View Poll Results: According to Law, can you ride a bike w/out a CPL?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    12 63.16%
  • no

    7 36.84%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: Bycicles NOT Vehicles? R.E. CPL

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    One of our members was good enough to look this up, and posted the cite in another thread. (Thank you)

    I started this thread to see if there were opposing/supporting viewpoints on the subject of possibly being charged with a CCW for riding a bycicle or similar device without a CPL.

    Personaly I had stopped riding this year until I find out specifically if I can or cannot ride a bike without a CPL. Not carrying is not an option. This is something that irritates me highly as I want to ride a bike now that there is warm weather. And I thought itworthy its own discussion as it has shown up in many places on this site this spring.

    link : http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zdo...cl-chap257.pdf

    cite :

    257.79 “Vehicle” defined.

    Sec. 79. “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be

    transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices exclusively moved by human power or used exclusively

    upon stationary rails or tracks and except, only for the purpose of titling and registration under this act, a

    mobile home as defined in section 2 of the mobile home commission act, Act No. 96 of the Public Acts of

    1987, being section 125.2302 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

    History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949;¾Am. 1976, Act 439, Imd. Eff. Jan. 13, 1977;¾Am. 1978, Act 568, Eff. Jan. 6, 1979;¾Am. 1992, Act 134, Eff. Oct. 1, 1992.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    According to this, a bycicle does not meet the definition of a vehicle. So I assune I can carry without fear. I therefore dont get where they can charge you with a DUI or a CCW. I have heard of the DUI charge.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    stainless1911 wrote:
    According to this, a bycicle does not meet the definition of a vehicle. So I assune I can carry without fear. I therefore dont get where they can charge you with a DUI or a CCW. I have heard of the DUI charge.
    You assume wrong.

    A definition in one statute does not apply to any other statute.

    Vehicle is defined more than once in the law. However, vehicle is not defined in the CCW law (750.227) statute. So a vehicle, for this law, is anything used to convey from one point to another. A wheelbarrow is a vehicle, technically.

  4. #4
    Regular Member fozzy71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post




    Zig:
    "I like users who quote smellslikemichigan in their signature lines." - fozzy71

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran Glock9mmOldStyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,047

    Post imported post

    This another knucklehead law that needs to be fixed. Michigan law is an exercise in bipolar-ism on one hand you can carry any pistol(s) you want ...but don't carry pepper spray or a night stick? WTF!

    You can walk down main street armed to the teeth (a good thing imo) no problem, but don't you dare take a ride down that same main street on your schwinn! The wind in you hair and the rush from attempting to get some fresh air will turn you into a pistol slinging mad man or woman? Come on!

    When is the last time you heard of someone doing a "pedal-by" on a bike? I'm sure it has happened once or twice in the hood years ago....so lets make all the law abiding citizens pay!

    ARGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Thanks for letting me vent.
    A government that does not trust its law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust. James Madison.

    Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. George Washington

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    stainless1911 wrote:
    According to this, a bycicle does not meet the definition of a vehicle. So I assune I can carry without fear. I therefore dont get where they can charge you with a DUI or a CCW. I have heard of the DUI charge.
    You assume wrong.

    A definition in one statute does not apply to any other statute.

    Vehicle is defined more than once in the law. However, vehicle is not defined in the CCW law (750.227) statute. So a vehicle, for this law, is anything used to convey from one point to another. A wheelbarrow is a vehicle, technically.

    How do you figure a definition in one statute does not apply to any other? Where else is "vehicle" defined? MCL 257.79 is its very own law saying the State of Michigan defines a vehicle as this. Perhaps we'd be better served asking this question in the legal beagle section of MGO? By your logic, since MCL257.79 isn't defined in 257.625 (OWI), the definitionin the same act wouldn't apply.

    For the sake of simplicity, they define something once, with its own MCL, then if they want to change a single definition, they simply change the existing MCL (or replace it).


    Edit: For the sake of showing that this definition is itself a separate law, here you go: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nl1...ame=mcl-257-79

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    How about this one: In Michigan if you ride a scooter and are 18 or over you are not required to wear a helmet at any speed the scooter will go. But, if you try to ride a motorcycle (at any speed) you need to wear a Helmet. Who comes up with this stuff?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    maybeifulucky wrote:
    How about this one: In Michigan if you ride a scooter and are 18 or over you are not required to wear a helmet at any speed the scooter will go. But, if you try to ride a motorcycle (at any speed) you need to wear a Helmet. Who comes up with this stuff?
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rck...me=mcl-257-32b

    That says under 50cc, 30MPH, 2bhp, and no more than 1 gear is a moped.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rfw...e=mcl-500-3101

    That says if it's not a moped, it's a motorcycle.

    What is the scooter? Electric?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    stainless1911 wrote:
    According to this, a bycicle does not meet the definition of a vehicle. So I assune I can carry without fear. I therefore dont get where they can charge you with a DUI or a CCW. I have heard of the DUI charge.
    You assume wrong.
    And this is exactly why Im not taking any chances, or any bike rides, until this is put to bed.

