle, which makes me believe that you are referring to with a CPL. I Have also contacted MSP about this, and I am still waiting for a reply.

Click to expand...

This is in regards to a person without a CPL. If a person has a CPL then they can already legally carry in a vehicle so there would be no question.

A motorcycle is considered a vehicle in Michigan. Only by Michigan's No-Fault Law is it not considered a vehicle.A motorcycle in Michigan, same as a car or truck, needs to be licensed and insured to commute our roads and highways. There, IMO, whether you OC or CC on a motorcycle, you need a CPL to do so.

The Attorney General Opinion mentioned earlier, IIRC, pertains to a requirement to hold a CPL toCC on a motorcycle. I'll try to find it.

dougwg · Mar 27, 2009

imported post

EM87,

Is it possible that the person you talked to had their head up somewhere? If not, COOL. but....

We MUST be absolutely positive, without a doubt, before we (MOC)can say it's legal. Because if it's really not legal then the outcome is a FELONY.

EM87 · Mar 27, 2009

imported post

I'll call back and make sure that it applies to non-CPL holders. When I get an answer I'll post it.

dougwg · Mar 27, 2009

imported post

Get names too.

WARCHILD · Mar 28, 2009

imported post

Also, position title. What if he/she turns out to be someone without the authority to make such a judgement?

dougwg · Mar 28, 2009

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

Also, position title. What if he/she turns out to be someone without the authority to make such a judgement?

I'm sorry to say but the only person with the authority to make such a judgement is AG Mike Cox.

PilotPTK · Mar 28, 2009

imported post

Technically, even Mike Cox can't make a for sure, without a doubt, no worries decision. The ONLY decision that really counts is case-law at the Michigan Supreme Court Level. Since there isn't any, well.. yeah... I know I don't want to be the test case to create some.

Ben

EM87 · Mar 28, 2009

imported post

I'm just waiting for Monday to roll around again. I'll be able to clarify the subject then, when everyone is back in the office.

EM87 · Mar 30, 2009

imported post

I just got off the phone with someone at the Firearms Records Unit and was told the same thing: that OC is allowed on bicycles and motorcycles without a CPL. I asked for written proof but was told that there is none because that's the reason it's legal. No AG opinion, no MSP opinion, nothing. The officer told me that as long as the pistol isn't concealed while upon the bike/motorcycle then you're open carrying and it's legal.

The problem I have with what I was told is that once I got off the phone, I looked up the law in another post on this forum.

"750.227d Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; conditions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty."

What I was told contradicts what is written in the law (in terms of on a motorcycle). I find this odd because I was told the same thing twice by the MSP. Quite frankly, I am frustrated to the point of not wanting to look into this further because I can't get a solid, non-contradictory answer.

Venator · Mar 30, 2009

imported post

EM87 wrote:

I just got off the phone with someone at the Firearms Records Unit and was told the same thing: that OC is allowed on bicycles and motorcycles without a CPL. I asked for written proof but was told that there is none because that's the reason it's legal. No AG opinion, no MSP opinion, nothing. The officer told me that as long as the pistol isn't concealed while upon the bike/motorcycle then you're open carrying and it's legal.

The problem I have with what I was told is that once I got off the phone, I looked up the law in another post on this forum.

"750.227d Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; conditions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty."

What I was told contradicts what is written in the law (in terms of on a motorcycle). I find this odd because I was told the same thing twice by the MSP. Quite frankly, I am frustrated to the point of not wanting to look into this further because I can't get a solid, non-contradictory answer.

All my research has show it to be illegal on a motorcycle and questionable on a bicycle. I wouldn't count on the opinion of that person. I would get something in writing from the officer in question, email something.

I don't advise anyone without a CPL to OC on a motorcycle.

Haman J.T. · May 12, 2009

imported post

Venator wrote:

EM87 wrote:

I just got off the phone with someone at the Firearms Records Unit and was told the same thing: that OC is allowed on bicycles and motorcycles without a CPL. I asked for written proof but was told that there is none because that's the reason it's legal. No AG opinion, no MSP opinion, nothing. The officer told me that as long as the pistol isn't concealed while upon the bike/motorcycle then you're open carrying and it's legal.

The problem I have with what I was told is that once I got off the phone, I looked up the law in another post on this forum.

