Motorcycles, bicycles and the like

[knighted4]

There have been numerous threads and posts about whether OC on a motorcycle or bicycle and the like without a LTCF is legal. HB 40 and SB 842 address this and specifically define a vehical as follows from SB 842:


"Vehicle." A conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

This should finally put all the issues to rest if enacted into law in thier entirety.
Now they will start stopping those Amish buggies during hunting season...lol

knighted4

ARTICLE l SECTION 21
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
What part of this DON'T you understand?

[PA-Joe]

Content in violation of forum rules removed. ~Staff

[Dannytheman]

Content in violation of forum rules removed. ~Staff

I think you should go test that little theory of yours. Let us all know how it works out for you.. Semantics like this would not save you even if I was on the jury.

[Curmudgeon]

Content in violation of forum rules removed. ~Staff

It would be very easy for vehicles such as motorcycles and bicycles to be listed as exceptions to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106, but that is not the case.

You place entirely too much emphasis on the word "in", and not enough emphasis on the words "any vehicle".

I don't suppose you have any citations for this assertion of yours?

[PA-Joe]

I would like you to cite the cases where someone was arrested for carrying "on" a bicycle, "on" a motorcycle or 'on" a horse! If there haven't been any arrests then it would appear that the law is in my favor.

If there were no arrests then I can't provide you with the cites proving the negative.

[Dannytheman]

I would like you to cite the cases where someone was arrested for carrying "on" a bicycle, "on" a motorcycle or 'on" a horse! If there haven't been any arrests then it would appear that the law is in my favor.

If there were no arrests then I can't provide you with the cites proving the negative.

As I stated previously, we need a poster child and you seem to want to know the truth. I do not have the time, or inclination, to spend dealing with the possible legal expenses and possible loss of my license, to please you.

Start riding your motorcycle around while wearing a K frame Model 29 with an 8 inch barrel in a holster. Do not have a LTCF and let me know how that goes.

[Curmudgeon]

I would like you to cite the cases where someone was arrested for carrying "on" a bicycle, "on" a motorcycle or 'on" a horse! If there haven't been any arrests then it would appear that the law is in my favor.

You see... here's the way it works. When you make a statement, be prepared to back it up. You saying you are not aware of any cases where someone got into trouble so it therefore must be legal is faulty logic at best.

If there were no arrests then I can't provide you with the cites proving the negative.

It doesn't have to be a case, it can be anything. If it is nothing more than your opinion, at least admit it.

Your statement, if incorrect, and I believe it is, is dangerous and irresponsible. Hopefully no one would be foolish enough to take your post as fact and end up in serious trouble.

...or is that what you are hoping for?


Let's try this. Read the law...

18 Pa.C.S. § 6106: Firearms not to be carried without a license

(a) Offense defined.--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.
(2) A person who is otherwise eligible to possess a [FN1] valid license under this chapter but carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license and has not committed any other criminal violation commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Now, I suggest to you and anyone else reading this, that when the statute says, "...any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle...", the statute means any vehicle.

You asserted that motorcycles, bicycles, and horses are excluded because of the word "in".

To which I respond, prove it. Show me anything to back up your assertion.

If I am wrong, and someone follows my advice, they err on the side of caution and either do not carry on a motorcycle, bicycle, or horse, or they obtain a LTCF and are good to go.

If someone follows your advice, carries on a motorcycle, bicycle, or horse, without a LTCF, and you and they are wrong, someone could find themselves charged with a 1st degree misdemeanor and becomes a prohibited person for life.

So go ahead PA-Joe... take Dannytheman's suggestion. Show us the courage of your conviction. Maybe even have someone tag along with a video camera and record the whole thing. Have them post it here. Hilarity will ensue.

At the risk of repeating myself, It is my opinion that your advice is dangerous and irresponsible should you or anyone else believe it and act accordingly. I have stated my reasons for this opinion, and provided the basis for that opinion by way of citation.

Your move.

[knight0334]

Yes, they are vehicles but you can not carry "in" a bicycle or "in" a motorcycle or "in" a horse! Therefore, no LTCF is required.

You can indeed carry "in" a motorcycle, and "on" a car. And not matter what, you need a LTCF for "on" or "in". Legal definitions don't stop at Chapter 61, when a chapter lacks a definition, a commonly used definition elsewhere is more times than not used in its place.


Can you guess which is the car and which is the motorcycle??

[gnbrotz]

I would like you to cite the cases where someone was arrested for carrying "on" a bicycle, "on" a motorcycle or 'on" a horse! If there haven't been any arrests then it would appear that the law is in my favor.

If there were no arrests then I can't provide you with the cites proving the negative.

Just as arrest for a specific action doesn't mean it's illegal (let's say OC and declining to provide ID when asked for it, for example), lack of arrest for a specific action doesn't mean it's legal.

I have both intentionally and unintentionally committed acts in the past which would justify my arrest if I had been discovered. Just because I may have gotten away with a specific action at some point in time does not mean it is legal for me to continue to repeat that action on an ongoing basis.

[mrjam2jab]

FWIW...i just sent a message to the PA AG office about this question. I'll let you know what i get back.