    My daughter is so mad at the legal system over this, and that rimshot cop who cuffed me, that I worry about her veiws of cops and the legal system, and shes only 7!

    She just wants to go to the park, or on a bike ride with her dad. We go for walks instead.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    the question is not "does a bicycle meet the definition of a vehicle"

    the real question is "is the pistol IN the vehicle?"

    (insert dead horse here)

    we have beat this to death.
    . (2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person,
    Seems the general consensus is that you should not open carry a pistol on a bicycle without a cpl because the penalty if found guilty is too great. However, violating the statute would require the pistol to be transported "IN" the bicycle so many consider open carrying on a bicycle to be technically legal.

    The law-makers went out of their way to keep you from carrying loaded long guns in or upon a vehicle, but excluded pistols from that statute.

    (1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel a firearm, other than a pistol, unless the firearm is unloaded and is 1 or more of the following:
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    craigm wrote:
    How do you figure a definition in one statute does not apply to any other?* Where else is "vehicle" defined? *MCL 257.79 is its very own law saying the State of Michigan defines a vehicle as this.* Perhaps we'd be better served asking this question in the legal beagle section of MGO?* By your logic, since MCL257.79 isn't defined in 257.625 (OWI), the definition*in the same act wouldn't apply.

    For the sake of simplicity, they define something once, with its own MCL, then if they want to change a single definition, they simply change the existing MCL (or replace it).


    Edit: For the sake of showing that this definition is itself a separate law, here you go: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nl1...ame=mcl-257-79
    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-8-3a

    In each statute, words are taken to mean their "common" meaning, unless defined within the statute.

    Just because it's defined elsewhere doesn't mean that the legislature intended that definition to be used (generally, if the legislature intends for that definition to be used, they include it in the statute).

    Every statute is taken separately when brought before a judge. The trial will determine legislative intent for the meaning of a specific word, if it comes to that.

    The point being is that it's going to come to that. You'll get arrested and charged under 750.227 carrying in a vehicle, and then you get put on trial, where you have to argue that a bicycle is not a vehicle, even though it's defined in the dictionary as "A vehicle composed of two wheels..."

    Best of luck to you on your trial, I hope you don't get 5 years of prison time.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    lapeer20m wrote:
    the question is not "does a bicycle meet the definition of a vehicle"

    the real question is "is the pistol IN the vehicle?"

    (insert dead horse here)

    we have beat this to death.*
    . (2) A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person,
    Seems the general consensus is that you should not open carry a pistol on a bicycle without a cpl because the penalty if found guilty is too great.* However, violating the statute would require the pistol to be transported "IN" the bicycle so many consider open carrying on a bicycle to be technically legal.*

    The law-makers went out of their way to keep you from carrying loaded long guns in or upon a vehicle, but excluded pistols from that statute.*

    (1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel a firearm, other than a pistol, unless the firearm is unloaded and is 1 or more of the following:
    There are appeals court decisions that affirm that "in a vehicle" is interpreted to mean anything being conveyed by the vehicle. So even if you had a car with a holster on the hood, on top, it'd be considered to be "in" the car, for the meaning of the statute.

    So yes, If the gun is being transported by the bike, it's "in" the bike.

  13. #13
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383

    Post imported post

    INHO after reading all of this, you may carry a pistol on abike without a CPL, as long as it is open. Come on, common sense people, a vehicle? A bike? Really? This is so petty, do you have any idea how many cops and others are reading this forum going are you kidding me, this is what these guys talk about.

    Here is the real question, can you get a DUI for "riding under the influence"? And if you do, do you really think the judge in the morning is going to arraign you, or tell you to ride your bike home?

    I mean really?

    Sorry, but if I didn't have my CPL, and if I could ride a bike right now, I would be bike riding while OC'n, without a CPL, and I would not get into trouble (unless for those meddling teenagers).

    God Bless
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Near Lapeer (Hadley), Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    lapeer20m wrote:
    There are appeals court decisions that affirm that "in a vehicle" is interpreted to mean anything being conveyed by the vehicle. So even if you had a car with a holster on the hood, on top, it'd be considered to be "in" the car, for the meaning of the statute.

    So yes, If the gun is being transported by the bike, it's "in" the bike.
    cite these decisions please.

    we are not interested in the case of the felon who was concealing a pistol under the seat/gas tank of his motorcycle. Obviously carrying a concealed pistol inside a motorcycle especially if you are already a felon is unlawful but is apples and oranges to a law abiding citizen open carrying in a holster on a bicycle/motorcycle.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will watch the watchmen?)

    I am not a lawyer. Nothing in any of posts should be construed as legal advice.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    lapeer20m wrote:
    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    lapeer20m wrote:
    There are appeals court decisions that affirm that "in a vehicle" is interpreted to mean anything being conveyed by the vehicle. So even if you had a car with a holster on the hood, on top, it'd be considered to be "in" the car, for the meaning of the statute.

