Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Under current Law, Bicycleing & OC'n

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    288

    Under current Law, Bicycleing & OC'n

    This may or may not have been discussed here, however, I am unable to locate the information, or am too lazy!
    Probably the latter, any rate, I want to know if I ride my bicycle right here in WI, legal or not?
    If not, please explain for myself and others.
    Thank you!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    A bicycle is considered a vehicle. OCing while riding would be illegal. However, the guy in Sheboygan was not prosecuted for riding while carrying.

  3. #3
    Regular Member oliverclotheshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    mauston wi
    Posts
    849
    but that will change when the CCW bill becomes formal law if i have understood the many and many post i have sifted through
    SCOTT

    "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

    "When seconds count police are minutes away"

    "Dialing 911 only takes seconds but waiting for help may take the rest of your life"

    http://g2-elite.com/phpbb/index.php Shed Hunting

  4. #4
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by phred
    A bicycle is considered a vehicle. OCing while riding would be illegal.
    Well, dangit, I was going to say "it's not a vehicle for the purpose of the 'no guns in vehicles' rule. They're talking about motor vehicles."
    But they do consider a bicycle a vehicle.
    So it's illegal until 01NOV.

    167.31(1)(h)
    "Vehicle" has the meaning given in s. 340.01(74), and includes a snowmobile, as defined in s. 340.01(58a), and an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined in s. 340.01(15pm), except that for purposes of subs. (4) (c) and (cg) and (4m) "vehicle" has the meaning given for "motor vehicle" in s. 29.001(57).

    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...
    (Which isn't the 4-lane controlled access type of highway, it's any public road.)
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    323
    We have this discussion in the past and based on the state's definition of a "vehicle", shoes could be considered a vehicle. "Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported ..."

  6. #6
    Regular Member TyGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    775
    I was excited today thinking of OC while riding my motorcycle. Sweet!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    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...
    (Which isn't the 4-lane controlled access type of highway, it's any public road.)
    Does that mean "legally" transported or drawn upon a highway, or does it include "illegally" transported or drawn upon a highway? If someone were to sit on a piece of plywood, and a rope was attached to the plywood and the other end to my trailer hitch, and I dragged that piece of plywood down a highway... is it now considered a vehicle? Would dragging a piece of plywood down the highway with a person on it not be a ticketable offense? If the law says it was indeed a "vehicle" because I was "transporting" it down the highway, then doing so becomes a legal practice, right?

    How about the office-type chair with wheels most of us are probably sitting in right now? Is that a vehicle? I certainly can hook a rope to it and drag it down the highway. My 3/4 ton 4X4 can drag a lot of stuff down a highway, but I doubt it could all be considered a vehicle.

    My whole point is, I believe the law would only include as a vehicle something that's "legal" to transport or be drawn upon a highway, such as a legal trailer. If it's illegal to drive (for example) a lawn tractor down a highway, how then could it legally be defined as a vehicle?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by qball54208 View Post
    Probably the latter, any rate, I want to know if I ride my bicycle right here in WI, legal or not?
    If not, please explain for myself and others.
    This has been discussed several times and the answer is always that a bicycle is a "vehicle".


    Quote Originally Posted by Max View Post
    We have this discussion in the past and based on the state's definition of a "vehicle", shoes could be considered a vehicle. "Vehicle" means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported ..."
    Quote Originally Posted by safcrkr View Post
    Does that mean "legally" transported or drawn upon a highway, or does it include "illegally" transported or drawn upon a highway? If someone were to sit on a piece of plywood, and a rope was attached to the plywood and the other end to my trailer hitch, and I dragged that piece of plywood down a highway... is it now considered a vehicle? Would dragging a piece of plywood down the highway with a person on it not be a ticketable offense? If the law says it was indeed a "vehicle" because I was "transporting" it down the highway, then doing so becomes a legal practice, right?

    How about the office-type chair with wheels most of us are probably sitting in right now? Is that a vehicle? I certainly can hook a rope to it and drag it down the highway. My 3/4 ton 4X4 can drag a lot of stuff down a highway, but I doubt it could all be considered a vehicle.

