A BETTER WisDOT proposal - Please Look!

Hi,

For those of you who don't know me, I'm one of the Pinzgauer owners who's been involved in this fight with WisDOT since day one. I've read the previous thread regarding the proposed bill being sponsored by Rep. Zigmunt. You need to know that there is an alternative bill, being sponsored by Sen. Jon Erpenbach. It is being co-authored by at least 14 senators. Please check out the differences.

Sen. Erpenbach sponsored this proposal because he believes that what WisDOT is doing is wrong. WisDOT started canceling titles for HMVs (including Pinzgauers) in 2007. An Administrative Law Judge ruled that DOT was wrong in 2008, and WisDOT relicensed Pinzgauers. But in 2009, WisDOT started refusing title to Pinzgauers again.

Here's what they wrote:
TO: All Legislators

FROM: Sen. Jon Erpenbach and Rep. Sondy Pope-Roberts


DATE: October 21, 2009

RE: Co-Sponsorship of LRB 3562/1 - Registration of former military vehicles



We are introducing LRB 3562/1 which will allow former military vehicles to be registered as a type of special interest vehicle.

The need for this bill has come to our attention through our constituent, Paul Underwood of Mount Horeb. Mr. Underwood owns a Pinzgauer, which was licensed by DOT for a number of years. Two years ago DOT refused to re-license his vehicle. Mr. Underwood took his case before an administrative law judge, and won. However, DOT is back to not licensing Pinzgauers as people apply for registration and licensing. It has become clear to us that DOT intends to proceed with it’s plan of outlawing Pinzgauers as a first step of proceeding to remove from the road all historic military vehicles. On behalf of our constituent, we are instigating this legislation to protect his investment and right to use his vehicle. There will be many individuals around the state who will loose the ability to drive their vehicles if DOT plans to take away the ability to license historic military vehicles moves forward.

The bill allows former military vehicles to be registered as a type of special interest vehicle. A former military vehicle is defined as a vehicle that is at least 25 years old, was manufactured for use in any country’s military forces, and is maintained to accurately represent its military design and markings, regardless of the vehicle’s size and weight. A former military vehicle may be registered as a special interest vehicle even if it is originally designed and manufactured for off-highway operation and does not meet certain federal motor vehicle safety standards. Former military vehicles registered as collector vehicles are not subject to the 500 pound weight limitation for hauling material.

Please reply to this email if you are interested in co-sponsoring the measure, or call our offices. Sen. Erpenbach 608-266-6670 or Rep. Pope-Roberts 608-266-3520.

The draft is attached for your consideration


This is me again. I'm not sure how to copy the bill in here. I'm having Tom from our Wisconsin-Pinzgauers website post it to our site, and I'll post a link asap.

You read it right!! They believe that WisDOT is trying to DO AWAY WITH ALL HISTORIC MILITARY VEHICLES. They are willing to fight WisDOT.

Basically, Sen. Erpenbach's bill will allow ANY historic military vehicle, from any country, and from any age, to be registered in Wisconsin as a "collector" vehicle. There is a ONE-TIME registration fee, then no annual payment. Just like any collector licensed vehicle, it would not be able to operate in January, unless the owner paid a small additional fee. But how many of these trucks are driving around Wisconsin in January?? But, most importantly, this bill EXEMPTS the vehicle from the payload restriction regular collector vehicles have. This allows people to use the trucks for regular PRIVATE (not for-hire) uses, including local fire departments and search & rescue functions.

Rep. Zigmunt's bill is being promoted as giving HMV owners a lot of rights. I say bull$hit. You've ALREADY got the right to drive your trucks as you please, so long as you get it properly licensed. The bill that Jeff Rowsam wants you to support will only allow you to drive your trucks to parades and for maintenance purposes. Why are you willing to give up your rights?? These vehicles were created, and operated, in order to PRESERVE your rights. If you're willing to preserve these vehicles, shouldn't you also be concerned about preserving the rignts that these vehicles defended?

If you agree that Sen. Erpenbach's bill better preserves your rights, please contact your Senator and your Assembly Representative. Ask them to contact Sen. Erpenbach's office and support his bill. To find your representatives, try this link: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/

Those of you who know me, know that I already prevailed over DOT in my appeal hearing. That's how the Pinzgauers got relicensed. If you don't know me, and/or want to get a copy of both Rep. Zigmunt's bill, AND Sen. Erpenbach's bill, please contact me. Respond through this board, or my home email: undy@mhtc.net, or call me at 608 437-3465. I've had just about enough of our DOT hassling us over legally purchased vehicles. Whatever I can do to help correct this, I will.

More to come...

Sincerely,
Paul Underwood
Blue Mounds, Wis.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for you efforts! I am a Maryland resident, but I own a second home in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, and also a large tree farm. I was quite disturbed by the bill that Zigmunt was sponsoring, as it removed all of the rights and privileges that MV drivers currently have, and restored two.

Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I agree with Ben.

The problem I have thus far with Erpenbach's bill is it doesn't allow for the use of military vehicles as ordinary vehicles. M35A2's make dandy logging and farm trucks. That wouldn't be permitted under the proposed legislation.

-Chuck

On the surface this does seem better than previous alternatives. But I wonder if the senator will make good on his efforts. And is there even time for him to do so? Isn't the other bill going to be voted on rather soon? And why hasn't Sen. Erpenbach contacted the makers of the other bill and tried to get them to change their mind and work with him for this better alternative?

Most don't pay attention to a problem that doesn't effect them, but I know when a law passes in one state, others will follow. So I'd like to thank you for fighting this issue before the rest of us have to.

I've emailed my rep and senator, and I have to applaud you for the effort you have done in getting someone out there to support our hobby!!!!

stumps said:

M35A2's make dandy logging and farm trucks. That wouldn't be permitted under the proposed legislation.

-Chuck

Click to expand...

now we both know that farmers and loggers need to be protected from M35A2's running over their feet. Or exploding randomly. Or turning into big killer robots.

They become so much more dangerous than any other truck if you try to work them...

And we have to protect people from that...

Hi Electrons,

Actually, Sen. Erpenbach's bill was created before Zigmunt's was. His office has been busily soliciting support. Last word from them was that they had 14 Senators co-authoring it, including Sen. Holperin, the head of the Senate Committee for Transportation. They were still looking for more, but that's a lot.

As for hauling logs and farm stuff, that's specifically why Sen. Erpenbach's proposal would exempt ex-military vehicles from the payload restriction. We COULD still haul stuff, under that proposal. The proposed bill from Zigmunt would not only restrict you from hauling things, it would make any imported HVM totally illegal.

Remember, WisDOT first tried to outlaw Pinzgauers (austrian HMV), and they're po'd about losing that fight in court. That was just their first step to outlaw ALL HMVs, including US ex-mil vehicles, as Senator Erpenbach wrote (see above reply).

I'm hoping to get a link posted today to Sen. Erpenbach's proposed bill. (Sorry for the delay, I don't know how to do it myself, so I'm relying on another friend.) I can email copies to anyone who requests it.

Please stay tuned...

Paul U

Thanks for your work on this.

Benjamin Franklin's statement, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" applies to all of us (figuratively of course).

WisDOT was hoping that MV owners would just rollover and go away. Much along the same lines as what is happening in the rest of the country with politics they were wrong.

(If I say anymore Doghead will whack me.....)

sw

Is this to say.. others of us (out of state) can sway the effort in our favor, or just Wisconson residents? We should contact our reps...? if so I'm with ya, will do......

GoHot229 said:

Is this to say.. others of us (out of state) can sway the effort in our favor, or just Wisconson residents?

Click to expand...

Representatives tend to only pay attention to two things: constituents, and money. Those of us that are out of state can lend a hand in paying for the fight, and helping with administrative issues such as organizing events, raising funds, writing letters for others to send, spreading the word, writing letters to the editor, providing interviews to the WI press, encouraging WI people to do the right thing over the expedient thing....

-Chuck

Law should be based on findings, such as MV accident statistics or similar issues. Not mearly because some DOT flunky is pissed-off about some Austrian imports. Does anyone know of any legit reasons for this legislation?

Hi Again,

Yes, people from outside of Wisconsin will not have any influence on Wisconsin representatives. Any other forms of help are welcome - encouragement, publicity, funds (if needed, so far not), etc.

Legit reasons? Well, none that I've seen. WisDOT has not provided any statistical evidence that HMVs are unsafe, merely that they lack FMVSS (safety standards) labels. As far as Austrian imports, there are many Federal documents which support the legal importation and on-road operation of antique (over 25-yr. old) HMVs, like my Pinzgauer. I have a letter from US DOT/NHTSA's chief of Import and Certification, which identifies my truck by VIN as being exempted from FMVSS regulation, and STILL WisDOT wants to outlaw our trucks!!! Even after a judge ruled in my favor. Legit reasons? It still feels like a witch hunt.

I'm still trying to get Sen. Erpenbach's proposal linked in here. Sorry for my delay.

