Bycicles NOT Vehicles? R.E. CPL

stainless1911 · May 13, 2010

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(zdo3luny5tnls045hmiqyovw))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-chap257.pdf

cite :

[align=left]257.79 “Vehicle” defined.[/align]
[align=left]Sec. 79. “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be[/align]
[align=left]transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices exclusively moved by human power or used exclusively[/align]
[align=left]upon stationary rails or tracks and except, only for the purpose of titling and registration under this act, a[/align]
[align=left]mobile home as defined in section 2 of the mobile home commission act, Act No. 96 of the Public Acts of[/align]
[align=left]1987, being section 125.2302 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.[/align]
[align=left]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.[/align]

stainless1911 · May 13, 2010

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.

zigziggityzoo · May 13, 2010

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.

fozzy71 · May 13, 2010

imported post

Zig:

Glock9mmOldStyle · May 13, 2010

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.

craigm · May 13, 2010

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.

Click to expand...

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(nl1cqtza2m0kv22cg4dl4xys))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-257-79

maybeifulucky · May 13, 2010

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? :banghead:

craigm · May 13, 2010

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? :banghead:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rckw4j55jqwj0j55ppmju155))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-32b

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

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rfweni45btthaeabrm2l5dre))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-500-3101

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

What is the scooter? Electric?

stainless1911 · May 13, 2010

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.

Click to expand...

You assume wrong.

And this is exactly why Im not taking any chances, or any bike rides, until this is put to bed.

:cuss: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.

lapeer20m · May 13, 2010

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:

zigziggityzoo · May 13, 2010

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(nl1cqtza2m0kv22cg4dl4xys))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=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.

zigziggityzoo · May 13, 2010

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,

Click to expand...

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:

Click to expand...

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.

eastmeyers · May 13, 2010

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

lapeer20m · May 13, 2010

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.

zigziggityzoo · May 13, 2010

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.

Click to expand...

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?

fozzy71 · May 13, 2010

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.

craigm · May 13, 2010

imported post

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

SpringerXDacp · May 13, 2010

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.

stainless1911 · May 13, 2010

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.

eastmeyers · May 13, 2010

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

Bycicles NOT Vehicles? R.E. CPL

According to Law, can you ride a bike w/out a CPL?

yes

no

Banned

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Banned

Regular Member