• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Who is unclear that a bicycle is a vehicle?

D

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
Who is unclear that a bicycle is a vehicle?

We'll start at § 167.31 and work backwards. Here is Chapter 167 PDF link URL http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0167.pdf download it for future reference.

§ 167.31 Safe use and transportation of firearms and bows. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section: [extraneous material deleted ... ] (h) “Vehicle” has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (74), and ...

Here is the Chapter 340 PDF link URL http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0340.pdf download it for future reference.

§ 340.01 (74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except railroad trains....
 
M

Max

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
335
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
To repeat.

To repeat what someone else here said, if shoes are considered a "device", then walking and open carrying violates the statute. Just another in a very long list of unconstitutional statutes.
 
K

Krusty

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
281
Location
Trempealeau County, Wisconsin
Bicycles, vehicles, motor vehicles, prosecution

This is what I asked the LaCrosse county DA in an email on Sept 17, 2010

I am involved in an ongoing debate on the legality of Open Carry of a
firearm while on a bicycle. I understand the gun free school zones and
public buildings and transporting firearms in a motor vehicle. Aside
from all of that, would LaCrosse County prosecute for Open Carry while
riding a bicycle in the proper areas? I also understand that a bicycle
is actually classified as a "Vehicle"
but not as a "Motor Vehicle".

And this was his answer which was received on Sept 17, 2010

A bicycle is not a "motor vehicle" so I would not prosecute for a person
carrying a weapon while riding a bicycle. You are also right that the
school zone would still apply, as could other statutes given the
particular situation, but if it is simply an open carry while riding a
bike, that alone would not be any violation. I would also caution that
other people or officers who see you may still wonder of a person's
intent to be carrying a weapon so I can't guarantee that you would not
be stopped.

It may not be in perfect alignment with the discussion, but it does answer possible legal situations.

Krusty
 
paul@paul-fisher.com

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Krusty said:
This is what I asked the LaCrosse county DA in an email on Sept 17, 2010

I am involved in an ongoing debate on the legality of Open Carry of a
firearm while on a bicycle. I understand the gun free school zones and
public buildings and transporting firearms in a motor vehicle. Aside
from all of that, would LaCrosse County prosecute for Open Carry while
riding a bicycle in the proper areas? I also understand that a bicycle
is actually classified as a "Vehicle"
but not as a "Motor Vehicle".

And this was his answer which was received on Sept 17, 2010

A bicycle is not a "motor vehicle" so I would not prosecute for a person
carrying a weapon while riding a bicycle. You are also right that the
school zone would still apply, as could other statutes given the
particular situation, but if it is simply an open carry while riding a
bike, that alone would not be any violation. I would also caution that
other people or officers who see you may still wonder of a person's
intent to be carrying a weapon so I can't guarantee that you would not
be stopped.

It may not be in perfect alignment with the discussion, but it does answer possible legal situations.

Krusty
Click to expand...

So the DA doesn't know the law or is only wishing to enforce part of it. What Doug is saying isn't a gray area. It is back letter law. I'm not saying I agree with it or that it;s smart, it's the law.
 
Canard

Canard

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
148
Location
SE, Wisconsin, USA
paul@paul-fisher.com said:
So the DA doesn't know the law or is only wishing to enforce part of it. What Doug is saying isn't a gray area. It is back letter law. I'm not saying I agree with it or that it;s smart, it's the law.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as clear. If it were as black and white as you suggest we wouldn't see so many discussions about this. The argument acknowledging shoe as a "device" you could travel on a highway is a valid argument. This creates the grey area. If OC is legal while wearing shoes why not a bike... or roller blades...or stilts. Or maybe this arguement indicates that OC is illegal according to this definition (absurd but arguable).
 
bnhcomputing

bnhcomputing

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,709
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Don't forget prosecutorial discretion

Remember DA Fox in Jackson County? He knows the law and has stated he would use his discretion and not charge/prosecute certain laws. I think the La Crosse DA is doing the same think in this case.
 
Interceptor_Knight

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Max said:
To repeat what someone else here said, if shoes are considered a "device", then walking and open carrying violates the statute. Just another in a very long list of unconstitutional statutes.
Click to expand...

You are not transported in your shoes. A shoe is not a "vehicle" any more than your socks, jeans, shirt, etc.
If you stand in one spot and I hook a rope to your body and pull, you will not be able to be "transported" in or on your shoes.... :lol:
If an overly zealous LEO cites you for OC on roller skates, I doubt a DA would prosecute.
 
Interceptor_Knight

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Canard said:
I don't see it as clear. If it were as black and white as you suggest we wouldn't see so many discussions about this. The argument acknowledging shoe as a "device" you could travel on a highway is a valid argument. .
Click to expand...

Not only is it in-valid, it is absurd. The letter of the law is explicit and clear despite the desire for individuals to be absurd. The enforcement of the law has varied which confuses some persons. WI LEOs do not enforce every Motor Vehicle code in WI. As an example, if you have a rust hole through your car, you may not operate it. Any hole which could allow exhaust fumes into the interior is illegal. Not every car is cited for a burned out license plate light. Not every car is cited for tires sticking out of the wheel wells. The list goes on. There is the law and then there is the administrative enforcement policies of the various LEO groups. What the DNR will enforce is different than that a Milwaukee City Police officer will enforce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top