"750.227d Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; conditions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty."

What I was told contradicts what is written in the law (in terms of on a motorcycle). I find this odd because I was told the same thing twice by the MSP. Quite frankly, I am frustrated to the point of not wanting to look into this further because I can't get a solid, non-contradictory answer.

Click to expand...

All my research has show it to be illegal on a motorcycle and questionable on a bicycle. I wouldn't count on the opinion of that person. I would get something in writing from the officer in question, email something.

I don't advise anyone without a CPL to OC on a motorcycle.

I believe they may have been considering the wording you left out in both 750.227c & d. Both state " Except as otherwise permitted by law(open carry), a person shall not transport or possess in or upon etc, etc,etc, a firearm, OTHER THAN A PISTOL,which is loaded. Open carry of a pistol is permitted by law and the only way that is changed is if you were to enter into a vehicle as we all know,it then becomes concealed.It never becomes concealed when you are upon a vehicle such as a motorcycle or a self propelled vehicle such as a bicycle! That sounds perfectly legalistic to me in legal terms! What do you think?

Venator · May 12, 2009

imported post

Sgt. Deasy dis write this in an email.

"It is legal to openly carry a pistol on a bicycle. Michigan law (MCL 750.227) makes it illegal to carry a pistol in a vehicle without a CPL. Since a person rides on (not in) a bicycle, a pistol is not concealed if carried openly by the rider."

I also received this from him.

"Mr. Jeffs,

I don't think the issue is whether bicycles are vehicles - I think they are. The question is whether a person carrying a visible pistol while riding a bicycle is carrying the pistol IN a vehicle as prohibited by MCL 750.227; in order to be guilty of carrying a concealed pistol, a non-CPL holder must be carrying the pistol IN the vehicle.

The Penal Code does not define "in" so I checked a couple dictionaries and found that as an adverb 'in' generally means "on the inside" or "within." Thus, I don't think a person carrying a plainly visible pistol (e.g., housed in a hip-holster) on a bicycle - or motorcycle - is carrying the pistol in a vehicle, so they're not guilty of violating MCL 750.227. Contrast that with a person transporting a pistol inside a storage compartment attached to a bicycle or motorcycle - in that case they are carrying the pistol IN the vehicle. I think my analysis is supported by the Court's opinion in People v. Nimeth, 236 Mich. App. 616 (1999) (discussing a pistol hidden IN a motorcycle).

Further, the purpose of MCL 750.227 "is to protect quarreling persons from being injured by an adversary who might suddenly draw and use a concealed weapon without notice." People v. Emery, 150 Mich. App. 657, 663 (1986). Charging a person on a bicycle or motorcycle would hardly be within the purpose of the statute; after all, openly carrying a pistol serves notice that the person is in possession of a pistol.

That said, I am simply relaying our position on the matter. As I've mentioned to you before, the MSP cannot give legal opinions that bind another police agency. So, if someone is concerned about overzealous officers, they should probably play it safe and not openly carry on a bicycle or motorcycle, or they should get a Concealed Pistol License."

Regards, Sgt. Thomas Deasy
Michigan State Police-Executive Resource Section
714 S. Harrison Rd. East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 336-6441

FatboyCykes · May 12, 2009

imported post

As usual, a great response from the Sgt. Thanks Ven!

Haman J.T. · May 12, 2009

imported post

Venator wrote:

Sgt. Deasy dis write this in an email.

"It is legal to openly carry a pistol on a bicycle. Michigan law (MCL 750.227) makes it illegal to carry a pistol in a vehicle without a CPL. Since a person rides on (not in) a bicycle, a pistol is not concealed if carried openly by the rider."

I also received this from him.

"Mr. Jeffs,

I don't think the issue is whether bicycles are vehicles - I think they are. The question is whether a person carrying a visible pistol while riding a bicycle is carrying the pistol IN a vehicle as prohibited by MCL 750.227; in order to be guilty of carrying a concealed pistol, a non-CPL holder must be carrying the pistol IN the vehicle.