    My whole point is, I believe the law would only include as a vehicle something that's "legal" to transport or be drawn upon a highway, such as a legal trailer. If it's illegal to drive (for example) a lawn tractor down a highway, how then could it legally be defined as a vehicle?
    Drag is different than transported or drawn. If you have an office chair which you can use as a skateboard and you are carrying a firearm while riding on it down the road and pushing yourself with one leg on this chair you have just demonstrated that it is a vehicle and you may be cited. Tennis shoes, lumber, etc which do not have wheels are not a vehicle. This have been demonstrated by administrative enforcement policy of not citing if you are hunting from a wagon if the wheels are first removed. If you decide to tie a rope to a piece of lumber, stand on it and are actually caught riding it down the highway while carrying, you may expect to be cited. Tennis shoes are always clothing and it is you who is being drawn down the highway by a rope not the shoes. If you are caught being pulled down the street behind a car while carrying in the winter and sliding on your shoes, I am certain that you or the driver will be cited for something other than OC.
    The bottom line is that you may be legitimately cited if you are being transported down the street on something and you are OC-ing. This act is demonstrating that you are using it as a vehicle.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 06-26-2011 at 06:14 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member GlockRDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    north of the Peoples Republic of Madison
    Posts
    626
    Id like to see the complete text for 340.01....please :-) I was thinking about that the other day...

    What was ever concluded about riding a horse on the road?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Ah..but Hoveround's ARE vehicles...as are wheel chairs....and those rideable "carts"

    Under current law those who are disabled cannot legally "open carry" if they are in a wheel chair, Hoveround, electric assist carts such as those in Wally World...etc.

    Just keep in mind that Wisconsin laws are completely unrealistic and just plain stupid.

    You cannot "transport" your firearm legally without violating the concealed weapons law. Just about everything can be considered a "weapon" and once it is out of sight but within reach you broke the law.

    Just about everything can be considered a "vehicle" as well. Roller skates? Inline Skates? How about those shoes with the little wheels built into them so you can "skate around"?

    "Yes officer, I was riding on my wheelie shoes in the department store while open carrying." "Why are you arresting me officer?"
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the People of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -- Samuel Adams

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen. Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    —John F. Kennedy

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockRDH View Post
    Id like to see the complete text for 340.01....please :-) I was thinking about that the other day...

    What was ever concluded about riding a horse on the road?
    A horse is not a vehicle.

    Nor is a cow, dog, goat....
    Last edited by phred; 06-26-2011 at 08:12 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Houston, it appears we may have a problem. 167.31 which addresses vehicle transport applies the definiton of 340.01(74). The concealed carry statute 174.60 applies the definition to "motor" vehicles only.

    340.01(35)
    (35) "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle, including a combination of 2 or more vehicles or an articulated vehicle, which is self-propelled, except a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail. "Motor vehicle" includes, without limitation, a commercial motor vehicle or a vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated on rails. A snowmobile and an all-terrain vehicle shall only be considered motor vehicles for purposes made specifically applicable by statute.

    As I interpret 340.01(35) loaded handgun carry will only be allowed in vehicles that meet the definition of a "motor" vehicle and ATV's. ATV's are specifically applicable in 175.60 so are considered motor vehicles for the purpose of handgun carry. However, what about snowmobiles and UTV's. It would also appear that carry of a loaded and uncased handgun would not be lawful on a bicycle, horse drawn vehicles, hay wagons, pull behind trailers or any other vehicle that is not motorized.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Houston, it appears we may have a problem. 167.31 which addresses vehicle transport applies the definiton of 340.01(74). The concealed carry statute 174.60 applies the definition to "motor" vehicles only..
    Could you please quote the specific language in question for the new bill for everyone's benefit? The current 167.31 generally uses "Vehicle" and not "motor vehicle".
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 06-26-2011 at 08:33 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by GlockRDH View Post
    What was ever concluded about riding a horse on the road?
    1. An animal is not a device.
    2. It is a felony to tow a horse behind a vehicle as it is harmful or fatal to the horse....

