Castle Laws and Bicylces

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gallo

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
478
In Texas the castle laws allow for carrying a firearm in the car as it is considered an extension of the castle. Does this apply to carrying a firearm not on your person but inside a small pouch attached to the bicycle frame. Can the bicycle be considered an extension of the castle, too?

Thank you.
 
It isn't the castle law in Texas. It's the peaceable journey law.

Some states consider a car to be an extension of the home... I suppose that's what you are thinking of. Considering that bicyclists are considered pedestrians in most places it would not apply.
 
Bicycles? I think not. If you are permit, it does not matter.

In fact, I think that you are testing the Law a bit too outside the box trying to get into a Bicycle same as a house and car.

I can see it now. Instead of the tire pump on the bottom frame, there is a 12 gauge.

On a bike off your own lands, you are probably in Public and have no expectation of Castle.
 
Back in the very early seventies while living in Southern Oregon,

A friend of mine rigged his 450cc Triumph (which was his only vehicle)

With a Winchester 30-30 in a saddle scabbard.

Talk about Iron Horse!

Never got hassled.

Now, the fact that he was a local boy back from

Three tours in Vietnam may have had something to do with it.


isher
 
Triumph Motorcycle? Or the Triumph car? Or was it one of those MG's the really little ones that are really good. :confused:
 
If the castle law applies to the car, it being a mode of transportation, so long as the firearm is not visible, then why would it not apply to a bicycle, if indeed it is being used as a mode of transportation, so long as it is not plain sight. As far as I understand, the castle law applies to a motor bike, so why not to a bicycle.
 
I think a good case could be made for a bicycle. Cyclists are bound by the same laws as any other motor vehicle, so, why not?
 
Cyclists are bound by the same laws so long as they traverse the same paths meant for automobiles. I can ride my bicycle on the sidewalk, on a bicycle path, across my neighbor's yard (assuming it's with their permission), or I can bring it into the food court and eat a smoothie while seated on it.

I think if the legal precedent has not already been set down somewhere that castle does not cover bicycles, you'd be gambling with it in court and I wouldn't bet on those odds. Since I've got a CCW permit, I'm not concerned about carrying when I ride.

Another interesting note: scooters under 50cc are considered "motorized bicycles" under Arkansas law, and are exempt from things such as registration and mandatory insurance. They are considered distinct from even motorcycles in that I don't have to have a motorcycle certificate to operate one on a public road. You think castle will cover them, too? I don't.

jm
 
Last edited:
Ohio's Castle Doctrine law applies to any "vehicle" that meets the following definition:

(4) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that applies to bicycles, wheelchairs, skateboards and Amish buggies.

The OP needs to actually look at the wording of the Texas law and see if it specifically says "motor vehicles" or not.
 
It is neither the Castle Doctrine (which covers you at home) nor the peacable journey law (of which there is no such thing), but the Motorist's Protection Act.

Applies only to motor vehicles.
 
If the castle law applies to the car, it being a mode of transportation, so long as the firearm is not visible, then why would it not apply to a bicycle, if indeed it is being used as a mode of transportation, so long as it is not plain sight. As far as I understand, the castle law applies to a motor bike, so why not to a bicycle.
Click to expand...

If it applies to a bicycle as a mode of transportation then does it apply to shoes? They are transportation as well.

Let's look at the actual law.
The word in the law is "motor vehicle", not "transportation."

A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
As a teen, at one point I used to ride around
on my 10 speed with nunchucks
taped to my bike.

At the time it was unlawful for anyone to have them...
except the police.

They didn't seem to mind back then my reasons for having them
and I never got arrested for having them taped to my bike for
MY self defense.
 
I think you R a good guy Tex.
I agree with most everything you post.
I'd like to talk to you in PM.
But you already 'condemned me' in another thread
about people carrying hot 24/7.

I want to learn, not be a whipping post for my thoughts.

Know what I mean?
 
But you already 'condemned me' in another thread
about people carrying hot 24/7.
Click to expand...

I didn't condemn you, you condemned me first :)

You said if we carried hot you didn't want us around :)

I don't mean anything personal when I post. It's hard to convey that in writing sometimes. Most of the time I try to be funny but sometimes it doesn't come across well in writing only.

Sorry for any misunderstanding or offense.
 
No... I'm just about safety for all of us.

My comment about 'STAY AWAY FROM ME'
was me trying to say 'I have seen what can happen with
one in the chamber at all times'.

Not everyone is as aware of the dangers as some of us.

