Bad Bill for Title Military Surplus Off Road Moves to Virginia Senate

Steel Soldiers is supported by:

Bulldogger

Member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
918
16
18
Location
Alexandria VA
So if I understand this correctly, if you currently have an MV (or purchase one in the near future) and put regular tags on it before 12-31-2018, you are good to go? It's only after the December 2018 cut off that the (much) more restrictive plates become the only option?

It's posted in this thread, supposedly, the VaSP rep stated that "no MV is going to pass inspection in Va." Which I interpet to mean that you may have regular tags on your MV now but when it comes up for inspection, it won't pass (no matter what) and you'll either have to buy the more restrictive tags or pull your truck off the road.

Matt
Your summary is how I have come to understand the current status (current, since laws can be changed). I use antique plates myself but am considering regular tags in case those give me any extra leeway later. I don't use my truck but once a week to keep the fluids moving or for actual haulage.

BDGR
 

L1A1

New member
1,008
3
0
Location
H'burg, VA
My Indiana rep said it is the manufactures association that is driving Indiana's version of law. They don't want old vehicles on the road so their supporters sell more new ones...thus we have a strong bias against us. But hey, I got almost kicked off SS for wanting a pro-active approach and now I'm just a spectator...have give up on my representative doing any good.
Are they going after ALL old vehicles or just MVs in particular? I could see what your Rep's answer making sense if it was any & everything made before a certain date but the auto makers going just after MVs seems odd.

Let's face it: MVs & the people who own them are such a nitche market like those who own & operate micro cars or amphibians that I don't see it being worth the effort/trouble by the auto industry to use it's influence to legislate us out of existence. What would the auto industry gain from it?

Matt
 

Crider281

Member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
38
0
6
Location
virginia
Such a shame as we have an entire fleet of military trucks we use for work that would essentially be put a halt to future operations and purchases of fleet truck replacements..
 

Wire Fox

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
1,188
32
48
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
My Indiana rep said it is the manufactures association that is driving Indiana's version of law. They don't want old vehicles on the road so their supporters sell more new ones...thus we have a strong bias against us. But hey, I got almost kicked off SS for wanting a pro-active approach and now I'm just a spectator...have give up on my representative doing any good.
Indiana's version? Is there a bill in draft that I'm missing for Indiana right now?
 

aleigh

Active member
1,016
5
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ & Seattle, WA
The part I don't get is how many HMMWV-related accidents must there have been terrorizing the streets of VA for this to be raised to the level of legislative awareness that they are actually trying to pass a law. I understand what is being said about the manufacturer's association but really there are so few M/Vs on the road how is this even an issue whether you are a commercial supplier like International or a consumer supplier like Jeep. It just doesn't seem like our community is anything anyone should care about defeating, how is this on anybody's radar?
 

Flyingvan911

Well-known member
4,659
60
48
Location
Kansas City, MO
It’s probably a very few people with some influence who don’t like them and want them off the road. It’s easy to take away someone’s freedom when it’s not your own.
 

Crider281

Member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
38
0
6
Location
virginia
I spoke with Virginia Delegate David Yancey whom was very nice to speak with. Here is an email from the Va DMV Chairman on this issue.

Mr. Chairman -


Thank you for the opportunity to respond. HB 1323 was specifically intended to cover surplus Humvees ("multipurpose" in the "military surplus motor vehicle" definition) and Joint Light Tactical Vehicles ("tactical" in the same definition), which are designed for off-road use and, so, should otherwise not qualify for license plates. DMV recognizes that military surplus trucks, like those used by Mr. Crider, were built for highway use. For that reason, they do not fall into the new definition of "military surplus motor vehicle" and are not affected by the requirements of HB 1323. DMV has titled and registered these vehicles for many years with "Truck" license plates and will continue to do so moving forward.


I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please let me know or contact Tonya Blaine, Director of Vehicle Services at 804-367-0599.


Rick


Richard D. Holcomb
Virginia DMV |Commissioner
804-367-6606
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Crider281

Member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
38
0
6
Location
virginia
So based on that it appears that regular military trucks can still be tagged with "Truck" tags, but Hummers and Light tactical vehicles will need to go under the Military Surplus Vehicle Tags if not grandfathered in by 12-31-2018.

One other business that would have been burdened by this bill would have been "Mission BBQ" with their Deuce and a Halfs..
 

