Page 1 of 1

Concealed carry on Polaris Ranger

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:52 pm
by MVranger
We have a Polaris Ranger. It's a 4-wheeler that can seat 3. Kinda like a golf cart on steroids that can go just about anywhere a 4-wheeler can go.

Both my wife and myself are CCW licence holders. Should we carry concealed or open while riding?

misinformation

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:44 pm
by Daniel
Not true. The rules for motor vehicles apply when the motor vehicle is on a public thoroughfare.

You could drive your truck across your back 40 and have your loaded firearm concealed the entire time. Turn on to a public road, though, and you must unconceal.

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:06 pm
by gkopp
Except DUI. No matter where you are, DUI is still a chargable offense.

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:11 pm
by SMMAssociates
gkopp wrote:Except DUI. No matter where you are, DUI is still a chargable offense.
Greg:

(Thread Drift Alert :twisted: .)

This brings up the thought that our beloved Governor's "vehicular carry" rules may not apply on private property, like when we're getting in or out of a car....

I've advocated uncovering after getting in the car, and covering up before getting out of the car. This may not strictly be legal on State Property, but....

Just thinking out loud.

Regards,

Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:26 am
by Daniel
It's a bit of a confusing read, but the fact that this applies to private property not accesible to the public is mentioned in numerous places.


(2) If the person is transporting or has a loaded handgun in
a motor vehicle in a manner authorized under division (E)(1) of
this section, knowingly remove or attempt to remove the loaded
handgun from the holster, glove compartment, or case, knowingly
grasp or hold the loaded handgun, or knowingly have contact with
the loaded handgun by touching it with the person's hands or
fingers while the motor vehicle is being operated on a street,
highway, or public property unless the person removes, attempts to
remove, grasps, holds, or has the contact with the loaded handgun
pursuant to and in accordance with directions given by a law
enforcement officer;

Divisions (B) and (C) of this section do not apply to a
person if all of the following circumstances apply:


(a) At the time of the alleged violation of either of those
divisions, the person is the operator of or a passenger in a motor
vehicle.


(b) The motor vehicle is on real property that is located in
an unincorporated area of a township and that either is zoned for
agriculture or is used for agriculture.


(c) The person owns the real property described in division
(D)(3)(b) of this section, is the spouse or a child of another
person who owns that real property, is a tenant of another person
who owns that real property, or is the spouse or a child of a
tenant of another person who owns that real property.


(d) The person, prior to arriving at the real property
described in division (D)(3)(b) of this section, did not transport
or possess a firearm in the motor vehicle in a manner prohibited
by division (B) or (C) of this section while the motor vehicle was
being operated on a street, highway, or other public or private
property used by the public for vehicular traffic or parking.

It is an affirmative defense to a charge under division
(B) or (C) of this section of improperly handling firearms in a
motor vehicle that the actor transported or had the firearm in the
motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and while the motor vehicle
was on the actor's own property, provided that this affirmative
defense is not available unless the person, prior to arriving at
the actor's own property, did not transport or possess the firearm
in a motor vehicle in a manner prohibited by division (B) or (C)
of this section while the motor vehicle was being operated on a
street, highway, or other public or private property used by the
public for vehicular traffic.


A lot of this involves backtracking to previous sections and perusing through other exceptions. IANAL, but I believe I have it interpreted correctly.

Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:38 am
by SMMAssociates
I don't see any requirement here that the motor vehicle be on a public thoroughfare. There doesn't seem to be an exception here for private property.
Tom:

The exception generally applies, IMHO & IANAL, but I ran into a cute one, if memory serves, when reading HB12 last year....

If you're transporting a firearm (FOPA rules - no CHL) and park on private property, you're not permitted to conceal the weapon while taking it into the building. IMHO, this doesn't apply to a case or bag, just to tucking it into your belt.

I suppose this would apply to apartment complexes and office buildings rather than private homes ("don't ask, don't tell"), but....

DUI applies to private property because of the potential for harm should the driver leave the private property. DUI arrests have stuck (sorry, I can't quote sources) where a driver sleeping it off in a car merely had keys, or was just there.... That logic could be applied to a weapon too ("present", "potential"), but the "compliance" issue might cloud it.

IOW, the mere presence of a weapon, absent criminal intent, doesn't change the potential for harm because of the actor's compliance or lack of compliance with the vehicular carry rules. That should keep us inside the private property exemption.

Just rambling out loud. I probably should have gone to law school, but they {inappropriate language} about the .38 on my belt.... :twisted:

Regards,