OC without CPL on a bicycle legal, Maybe not????

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

SnakeEater wrote:

An interesting variant question regarding Sec. 227, the way it reads MI allows open carry of knives as well. Sometimes a large, ugly knife on your hip can be an even better deterrence to violence than a firearm. From personal experience many of the thugs out there are more afraid of a large knife than a gun. Personally, I'd rather carry both. As a 10yr AbnInf veteran, I've been a few places that having a knife in one hand & a .45 in the other caused a few troublemakers to reconsider hostility.

Is there anybody out there that can clarify this interpretation?


zigziggityzoo wrote:

Venator wrote:

dougwg wrote:

"other than a pistol"

In other words a long gun.

Pistols are ok.


Thats how I read it anyway.....IANAL

I talked with My local Chief and he said that "other than a pistol" is there to direct you to the individual law concerning pistols. Which is covered below. So that's covered, what is not so clear is what is a vehicle? My Chief feels that a bicycle may be considered a vehicle. We are both looking further into the definitions of both.

Hopefully I will get some further clarification and cite something useful.

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.

Welcome to OCDO SnakeEater.

1) Section 227 simply states that the aforementioned weapons, other than Hunting Knifes carried as such are illegal.

2) Basically mentions that a CPL is require to conceal carry in a vehicle on/at property you do not own.

ETA: Please add you location under your screen name by clicking My Account then click Profile.

 

[SnakeEater]

imported post

Well, I am in South Florida presently but I visit my father who lives in central MI on an irregular basis. Down here OC of pistols is still being debated but the state law allows the open carry of knives. It does not state any size limitations, it only states that it must be in plain sight & take two steps, such as untying or unsnapping, to get it out & it is legal.

A strictly literal reading of this statute could be understood to read that the only knife that you can carry concealed would be a hunting knife but that the others Could be carried openly.


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.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

SnakeEater wrote:

Well, I am in South Florida presently but I visit my father who lives in central MI on an irregular basis. Down here OC of pistols is still being debated but the state law allows the open carry of knives. It does not state any size limitations, it only states that it must be in plain sight & take two steps, such as untying or unsnapping, to get it out & it is legal.

A strictly literal reading of this statute could be understood to read that the only knife that you can carry concealed would be a hunting knife but that the others Could be carried openly.


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.

What Section 227 is saying is that all the weapons listed (other than a hunting knife) are illegal to conceal or open carry, unless you are on property you own.

The adapted & carried part means, IMO, the knife is carried in a way that you would typically see a hunter do in the field during deer season, for example.

 

[joshuaeberly]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

SnakeEater wrote:

Well, I am in South Florida presently but I visit my father who lives in central MI on an irregular basis. Down here OC of pistols is still being debated but the state law allows the open carry of knives. It does not state any size limitations, it only states that it must be in plain sight & take two steps, such as untying or unsnapping, to get it out & it is legal.

A strictly literal reading of this statute could be understood to read that the only knife that you can carry concealed would be a hunting knife but that the others Could be carried openly.


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.

What Section 227 is saying is that all the weapons listed (other than a hunting knife) are illegal to conceal or open carry, unless you are on property you own.

The adapted & carried part means, IMO, the knife is carried in a way that you would typically see a hunter do in the field during deer season, for example.

I disagree, I read it to state that it is unlawful to carry in a vehicle (lock in trunk like pistol transport?), however, it is unlawful to CONCEAL on your person unless a hunting knife. I read this statute to say that I can carry a katana on my back if I so choose. as long as it's exposed.

 

[Bronson]

imported post

xd-40 wrote:

SpringerXDacp wrote:

SnakeEater wrote:

Well, I am in South Florida presently but I visit my father who lives in central MI on an irregular basis. Down here OC of pistols is still being debated but the state law allows the open carry of knives. It does not state any size limitations, it only states that it must be in plain sight & take two steps, such as untying or unsnapping, to get it out & it is legal.

A strictly literal reading of this statute could be understood to read that the only knife that you can carry concealed would be a hunting knife but that the others Could be carried openly.


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.

What Section 227 is saying is that all the weapons listed (other than a hunting knife) are illegal to conceal or open carry, unless you are on property you own.

The adapted & carried part means, IMO, the knife is carried in a way that you would typically see a hunter do in the field during deer season, for example.

I disagree, I read it to state that it is unlawful to carry in a vehicle (lock in trunk like pistol transport?), however, it is unlawful to CONCEAL on your person unless a hunting knife. I read this statute to say that I can carry a katana on my back if I so choose. as long as it's exposed.

I read it the same way as XD-40. You cannot conceal the listed items and you may not have them, concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle.

So youmay be able to have your katana strapped to your back but you have to walk everywhere :banghead:

Bronson

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

Bronson wrote:

SNIP

I read it the same way as XD-40. You cannot conceal the listed items and you may not have them, concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle.

So youmay be able to have your katana strapped to your back but you have to walk everywhere :banghead:

Bronson

I Wrote:

What Section 227 is saying is that all the weapons listed (other than a hunting knife) are illegal to conceal or open carry, unless you are on property you own.

The adapted & carried part means, IMO, the knife is carried in a way that you would typically see a hunter do in the field during deer season, for example.



[line]



One more time to all:

In Michigan, it is illegal to carry those weapons listed per Section 227 (other than a hunting knife...) unless you're on/in your own property. You can not walk aroundin Wally World or down the sidewalk in town, for example,carrying those weapons listed (other than a hunting knife...). It makes no differenceif you're concealing or open carrying them, they are still illegal to carry around, again, unless you are on/in your own property.

The Katana, in this case, is not defined in Section 227-it is a single edged weapon that is not prohibited per 227. So I suspect it, much like a hunting knife, would be legal to carry as long as its exposed.

 

[SnakeEater]

imported post

Does anybody up there know a Legal Beagle that might find it interesting to check into this? I still find the literal wording to be quite vague. Depending on the outcome it might at least give an alternative for those who might have a problem with carrying a firearm personally. Some LEO's might find it preferable to seeing someone carrying a pistol as someone with a knife can only endanger someone within arms reach rather than blocks away with a wild missed shot.

Come to think about it, the LEO's record in general on accuracy in a street firefight rather than on a range sometimes leaves something to be desired. I can recall more than a few news reports nationwide where an Officer has emptied a high-cap magazine resulting in few hits. Seems that many fall prey to Buck Fever, few nationwide are trained on a good Practical Pistol Combat range.

 

[Bronson]

imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:

Bronson wrote:

SNIP

I read it the same way as XD-40. You cannot conceal the listed items and you may not have them, concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle.

So youmay be able to have your katana strapped to your back but you have to walk everywhere :banghead:

Bronson

I Wrote:

What Section 227 is saying is that all the weapons listed (other than a hunting knife) are illegal to conceal or open carry, unless you are on property you own.

The adapted & carried part means, IMO, the knife is carried in a way that you would typically see a hunter do in the field during deer season, for example.



[line]



One more time to all:

In Michigan, it is illegal to carry those weapons listed per Section 227 (other than a hunting knife...) unless you're on/in your own property. You can not walk aroundin Wally World or down the sidewalk in town, for example,carrying those weapons listed (other than a hunting knife...). It makes no differenceif you're concealing or open carrying them, they are still illegal to carry around, again, unless you are on/in your own property.

The Katana, in this case, is not defined in Section 227-it is a single edged weapon that is not prohibited per 227. So I suspect it, much like a hunting knife, would be legal to carry as long as its exposed.

But that's not what it says.

Because the clause about the hunting knife is encased in commas we can remove this clause without changing the meaning of the sentence. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

Use a comma to set off parenthetical elements, as in "The Founders Bridge, which spans the Connecticut River, is falling down." By "parenthetical element," we mean a part of a sentence that can be removed without changing the essential meaning of that sentence.

So if we remove theparenthetical elementabout the hunting knife the law reads:

1) A person shall not carry a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon 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.


So by doing that we show that the lawspecifiesthatwe cannot carry any of those items concealed, there is no mention of open carry of these items being prohibited, except when in a vehicle which is expressly prohibited.

Isn't the lack of prohibition the same thing that allows us to open carry pistols in Michigan?

Bronson

 

[xd9sc]

imported post

A month or so ago, I sent an email to MSP asking about OCing on a Bicycle without a CPL. Here is what I sent to Sgt. Thomas Deasy.

I have been doing some research on open carrying. I understand that you can not Open Carry without a CPL in a car, or on a motorcycle, but the law just says vehicle. My Question is would a pedal bike be legal to Open Carry on without a CPL? From what I can find on the laws, is that a vehicle is anything that is self-propelled. Since a bicycle is powered by the person, and not under it's own power, i don't believe it would be considered a vehicle. Please let me know of any information that you have on this, as to the legal classification of a bicycle.


AND HERE IS THE REPLY I GOT FROM SGT. THOMAS DEASY

It is legal to openly carry a pistol on a bicycle. Michigan law (MCL 750.227) makes it illegal to carry a pistol in a vehicle without a CPL. Since a person rides on (not in) a bicycle, a pistol is not concealed if carried openly by the rider.

Sincerely,



Sgt. Thomas Deasy
Michigan State Police
Executive Resource Section
714 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 336-6441

 

[SnakeEater]

imported post

Well then, by the same interpretation of the law you should be able to open carry on a motorcycle as you ride On not In it.:banghead:

I think there are Far more interpretations of mans law than there have Ever been of the Bible. And I thought IT was bad!!

 

[Venator]

imported post

xd9sc wrote:

A month or so ago, I sent an email to MSP asking about OCing on a Bicycle without a CPL. Here is what I sent to Sgt. Thomas Deasy.

I have been doing some research on open carrying. I understand that you can not Open Carry without a CPL in a car, or on a motorcycle, but the law just says vehicle. My Question is would a pedal bike be legal to Open Carry on without a CPL? From what I can find on the laws, is that a vehicle is anything that is self-propelled. Since a bicycle is powered by the person, and not under it's own power, i don't believe it would be considered a vehicle. Please let me know of any information that you have on this, as to the legal classification of a bicycle.


AND HERE IS THE REPLY I GOT FROM SGT. THOMAS DEASY

It is legal to openly carry a pistol on a bicycle. Michigan law (MCL 750.227) makes it illegal to carry a pistol in a vehicle without a CPL. Since a person rides on (not in) a bicycle, a pistol is not concealed if carried openly by the rider.

Sincerely,



Sgt. Thomas Deasy
Michigan State Police
Executive Resource Section
714 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 336-6441

I would have to disagree with the good Sgt. The word vehicle is not defined in the statute and the dictionary definition would include a bicycle. And as was mentioned you ride on a motorcycle and that is illegal to OC without a CPL.

I just sent him an email and explained my interpretation. We shall see.

 

[xd9sc]

imported post

I agree that even though you ride on a motorcycle, it is self propelled, which constitutes a vehicle according to the vehicle definition by the law. I would agree that it illegal to ride on a motorcycle without a CPL, but I believe that since a bicycle is not self propelled, I would agree that is would not be considered a vehicle. I am also waiting to see what venator hears back from Sgt. Deasy.

 

[Venator]

imported post

Th MSP's position is below, read it carefully and beware. Their position is that OC without a CPL is okay on a bicycle and a motorcycle. More gray area.

Mr. Jeffs,

I don't think the issue is whether bicycles are vehicles - I think they are. The question is whether a person carrying a visible pistol while riding a bicycle is carrying the pistol IN a vehicle as prohibited by MCL 750.227; in order to be guilty of carrying a concealed pistol, a non-CPL holder must be carrying the pistol IN the vehicle.

The Penal Code does not define "in" so I checked a couple dictionaries and found that as an adverb 'in' generally means "on the inside" or "within." Thus, I don't think a person carrying a plainly visible pistol (e.g., housed in a hip-holster) on a bicycle - or motorcycle - is carrying the pistol in a vehicle, so they're not guilty of violating MCL 750.227. Contrast that with a person transporting a pistol inside a storage compartment attached to a bicycle or motorcycle - in that case they are carrying the pistol IN the vehicle. I think my analysis is supported by the Court's opinion in People v. Nimeth, 236 Mich. App. 616 (1999) (discussing a pistol hidden IN a motorcycle).

Further, the purpose of MCL 750.227 "is to protect quarreling persons from being injured by an adversary who might suddenly draw and use a concealed weapon without notice." People v. Emery, 150 Mich. App. 657, 663 (1986). Charging a person on a bicycle or motorcycle would hardly be within the purpose of the statute; after all, openly carrying a pistol serves notice that the person is in possession of a pistol.

That said, I am simply relaying our position on the matter. As I've mentioned to you before, the MSP cannot give legal opinions that bind another police agency. So, if someone is concerned about overzealous officers, they should probably play it safe and not openly carry on a bicycle or motorcycle, or they should get a Concealed Pistol License.

Regards,Sgt. Thomas Deasy
Michigan State Police
Executive Resource Section
714 S. Harrison Rd.
East Lansing, MI 48823
(517) 336-6441

 

[SnakeEater]

imported post

Jeeze! So much dingy gray areas out there, what we need is some moral bleach!

:quirky:quirky

 

[BigE]

imported post

Michigander; More details on this "free" cpl class,Please, I want to get my CPL but am on disability and don't have a lot of extra cash.

 

[stainless1911]

I agree

Trouble is, there is a difference in discussing these issues on these boards, than in court.

ETA I would LOVE to see this issue resolved with case law, or legislation. In its current state of affairs, its crap.

When I brought it up with my rep, she asked me if I knew of this ever happening. When I said that I did not, but it could happen, she seemed to lose interest in doing anything about it. Apparently she didnt think that it really would happen.

If she didnt believe that it would happen, then why in the world did she ask?

 

[alphamale]

It would seem simple that "self propelled" is the key word. A Bicycle requires the rider to propel it, as opposed to a motor or other device, wherein the rider is not a part of the drive train.

Does the below law prohibit OC on a bicycle without a CPL. I don't know, but I am looking into it. Motor vehicle code doesn't list a bicycle as a vehicle, but still not sure.

750.227d Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; conditions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 227d.
(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:
(a) Taken down.
(b) Enclosed in a case.
(c) Carried in the trunk of the vehicle.
(d) Inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle.
(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.
History: Add. 1981, Act 103, Eff. Mar. 31, 1982
© 2007 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

 

[alphamale]

She was banking on you not having any evidence of such a happening and made a gamble asking the question, hoping your lack of knowledge would then quiet your argument. This is a typical tactic of lawyers. It is a no risk tactic as if you knew a case it would then be incumbent for you to provide evidence of such and typically people don't carry case law with them, so once again she would have you backed in to the proverbial corner. See how that game is played? As long as she makes demands of you, she wins. That game is an old tactic to silence people and give them time to distance themselves from you. Best thing to do in the future is be ready for this game and have documentation ready, just be warned that having said documentation will in normal cases bring on an attitude problem from them so be prepared to smile and sound result and polite at the same time. It grinds them when you do such.

Trouble is, there is a difference in discussing these issues on these boards, than in court.

ETA I would LOVE to see this issue resolved with case law, or legislation. In its current state of affairs, its crap.

When I brought it up with my rep, she asked me if I knew of this ever happening. When I said that I did not, but it could happen, she seemed to lose interest in doing anything about it. Apparently she didnt think that it really would happen.

If she didnt believe that it would happen, then why in the world did she ask?

 

[stainless1911]

Right, but there is to my knowledge, no evidence. Yet. Someone needs to get f'ed over by the system first.

 

[stainless1911]

The only "safe" or safer way to do this, is to get a CPL holder to OC on a bike, and get charged with CC because they didnt have a CPL on them at the time. And then beat the case. Its less likely that a person who has a CPl, but doesnt have it on them, would be charged to begin with. IIRC, if you dont have it with you, your gun will be taken, and you have a certain time limit to go and prove that you have a CPL, otherwise you lose the gun to forfeit.

I dont know if that would be enough to even set a precedent for the states courts to follow however.