OC On a Bicycle W/O CPL

[maustin195]

imported post

I am not sure why 750.227c is even being quoted. It clearly states that it does not apply to pistols. "Other than a Pistol"

 

[zigziggityzoo]

imported post

Looks like I need to clarify here.

The relevant law is this one:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(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, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.

There is case law for what constitutes "in" for the purposes of this statute. The courts have determined that something is "in" a vehicle if it is being transported by the vehicle, or in its state is able to be transported by that vehicle. So if you tie it to a string and drag it behind you, it's in the vehicle.

There is no definition of "Vehicle" for this statute, therefore the courts may decide that for themselves. A bicycle is EASILY determined to be a human-powered vehicle.

I say don't carry without a CPL. Do it at your own risk. You're risking 5 years of your life and $2500 of your money plus legal fees.

 

[dougwg]

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

Looks like I need to clarify here.

The relevant law is this one:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-227

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.
Sec. 227.

(1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person, or whether concealed or otherwise in any vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business or on other land possessed by the person.

(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, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license.

(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.

There is case law for what constitutes "in" for the purposes of this statute. The courts have determined that something is "in" a vehicle if it is being transported by the vehicle, or in its state is able to be transported by that vehicle. So if you tie it to a string and drag it behind you, it's in the vehicle.

There is no definition of "Vehicle" for this statute, therefore the courts may decide that for themselves. A bicycle is EASILY determined to be a human-powered vehicle.

I say don't carry without a CPL. Do it at your own risk. You're risking 5 years of your life and $2500 of your money plus legal fees.

and a life long FELONY!

 

[wally1120]

imported post

I am wanting to make things right on what happened on OCDO a while back ago regarding Joe_Robi. I realize I did say some pretty harsh words regarding the fact, And I want to apologize to Joe,Doug for coming at them the way that I did, And also for Everyone that read what I had posted.

 

[dougwg]

imported post

wally1120 wrote:

I am wanting to make things right on what happened on OCDO a while back ago regarding Joe_Robi. I realize I did say some pretty harsh words regarding the fact, And I want to apologize to Joe,Doug for coming at them the way that I did, And also for Everyone that read what I had posted.

Apology accepted.

 

[wally1120]

imported post

I am glad this is off of my chest now

 

[UCWT]

imported post

this is what i got when i inquired..
Citizen Inquiry AG# 2009-0027673 August 28, 2009

Attorney General Cox has requested that the Criminal Division respond to your e-mail regarding Michigan firearms laws. We apologize for not responding sooner. However, this office receives hundreds of letters each week and some delays are inevitable.

Due to limited time and resources, we are unable to assign a member of our staff to thoroughly answer your question for you. However, the Michigan State Police have an on-line resource at www.michigan.gov/msp that you should find helpful. After accessing this website, choose the heading "Firearms," which appears on the right-hand side of the home page. You may also contact them at 517‑332‑2521.

Thank you for your inquiry.
Donna L. Pendergast
First Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division

(1st MSP email)
As long as the weapon is in plain view you can "open carry" on a bicycle as long as you are not in a pistol free zone.

Best Regards,
Tpr C. Hawkins
Michigan State Police

(2nd MSP email)
Michigan's concealed weapons statute - MCL 750.227 - makes it illegal to carry a concealed pistol IN a vehicle without a concealed pistol license. Carrying a pistol in plain view on a bicycle is not in a vehicle, thus doing so does not violate the statute.

However, our interpretation is not binding, and there are no court cases applying the statute to bicycles. Therefore, we suggest that you check with the local prosecutor before riding a bicycle with a visible pistol.

Sincerely,

Sgt. Thomas Deasy
Michigan State Police
Legal Resources Unit
714 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, Michigan

 

[lapeer20m]

imported post

deleted

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

A good response to this thread would be to just get your CPL people. It's well worth the effort to exclude yourself from these terrible laws.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

A good response to this thread would be to just get your CPL people. It's well worth the effort to exclude yourself from these terrible laws.

I agree. For about $2 bucks a month, plusof passport photo, it's a cheap insurance policy. However, I do understand that for some folks the 3 and 8 year disqualifiers get in the way.

 

[BreakingTheMold]

imported post

Or the: age<21 . Only a few more months! Then i get to buy my permission slip...:banghead:

 

[dougwg]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

A good response to this thread would be to just get your CPL people. It's well worth the effort to exclude yourself from these terrible laws.

I got a better one...remove all the BS gun laws.

 

[mikestilly]

imported post

dougwg wrote:

mikestilly wrote:

A good response to this thread would be to just get your CPL people. It's well worth the effort to exclude yourself from these terrible laws.

I got a better one...remove all the BS gun laws.

Hell yeah... I was just being realistic lol

 

[dougwg]

imported post

And I hopeful

 

[BreakingTheMold]

imported post

Not to play the pessimist but is it not harder to gain freedoms back then to protect them in the first place?CPL laws in MI, no, MI gun laws in general are worded so poorly...well I'm sure you all know better then most. But any fight to pry money from the states coffers would be met with fierce opposition. Not saying we should try mind you! Just giving my opinion.

 

[Venator]

imported post

sasha601 wrote:

Actually, "vehicle" is clearly defined in Michigan Law under MCL 257.79:

"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."

I highlighted the most important part of this section as relates to this thread. Bicycle is a device that is moved exclusively by human power. So, it is clearly not a "vehicle" under Michigan Law. It is clear to me that OC while riding a bicycle without CPL is just fine since you are not in, on or upon a "vehicle" as legally defined.Now, motorcycle is a different story. This is I agree is a grey area.

This is from a different statute.You can't use one definition from one statute and apply it to another. Like I said in regards to the pistol statute "vehicle" is not defined so you have to look to a dictionary definition. When you do, in the strictest sense a pedal bike is a vehicle.

It would take some case law, or an amended statute to define vehicle, before a better conclusion can be made.

 

[sasha601]

imported post

Can the same word be defined differently in different Michigan statutes? Can anyone point a definition of the same word be different in two Michigan statutes? It would be helpful if both definitions are posted here for comparison. I understand that one statute can not be used to argue another. However, I do not see how definition of the same word can be different from one statute to another. If this is the case, then every word in the English language must be specifically defined in every statute. If not, then we can argue about meaning of every word.

 

[Venator]

imported post

sasha601 wrote:

Can the same word be defined differently in different Michigan statutes? Can anyone point a definition of the same word be different in two Michigan statutes? It would be helpful if both definitions are posted here for comparison. I understand that one statute can not be used to argue another. However, I do not see how definition of the same word can be different from one statute to another. If this is the case, then every word in the English language must be specifically defined in every statute. If not, then we can argue about meaning of every word.

Hence the problem with poorly written laws. And words can have other meanings based on context. While not all words need to be defined in a statute, when that word can have multiple meanings it's beneficial to define the meaning appropriate to the statute.

The word vehicle can have many meanings and when NOT DEFINED in the statute a judge relies on the common meaning found in a dictionary. This is how court of appeal judges determine case law with a questionable statute before their court.

I don't make the rules, just trying to explain how the legal system works and why you have "gray areas".

 

[kyleplusitunes]

imported post

1. (Engineering / Automotive Engineering) any conveyance in or by which people or objects are transported, esp one fitted with wheels
2. a medium for the expression, communication, or achievement of ideas, information, power, etc.

apparently a gun can not be used in a commercial, or any vehicle that is used to show off or explain something.

 

[wally1120]

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

A good response to this thread would be to just get your CPL people. It's well worth the effort to exclude yourself from these terrible laws.

I would like to obtain a CPL. But I am not of age right now. All tho I like Dougs thought, Get rid of all these DAMN useless laws, After all Criminals don`t follow the rules. There is no point on having such strict Gun laws, Gun restrictions only affect the Law Abiding citizens, NOT THE CRIMINALS.

But there isn`t a thing anyone can do to change the laws unfortunately, Although I would do what ever I could to change the Gun Laws