Accidents happen and that's unfortunate.
And is why I stress gun SAFETY procedures,
such as not being hot 24/7.

Imagine all those collage kids in Texas CCWing
with no barrel sweep training.

You know what's coming next? Don't you?
 
Well, in one thread I was told by a mod I was being a 'smart ass'
Not very high road. But I'll get over it. :rolleyes:

I was also told I don't need to have a weapon because I
don't know how to use it 'correctly'.

Some comments I got where wrong IMO
and I figured no since in
trying to 'enlighten' those who feel that it's OK
to be chambered at all times. (I know better but..)


Stuff won't/can't happen to them, so it's OK. :)

I'll wait and watch the vids when they pour out as MORE people
CCW (with on in the chamber at all times) and just shake my head at what transpires... :neener:
 
magine all those collage kids in Texas CCWing
with no barrel sweep training.

You know what's coming next? Don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know what comes next. Nothing different than now.
Texas law requires you to be 21 to carry concealed.

That would not change if the college campus law passes.

It's false logic to think that somehow if one more place is added to the list of legal carry locations that all of a sudden bullets will start flying.

Why would things be any different than they are today? Seriously, what would change?

When hospitals and churches were removed from the prohibited places list we heard the same cries of warning and....... nothing happened.

In fact, the MORE places you can carry the LESS likely it is there will be a problem since you have to put the gun on and off less often.
 
Tex (post 22) I AGREE with your statements.
I'm PRO 2a >>> ALL the way.
No checks, no fees, no restrictions, no MORE BS.
Permits? We don't NEED no stinking 'permits'.
It's our RIGHT. :fire:

I'm talking about the angle of ADs of NDs.
(Safety measures, OK?)... :uhoh:

Hell, I'm all for everyone carrying.
I'm just saying I'd like to see people be 'aware'
when they are carrying HOT.
Their HOT barrels may be and often are, sweeping people...
And due to mechanical or user error,
they may indeed be 'an accident waiting to happen'.

Do we need to legislate this 'possibility'?

HELL NO

The herd will thin itself overtime. :neener:
But still....I'm now more concerned about going into Denny's
wondering, who is going to be complacent one today. :rolleyes:
 
So... do you advocate keeping the chambers of a revolver empty until need as well?

Your fear seems more than a little unfounded.
 
I'm just saying I'd like to see people be 'aware'
when they are carrying HOT.
Their HOT barrels may be and often are, sweeping people...
And due to mechanical or user error,
they may indeed be 'an accident waiting to happen'.
Click to expand...

But the point of carrying concealed is that you are not touching the weapon. The majority of the time the only thing it's "sweeping" is yourself.

What is the danger that you see in a loaded gun that no one is touching?

They do not have much of a history of going off by themselves.

Unless people are handling the guns what is the danger, and if people are handling their concealed weapons constantly the odds are very good that they will be arrested for that.

So again, what is the danger in a loaded and holstered gun?

I just can't see it. Cops carry that way all the time, when do they have incidents? When they are holstering or unholstering the gun.

They simply don't fire by themselves.

If your personal comfort level is to carry a gun without a loaded chamber, that's fine but it's irrational to say that anyone else that does it is a danger to society.

Historical actions do not back up that worry in any way whatsoever.

And due to mechanical or user error,
they may indeed be 'an accident waiting to happen'.
Click to expand...

Mechanical error? Truly a one in a million chance. About the same as getting hit by lightning I'd guess, where a gun just "goes off" by itself.

But still....I'm now more concerned about going into Denny's
wondering, who is going to be complacent one today.
Click to expand...

OK, so there are hundreds of thousands of legal firearm carriers in this country daily. If this is a legitimate fear, where are the incidents?

Again, they don't go off by themselves, they just don't.

So again, everyone needs to make that decision for themselves but to worry about being shot in Dennys by a concealed handgun carrier seems a bit of a stretch.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Col. Plink
  • Locked
Texas 'Castle Doctrine'? {What's it mean?}
Replies
7
Views
2K
TexasRifleman
T
T
  • Locked
Weapon Concealed in Car without Concealed License? Florida
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
mustang_steve
M
weblance
  • Locked
Does the Castle Doctrine Apply to Girlfriends Car?
Replies
8
Views
919
NavyLCDR
N
W
  • Locked
Castle Doctrine and Garages
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
joab
J
J
  • Locked
Debating the law: a "man's home is his castle."
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
V4Vendetta
V
Back
Top