    An animal including a horse is not a vehicle just as you are not if your friend sits on your shoulders while carrying.
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 06-26-2011 at 08:36 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    A horse is not a vehicle.

    Nor is a cow, dog, goat....
    Its a mode of transportation...
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Its a mode of transportation...
    As is walking.

  17. #17
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Interceptor_Knight View Post
    As is walking.
    Maybe...but if you think you want to do it...the statists will find a way to make it illegal.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Maybe...but if you think you want to do it...the statists will find a way to make it illegal.
    It will take a Statute change to do that, and currently there is enough reason in the Senate and Assy that such a Statute change is not going to occur in the near future.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    A horse is not a vehicle. However, a buggy being pulled by a horse is a vehicle.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vilas County, WI, ,
    Posts
    318
    "If you decide to tie a rope to a piece of lumber, stand on it and are actually caught riding it down the highway while carrying, you may expect to be cited".

    But if I'm not in possession of a firearm, will I be cited anyway? If my plywood constitutes a "vehicle" in any state statute, what is the citation for? Failure to wear a seatbelt? My whole point is the state can't have it both ways. If a hunk of wood pulled behind a truck constitutes a vehicle if I have a firearm, why would it not be a vehicle without a firearm? Is the presence of the firearm what makes it a vehicle? Do I need a license plate for my 4X8 sheet of CDX?

    I'm not trying to start an argument with you... I'm just demonstrating the total absurdity of the State's enforcement of the definition of a vehicle as it applies to firearms statutes, and nowhere else. I really do not believe that was the intent of those who wrote that law, but the liberal "interpretation" has carried it over the edge of sanity.

  21. #21
    Regular Member TyGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    775
    Riding a horse in a trailer being pulled by a truck? Jk

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I.K.:

    par: 175.60(1)(e) reads:
    "Motor vehicle has the meaning given in s.340.01(35). (175.60 is the statute number of the law generated by SB93).

    SB93 revised para: 33.33(3)(e) which pertains to the transport of a firearm on an ATV. It previously read.

    "With any firearm in his or her possession unless it is unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case, or any bow unless it is unstrung or inclosed in a carrying case".

    SB93 changed it to add "or unless the firearm is a handgun as defined in s.175.60(1)(bm)". That change made it comply with 340.01(35). No such change was made to the snowmobile, UTV statutes or the non-motorized vehicle definition.

    ATV's originally were not considered vehicles per se.

    23.33(4)(b)
    (b) Other highways; operation restricted. No person may operate an all-terrain vehicle on a highway except as authorized under pars. (d), (e), and (f) and sub. (11) (am) 2. or as authorized by rules promulgated by the department and approved by the department of transportation.

    Note: Some townships and counties now allow ATV travel but the state statutes have not been changed.

    SB93 made no changes to the definition of "vehicle" in s 167.31. s340.01(74) is still the lawful definition of vehicle in 167.31 as applied to para. 167.31(2)(b). The change made to 23.33(3)(e) made ATV's "specifically applicable" to the definition of motor vehicle (340.01(35)).

    The legislature should have done one of two things. Not made reference to 340.01(35) or retained the vehicle definition contained in 340.01(74).

    I am not going to get involved furthur in the stupidity of the vehicle definitions and the conflicts caused. That issue has been debated ad naseum on this forum in the past. My only concern is that SB93 did not go far enough when addressing handgun carry in or on "vehicles". It appears to me that as written carry of loaded uncased handguns are only lawful in or on vehicles that can meet the definition of 340.01(35) or made "specifically applicable" as was done to 23.33(3)(e).
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 06-26-2011 at 11:56 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    ......wrong version....
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 06-27-2011 at 01:13 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839
    .......wrong version....
    Last edited by Interceptor_Knight; 06-27-2011 at 01:13 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Wrong version of what. The version of SB93 and 175.60 I used was the one sent on to the governor.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •