Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: HMMWV Bill in Washington State...Testimony help needed

  1. #21
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colbert, WA
    MVPA
    Not yet
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    CWC

    The hearing went fine. The bill was read by a staffer who did a good job summarizing it, and then the Senator who sponsored it tried to discuss it without much luck.
    There was one question from a senator...since the bill reads "military vehicles" she wanted to know if it was about tracked vehicles. The staffers said, no, primarily HUMVEES.
    Due to a full schedule, I was limited to 90 seconds. I was the only speaker on the bill.
    When finished, the chairman asked if I was talking about getting an up-armored HMMWV...I said no, I couldn't afford one. That got laughs.

    I stressed the points I made earlier here refuting some of the gross misconceptions held by the WSP staffer I spoke with.
    Also, I heard from SEMA, they submitted written testimony.

    We'll See what happens. If all else fails...I have a"Plan B".

    Thanks four your help.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JEB For This Useful Post:

    Flyingvan911 (01-29-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (01-29-2019)

  3. #22
    2 Star General tage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    LOS ANGELES / CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    662
    Thanks
    94
    Thanked 127 Times in 104 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JEB View Post
    If all else fails...I have a"Plan B".

    don't give those crooks your money...
    Just go to az and get a title like GL.
    Everything above is my two cents worth. If it offends you, well, deep breath.
    Back from the Bolshevik Exile.
    U.S.A Ret.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to tage For This Useful Post:

    USAFSS-ColdWarrior (01-29-2019)

  5. #23
    Corporal Seq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Olympic Peninsula, WA
    Posts
    34
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 10 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    Being a life long Washington resident I'd be surprised if they authorized these "assault vehicles" on the road. They are camo you know! Scary!!
    M51A2

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Seq For This Useful Post:

    98G (01-29-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (01-29-2019)

  7. #24
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colbert, WA
    MVPA
    Not yet
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    Seq...
    I'm skeptical myself.
    But at the committee hearing they seemed somewhat favorably inclined to remove the state's helmet law!
    Now that was just the committee...and I doubt if the King County socialists would ever go for it, but it shows some independent thought goes on In Olympia.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JEB For This Useful Post:

    98G (01-29-2019), cwc (01-29-2019), Storm 51 (01-30-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (01-29-2019)

  9. #25
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colbert, WA
    MVPA
    Not yet
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    An update: the Senator's office told me the bill passed the committee unanimously.

    At the last minute a group of WWII vehicle guys complained about the bill staying it's part about allowing HMMWVs to to be registered if safety mods were done, might force them to do the same with their trucks.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JEB For This Useful Post:

    infidel got me (02-09-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (02-09-2019)

  11. #26
    Private
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    PNW, USA
    Posts
    21
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 6 Posts

    Default

    Link to Washington Senate for tracking progress: https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?B...itiative=False

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CGFFEMT For This Useful Post:

    rcamacho (04-17-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (02-11-2019)

  13. #27
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Olympia/WA
    Posts
    60
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    EDIT: it's not directly about the original topic, but since this is what comes up when I search for titling HMMWV in Washington, this seemed like an appropriate place to add it. If it's too far off topic I apologize, and hope someone will point out to me a better place to put it.


    It's been a couple months since this was started, but I thought I'd add what I just found out today.

    On March 13th 2019 the DMV sent out a letter/guidance to all of the licensing offices about military vehicles.
    Basically, it says either the Form 97 has to say that the vehicle is eligible for on road use, or you have to take in a digital photo the vehicle has a VIN plate that contains a FMVSS statement (which as far as I know OSHKOSH is the only one who did that.)

    I'm hoping since mine is supposed to have a clean SF-97 with no "Off Road Only" stamps on it, that it won't be an issue. My luck the licensing office will want it to specifically state "eligible for on road use"
    Last edited by Coug; 04-17-2019 at 21:52.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Coug For This Useful Post:

    USAFSS-ColdWarrior (04-18-2019)

  15. #28
    Colonel cwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Carrollton, KY
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    1,417
    Thanked 157 Times in 91 Posts

    Default

    The bill status is now Senate Rules "X" file, which mean it is "no longer eligible for consideration". Does anyone know what happened? Was it the issue mentioned above about the WWII vehicle owners being in opposition?
    1986 M925A1
    1987 M1038
    1986 M1038
    1986 M1038
    1988 M998
    1992 M998
    2003 M1045A2
    2003 M1045A2

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to cwc For This Useful Post:

    USAFSS-ColdWarrior (04-18-2019)

  17. #29
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colbert, WA
    MVPA
    Not yet
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    I spoke to the Senator, the bill despite passing the first hurdle of the Transportation Committee, stalled.
    So that's it for this year. I was given no reason for the action, or lack thereof.

    Following up on "Coug" post of 4-17, I called a local licensing office, they had no idea what I was talking about.
    I then called the Dept. of Licensing office in Olympia, the customer service worker, which I suspect may just be a robot , had no idea either. She did deviate from her script and suggested I email the department director, which I did.
    I asked what they knew about the bill, and more specifically, what Doug mentioned.

    I also reiterated that I was looking to just license a 30 year old vehicle as a collector car for limited use and asked "...why are you so intransigent on the issue".
    Last time I emailed the director it took them a couple of months to reply, and then with a canned answer.

    I hate this state's bureaucracy. Somewhere, I think everyone who cashes a govt. check has forgotten that they work for the people, the population does not exist to serve the state.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to JEB For This Useful Post:

    Coug (04-25-2019)

  19. #30
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colbert, WA
    MVPA
    Not yet
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 17 Posts

    Default Washington State reply: No way.

    Here's a reply I got from the state HQ...

    Basically, they say, if it doesn't have a FMVSS VIN form, they don't want to play.
    Period.
    I asked if they would consider a vehicle on a case by case basis....short answer "NO". More like Heck, NO!
    I pointed out that there are many vehicle groups onthe road t
    without FMVSS...but they don'r seem to see or care about that logic.

    I have complete texts of my messages...if anyone wants to read them.


    Good afternoon
    John,
    Thank you for your email.


    I can appreciate the difficult spot this information is putting you in
    with your vehicle. Unfortunately the laws and policies of Washington state can
    make it difficult to prove that a military vehicle is eligible for on-road use.
    Below is more information regarding the laws and regulations in Washington.

    Please let me know if this information does not answer your questions: The
    Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), under 49 CFR 571.7, applies federal motor
    vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to “all motor vehicles or items of motor
    vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the
    effective date of the standard,” while specifically exempting vehicles
    manufactured for and sold directly to the US Armed Forces.However,
    Department of Defense Instruction Number 6055.04 (see page 10 of
    attached) directs, “vehicles and equipment shall comply with the intent of
    those standards as long as compliance does not degrade essential military
    characteristics
    .”

    This is not to say that any particular vehicle definitely
    complies with FMVSS. Only that they should comply as much as possible without
    degrading their military function. On a state level, 49 CFR 571 is implemented in law and rule under RCW
    46.37, WAC 204-10-021, and WAC 308-56A-500(16);
    which collectively state that vehicles must conform to FMVSS in effect at the
    time of their construction to be eligible for on-road use. If they do not
    conform, they must be registered as Off-Road Vehicles.Reading these facts together,
    under state and federal law vehicles are required to conform with FMVSS to be
    eligible for on-road use in Washington. However, vehicles built for the
    military are exempt from current FMVSS standards (although some vehicles may
    still be conforming) but still need to match FMVSS at the time they are
    manufactured
    .

    In addition, please note that the Washington State Patrol does not conduct inspections on any vehicle to
    establish safety. The only type of inspection WSP conducts is a VIN
    verification. Without the ability to inspect a specific vehicle for safety, we
    have no legal way to definitively establish that vehicle conforms with FMVSS.So, to summarize:1.
    All vehicles must meet FMVSS to be eligible for on-road use.2.
    Decommissioned military vehicles may or may not meet FMVSS.3.
    Washington cannot inspect a vehicle to establish whether or not that
    specific vehicle meets FMVSS.Given the above, DOL does not
    have the legal authority to establish that a specific vehicle has been properly
    modified to meet FMVSS. Instead, we must rely on documentation to tell us
    whether a model of military vehicle meets FMVSS.For that, we look to 49 CFR 567.4, which requires a vehicle be labeled by
    the manufacturer as conforming with FMVSS, if it does so. Based on this provision
    of the CFR, it is DOL policy that this label must be present on a military
    vehicle in order to establish it as eligible for on-road use.
    Thank you,
    Tim Davis-Simpson
    Liaison Officer 2- Vehicle and Vessel Operations
    Last edited by USAFSS-ColdWarrior; 04-28-2019 at 22:20. Reason: Font Color adjusted for readability on all platforms

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JEB For This Useful Post:

    Coug (04-29-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (04-28-2019)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •