Open carry in a Doorless topless jeep with no CPL?

[xj bmx]

There was a discussion of "open carry" on a motorcycle without a CPL being legal or not (I believe it was ruled legal).  What about in a topless and door less Jeep granted the pistol is holstered on the left side wile driving so that it is in veiw what about just door less?

I hope to have a CPL by summer so i wont have to really worry but just incase.

[Bronson]

No.

Bronson

[Super Trucker]

As Bronson said, NO you can not carry in a jeep without a CPL.

[TheQ]

No carry on any motor vehicle w/o a CPL.

[CV67PAT]

No carry on any motor vehicle w/o a CPL.

The operative in the statute is "in" not "on". That is why "on" a motorcycle (and bicycle) is opined as being excluded from the CPL requirement.

[TheQ]

We await a volunteer for a motor cycle test case.

[CV67PAT]

We await a volunteer for a motor cycle test case.

Forget the motorcycle then. Just cite where your reference to "on" is utilized then.

[METL]

I think CV67PAT is possibly correct if that is the verbage...  it would likely have to goto court and you would have legal fees, etc...   so not worth it... but that is the way it works.  If the law is written with improper verbage like that, it is invalid.

[Super Trucker]

Are CPL laws different then DUI laws as far as what verb is used?
You can get a DUI on a snowmobile/wave runner etc, do the word in or on make a difference in that law as well?

[METL]

I don't have time to check, but I would imagine the DUI/OUIL laws reference the operation of a vehicle... where as the CPL law may actually say IN A VEHICLE.   So by the wording, it can't be illegal because you cant' get IN a motorcycle... 

It would sort of be like the law stating that you can't be drunk while at the steering wheel of a vehicle in operation and getting off because you were in a vehicle that did not have a steering wheel and had handlebars or something similar...   lame technicality due to the literal wording of the law.

I wish I could remember the recent case where a guy fought some sort of traffic ticket because of some sort of wording similar to that... something about stopping for a school bus where they omitted the word "for" or something in the official law...  thus the intent was there, but the law had a technical error.  I think the motorcycle would fall into such a technicality....  though someone would likely have to spend thousands to defend themselves... and I think they would come out on top.

[BTAvery]

From what I was reading it said operate a vehicle didn't say motor so therefore bikes you have to have a cpl.

[northofnowhere]

Code: [Select]

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.
It does clearly say "in".  I still say saying you are "on" a motorbike is an risk without a CPL.  Letter of the law perhaps, but good luck convincing a judge of that.

[TheQ]

MCL 750.227c specifies a vehicle propelled by mechanical means.

[METL]

So that would include a BICYCLE then no?

[TheQ]

So that would include a BICYCLE then no?

Perhaps, but what of a unicycle? Moon shoes? Stilts?

[JSteinmetz]

This would not include a bicycle, as it is powered (propelled) by you. 

I assume that if a Jeep was powered flinstone-style (feet through the floorboards), that it would TECHNICALLY be ok to carry with no cpl.  (I know my Wrangler has a few small holes, but nothing I can put my feet through.....)

[Bronson]

MCL 750.227c specifies a vehicle propelled by mechanical means.

But that law doesn't regulate pistol possession in a vehicle.  750.227 regulates pistol possession in a vehicle and it doesn't make any mention of the vehicle needing to be propelled by mechanical means.

750.227c Transporting or possessing loaded firearm in or upon vehicle; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; applicability to person violating MCL 312.10(1)(g).

Sec. 227c.

(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a sailboat or a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or any other vehicle propelled by mechanical means, a firearm, other than a pistol, which is loaded.

750.227 Concealed weapons; carrying; penalty.

Sec. 227.

(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.

Since "vehicle" isn't defined in this law the Legal Beagles over on MGO tell us that the court would first look to apellate decisions for a defintion, then other laws, and finally a dictionary if neither of the other options yielded a definition.

The one that may be a sticking point is MCL 257.657:

Sec. 657.

Each person riding a bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility device, or moped or operating a low-speed vehicle upon a roadway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to the provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have application.

I could see a prosecutor attempting to use this one to justify sticking an OCer  w/o a CPL that was riding a bike with a vehicle carry charge.

I'm not sayin' I agree but I can see the possibility.

Bronson