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!

A bicycle is considered a vehicle. OCing while riding would be illegal. However, the guy in Sheboygan was not prosecuted for riding while carrying.

but that will change when the CCW bill becomes formal law if i have understood the many and many post i have sifted through

phred said:

A bicycle is considered a vehicle. OCing while riding would be illegal.

Click to expand...

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. :banghead:
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.)

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 ..."

I was excited today thinking of OC while riding my motorcycle. Sweet!

MKEgal said:

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.)

Click to expand...

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?

qball54208 said:

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.

Click to expand...

This has been discussed several times and the answer is always that a bicycle is a "vehicle".

Max said:

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 ..."

Click to expand...

safcrkr said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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?"

GlockRDH said:

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?

Click to expand...

A horse is not a vehicle.

Nor is a cow, dog, goat....

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.

Captain Nemo said:

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..

Click to expand...

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".

GlockRDH said:

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

Click to expand...

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....:lol:

An animal including a horse is not a vehicle just as you are not if your friend sits on your shoulders while carrying.

phred said:

A horse is not a vehicle.

Nor is a cow, dog, goat....

Click to expand...

Its a mode of transportation...

oak1971 said:

Its a mode of transportation...

Click to expand...

As is walking.

Interceptor_Knight said:

As is walking.

Click to expand...

Maybe...but if you think you want to do it...the statists will find a way to make it illegal.

oak1971 said:

Maybe...but if you think you want to do it...the statists will find a way to make it illegal.

Click to expand...

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.

A horse is not a vehicle. However, a buggy being pulled by a horse is a vehicle.

"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.