    So yes, If the gun is being transported by the bike, it's "in" the bike.
    cite these decisions please.*

    we are not interested in the case of the felon who was concealing a pistol under the seat/gas tank of his motorcycle.* Obviously carrying a concealed pistol inside a motorcycle especially if you are already a felon is unlawful but is apples and oranges to a law abiding citizen open carrying in a holster on a bicycle/motorcycle.*
    That is exactly the decision to which I am referring, and it directly applies in this case. How does it not?

  16. #16
    Regular Member fozzy71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    932

    Post imported post

    How about this post from the experiences thread? I would think if a CPL was required to ride a bicycle with an exposed sidearm they would have asked for his ID/CPL.


    cmdr_iceman71 wrote:
    OC’ed today on my bicycle 33 miles through Detroit, Highland Park, Ferndale, and Royal Oak*to OC'ed inside K&G Suit Warehouse (experienced no problems inside the store they were very professional). Had my first LEO encounter today at 1624hrs, they shadowed me for a 1/4*mile before stopping me as I was riding north with traffic on Woodward two blocks south of I-696. I was stopped by two Ferndale LEOs. I had my voice recorder going here is a transcript of the 30 second encounter.

    LEO: What’s with what youre carrying?

    Me: Open carry.

    LEO: Yeah I know.

    Me: Ok.

    LEO: I said where are you going?

    Me: I’m sorry?

    LEO: Where you going?

    Me: I don’t care to discuss me my itinerary with you.

    LEO: Ok. Fair enough man, you’re allowed to open carry. (unintelligible) Have a good day.

    Me: Alright. Am I free to go?

    LEO: Yeah.

    Me: Alright.

    ----------------------------------------

    They were very professional in that they never asked for my ID, CPL, or that I surrender my firearm.
    "I like users who quote smellslikemichigan in their signature lines." - fozzy71

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    109

    Post imported post

    I've never heard of the case, but the key word I'm seeing is "concealed".

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    fozzy71 wrote:
    How about this post from the experiences thread? I would think if a CPL was required to ride a bicycle with an exposed sidearm they would have asked for his ID/CPL.
    What RAS do you think they had to do so? He was legal and they knew it.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    eastmeyers wrote:
    This is so petty, do you have any idea how many cops and others are reading this forum going are you kidding me, this is what these guys talk about.

    God Bless
    This isnt what we WANT to have to talk about. I hope the cops are reading this and feeling darn guilty about the ridiculousness that they perpetuate by denying their oath.

    This is what we wind up discussing as a result of silly little gun control laws, and pricks that enforce them, or look for a reason to arrest an OCer for the RKBA.

    I dont want to be the test case on this, but it has been my experience that it is better to stop doing something untill I am sure its legal.

    We shouldnt have to live like this.

  20. #20
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383

    Post imported post

    Tell ya what, you live in Oakland county right? Well ask the Sheriff and the AG their opinions on Saturday, if they show up in warren on Saturday.

    God Bless


    Oh and don't forget your voice recorder
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    .I cant make it to warren. Ill be at GLX.



  22. #22
    Regular Member eastmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,383

    Post imported post

    No I am referring to asking them their opinion of OC on a bicycles without a CPL.

    God Bless
    "Bam, I like saying bam when I cite something, in fact I think I shall do this from here on out, as long as I remember.
    Bam!" - eastmeyers

    "Then said he to them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his sack: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
    Luke 22:36
    God Bless

  23. #23
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    craigm wrote:
    How do you figure a definition in one statute does not apply to any other?
    Perhaps this:


    257.1 Michigan vehicle code; words and phrases defined.



    Sec. 1.

    The following words and phrases as defined in this chapter and as herein enumerated when used in this act shall, for the purpose of this act, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this chapter.
    This is the first entry in the Michigan Vehicle Code, Act 300 of 1949.

    Bronson

    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  24. #24
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    Of course there is this too:
    750.227c Transporting or possessing loaded firearm in or upon vehicle; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; applicability to person violating MCL 312.10(1)(g).



    Sec. 227c.

    (1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a sailboat or a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or any other vehicle propelled by mechanical means, a firearm, other than a pistol, which is loaded.
    So since a bicycle is neither a motor vehicle nor is it propelled by mechanical means than it would not be a prohibited vehicle as defined by this statute. Even if it were as long as were carrying a pistol you would still be in compliance with this law.

    Bronson
    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    Bronson wrote:
    Of course there is this too:
    750.227c Transporting or possessing loaded firearm in or upon vehicle; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; applicability to person violating MCL 312.10(1)(g).



    Sec. 227c.

    (1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a sailboat or a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or any other vehicle propelled by mechanical means, a firearm, other than a pistol, which is loaded.
    So since a bicycle is neither a motor vehicle nor is it propelled by mechanical means than it would not be a prohibited vehicle as defined by this statute. Even if it were as long as were carrying a pistol you would still be in compliance with this law.

    Bronson
    227c would apply if you were carrying a rifle or shotgun (not a MI pistol). The "other than a pistol" really means Section 227c does not apply when carrying a pistol and therefore you cannot use this Section to determine if a bicycle is a vehicle or not. The "other than a pistol" is to redirect you to statutes that apply to pistols, IMO.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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