Paul U

Paul, You are on the right track. Having the Chair of the trans committee onboard is a great asset. Our DMV was the ogre in Kansas and they tried every angle. They tried Homeland Security threat, RollOver risk to occupants, Hysteria from other motorists, road damage, traffic fatalities, etc. Each time we would meet and the committee would find the DMVs claims unfounded. Within a week they would come up with the next threat. Finally we prevailed and the statute was passed, forcing our DMV to issue plates, allowing us to haul and drive on a daily basis all MVs except those fully tracked. Keep after them. Wave the flag. I invited several serving soldiers to go with me and speak to the matter in uniform. The DMV director tried several times to have compromise legislation put forward dividing MVers by promising jeep owners that their vehicles would not be involved if they would sign on to her compromise. To their credit these jeep owners stood firm with the AFV and truck owners. I am deeply concerned that the other proposed bill is simply a divide and conquer tactic put forth under the table by the DOT. YA'all stick together up thar!!!!!!!

Reply from my Senator:



"Welcome to Wisconsin!
It's great to hear from you and rest assured, I'm already a cosponsor of Senator Erpenbach's bill.
Whenever there is an issue important to you or a concern I may be able to help with, please be in touch.

Dale"

I just sent an email to my Rep and Sen. I will post the replies here when received.

Keep up the good work Paul.

FINALLY!! Thanks to Tom Landmann, here's the link to Senator Erpenbach's proposed bill:

http://www.wisconsin-pinzgauers.org/sites/default/files/Pinzgauer Bill - 09-35621.pdf

Please read this over.

Thank you,
Paul

Hi Paul,

His bill looks good as far as a collector's bill goes. It creates a class of special permit for MV's that are kept in original configuration. All of the bobbed deuces are out in the cold, as their MV's are not being maintained in their original configuration. Vehicles that have been demilled are also screwed. Gun trucks without their guns are not in their original configuration. Anyone that changed the unit markings on their truck is thrown overboard. Everyone that painted their camo MV to some other color are also out in the cold. And it gets very cold in Wisconsin.

So, for collectors, and re-enacters, everything is fine.... everyone else is screwed.

Because MV's are built to a military specification standard that remains substantially unchanged for entire series of vehicles, I propose a simple addition to the motor vehicle code that grandfathers military vehicles to the standards that were employed as of the date they were designed and approved by the government, not the date of manufacture. Only an expert could tell the difference between a M35A2 made in 1965 and a M35A2 made in 1985.

-Chuck

Paul keep up the good work. As a future WI resident I like the proposal. As for bumper markings and paint causing vehicles to not being in their origional configuration, are you really serious? Gun trucks without guns would actually be legal as most gun replicas are illegal in WI. Last there was an XM numbered bobbed deuce prototype that was made by the govt, the driver of a current one would be just duplicating what the govt created. I think some are reading way too much into this.

hndrsonj said:

Paul keep up the good work. As a future WI resident I like the proposal. As for bumper markings and paint causing vehicles to not being in their origional configuration, are you really serious? Gun trucks without guns would actually be legal as most gun replicas are illegal in WI. Last there was an XM numbered bobbed deuce prototype that was made by the govt, the driver of a current one would be just duplicating what the govt created. I think some are reading way too much into this.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but at least I did read it.

" "Former Military Vehicle" means a vehicle, including a trailer but excluding a tracked vehicle, that is at least 25 years old, was manufactured for use in any countries military forces, and is maintained to accurately represent its military design and markings, regardless of the vehicles size or weight."

The bill says, "accurately represent its military design and markings." That is what will be argued in court when WI DOT decides that the only way to accurately represent is to duplicate.

The bill couldn't be any clearer about excluding modifications (design) such as bobtailed deuces, and non military paint jobs (markings). A gun truck without its gun fittings doesn't accurately represent its military design.

Lyndon Johnson as a senator once said: " You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and harm it would cause if improperly administered."

This bill is too restrictive, and doesn't allow ordinary use of these vehicles. It too should be tabled.

WI MV owners should settle for nothing less than having their vehicles grandfathered into the DOT regulations at the date the design was first issued. After that is done, then a special class of registration for collectors of MV's that accurately represent their design and markings should be sought.

-Chuck

On the subject of modifications and markings, I think I need to make myself more clear. Here is a quote from the pdf of the proposed legislation:

" "Former Military Vehicle" means a vehicle, including a trailer but excluding a tracked vehicle, that is at least 25 years old, was manufactured for use in any countries military forces, and is maintained to accurately represent <<its>> military design and markings, regardless of the vehicles size or weight."

I have put some emphasis around the word <<its>>. "Its" refers to the vehicle being registered, not the entire class of vehicles of that type.... this deuce, not all deuces... If the vehicle being registered left the military as a bobtailed deuce, then you will be fine in registering it in Wisconsin as a bobtailed deuce. If the vehicle being registered was, on the other hand, a deuce with a 10 seater mobile latrine built into the back, you are not. According to my reading of this proposed legislation, removing the 10 seater mobile latrine from the frame would likely alter <<its>> military design. Cutting off the last axle would without any doubt alter <<its>> military design.

Remember, this stuff is going to be read and interpreted by lawyers, and judges... Not by reasonable people.

-Chuck