The Penal Code does not define "in" so I checked a couple dictionaries and found that as an adverb 'in' generally means "on the inside" or "within." Thus, I don't think a person carrying a plainly visible pistol (e.g., housed in a hip-holster) on a bicycle - or motorcycle - is carrying the pistol in a vehicle, so they're not guilty of violating MCL 750.227. Contrast that with a person transporting a pistol inside a storage compartment attached to a bicycle or motorcycle - in that case they are carrying the pistol IN the vehicle. I think my analysis is supported by the Court's opinion in People v. Nimeth, 236 Mich. App. 616 (1999) (discussing a pistol hidden IN a motorcycle).

Further, the purpose of MCL 750.227 "is to protect quarreling persons from being injured by an adversary who might suddenly draw and use a concealed weapon without notice." People v. Emery, 150 Mich. App. 657, 663 (1986). Charging a person on a bicycle or motorcycle would hardly be within the purpose of the statute; after all, openly carrying a pistol serves notice that the person is in possession of a pistol.

That said, I am simply relaying our position on the matter. As I've mentioned to you before, the MSP cannot give legal opinions that bind another police agency. So, if someone is concerned about overzealous officers, they should probably play it safe and not openly carry on a bicycle or motorcycle, or they should get a Concealed Pistol License."

Regards, Sgt. Thomas Deasy
Michigan State Police-Executive Resource Section
714 S. Harrison Rd. East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 336-6441

The opinion that does not bind another agency I suppose is true,if they want to be over zealous. The meaning of on or in is pretty easy to understand. Ask president Clinton(the meaning of IS). I believeall police agencies should be made aware of the MSP opinion at the very least, to educate them. As always it shouldn't be to hard to fight being arrested by overzealous officers when the meaning of on or in is so easily determined and the wording of " other than a pistol ", which I believe exempts pistols altogether, as opposed to firearms. Does that sound reasonable?

SpringerXDacp · May 12, 2009

imported post

hamaneggs wrote:

SNIP
I believeall police agencies should be made aware of the MSP opinion at the very least, to educate them. As always it shouldn't be to hard to fight being arrested by overzealous officers when the meaning of on or in is so easily determined and the wording of " other than a pistol ", which I believe exempts pistols altogether, as opposed to firearms. Does that sound reasonable?

IIRC, "other than a pistol" has been addressed here not long ago. The way I understood the meaning is that it's to redirect you to statues pertaining to the lawful carry/possession of a pistol.

Venator · May 12, 2009

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

hamaneggs wrote:

SNIP
I believeall police agencies should be made aware of the MSP opinion at the very least, to educate them. As always it shouldn't be to hard to fight being arrested by overzealous officers when the meaning of on or in is so easily determined and the wording of " other than a pistol ", which I believe exempts pistols altogether, as opposed to firearms. Does that sound reasonable?

Click to expand...

IIRC, "other than a pistol" has been addressed here not long ago. The way I understood the meaning is that it's to redirect you to statues pertaining to the lawful carry/possession of a pistol.

I have looked into this very wording and Springer is correct, there are other statutes that pertain to handguns, so that why it's worded that way.

Haman J.T. · May 12, 2009

imported post

Venator wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

hamaneggs wrote:

SNIP
I believeall police agencies should be made aware of the MSP opinion at the very least, to educate them. As always it shouldn't be to hard to fight being arrested by overzealous officers when the meaning of on or in is so easily determined and the wording of " other than a pistol ", which I believe exempts pistols altogether, as opposed to firearms. Does that sound reasonable?

Click to expand...

IIRC, "other than a pistol" has been addressed here not long ago. The way I understood the meaning is that it's to redirect you to statues pertaining to the lawful carry/possession of a pistol.

Click to expand...

I have looked into this very wording and Springer is correct, there are other statutes that pertain to handguns, so that why it's worded that way.

Yes, I believe a pistol carried in OC or CC is our aim. Firearms relates to long arms that are prohibited from being OCed and CCed or carried in a vehicle. I understand pistols have their own niche in the firearm laws because of their concealability and certainly their being registered, in my opinion illegaly. Iam a purist when it comes to the keeping and bearing of arms for the defense of ones life and all that he or she owns by way of possessions. All good citizens should be able to carry freely as do the bad citizens! Who deserves most to defend themselves? I believe the good citizens over the bad by way of common sense. It's just that simple to me! Who's life is more valuable to society, the good citizen or the criminal? That's a simple answer to anyone who is sane anyway!

OC Allowed on Motorcycles and Bicycles

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

New member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

New member

New member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

New member