MaverickH1

Member
343
0
16
Location
Roanoke, VA
I spoke with Virginia Delegate David Yancey whom was very nice to speak with. Here is an email from the Va DMV Chairman on this issue.
Mr. Chairman -
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. HB 1323 was specifically intended to cover surplus Humvees ("multipurpose" in the "military surplus motor vehicle" definition) and Joint Light Tactical Vehicles ("tactical" in the same definition), which are designed for off-road use and, so, should otherwise not qualify for license plates. DMV recognizes that military surplus trucks, like those used by Mr. Crider, were built for highway use. For that reason, they do not fall into the new definition of "military surplus motor vehicle" and are not affected by the requirements of HB 1323. DMV has titled and registered these vehicles for many years with "Truck" license plates and will continue to do so moving forward.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please let me know or contact Tonya Blaine, Director of Vehicle Services at 804-367-0599.
Rick


Richard D. Holcomb
Virginia DMV |Commissioner
804-367-6606
This just gets dumber and dumber. And to think... this guy's biggest achievement is to be in charge of a division that controls something which he knows nothing about.

There's no question that military vehicles will all fall under this category in the future, regardless of what these ignorant cream puffs say.

I tried to bring this up to the committee and all senators involved in my amended bill because their definition was laughable. But of course, they didn't have the time.

Wannabe tyrants, the lot of them.
 

aleigh

Active member
1,016
5
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ & Seattle, WA
Legislative cheat-sheet:

Step 1: Despite probably being a lawyer, pass poorly worded text into law which is overly broad and has dubious and unproven societal value.

Step 2: Reassure people who can read English that the law will only be applied "when it makes sense", not as it is written, or even intended.

Step 3: Profit.

I wish I could say this is the first time.
 

L1A1

New member
1,008
3
0
Location
H'burg, VA
I spoke with Virginia Delegate David Yancey whom was very nice to speak with. Here is an email from the Va DMV Chairman on this issue.
Mr. Chairman -
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. HB 1323 was specifically intended to cover surplus Humvees ("multipurpose" in the "military surplus motor vehicle" definition) and Joint Light Tactical Vehicles ("tactical" in the same definition), which are designed for off-road use and, so, should otherwise not qualify for license plates. DMV recognizes that military surplus trucks, like those used by Mr. Crider, were built for highway use. For that reason, they do not fall into the new definition of "military surplus motor vehicle" and are not affected by the requirements of HB 1323. DMV has titled and registered these vehicles for many years with "Truck" license plates and will continue to do so moving forward.
Rick
If I may ask, what kind of MV do you own that they claimed was "built for highway use"? And by extension, be safe from the new MV plate regs?

Also if anyone can help me here what is a "Joint Light tactical Vehicle"? What comes to mind are either a Chenowith(sp?) sand rails used by the SEALs or one the small "armored cars" used over seas in conjunction with the MRAPS?

Thanks,
Matt
 

MaverickH1

Member
343
0
16
Location
Roanoke, VA
If I may ask, what kind of MV do you own that they claimed was "built for highway use"? And by extension, be safe from the new MV plate regs?

Also if anyone can help me here what is a "Joint Light tactical Vehicle"? What comes to mind are either a Chenowith(sp?) sand rails used by the SEALs or one the small "armored cars" used over seas in conjunction with the MRAPS?

Thanks,
Matt
I have seen his other, more detailed e-mail to Yancey. They conclude it was "designed for off road use" for two reasons:

1) Some unnamed person in the DLA decided to put "Off Road Use Only" on the SF97 for some of the trucks sold at auction.
2) AM General sent a letter saying they were "not designed for civilian road use".

They simultaneously disregard AM General's letter to the NHTSA from the early 90s which admits it was designed for road use and the NHTSA classifies it as a motor vehicle by scoffing at it and saying:

"I don't care what people said 30 years ago."

I have that e-mail too, via a Freedom of Information Act request. And I think they still hid a significant amount of material from me, claiming it was "personal information" for other people who they could not share.
 
Last edited:

aleigh

Active member
1,016
5
38
Location
Phoenix, AZ & Seattle, WA
Also if anyone can help me here what is a "Joint Light tactical Vehicle"? What comes to mind are either a Chenowith(sp?) sand rails used by the SEALs or one the small "armored cars" used over seas in conjunction with the MRAPS?
The JTLV was the program to pick a replacement for the HMMWV. The Oshkosh LATV actually won, but I guess anyone's guess if they will wind up calling that the JTLV or the LATV. Either way, I don't know if any are in service yet, but certainly none have gotten old and come out at auction. Very latest.
 

L1A1

New member
1,008
3
0
Location
H'burg, VA
The JTLV was the program to pick a replacement for the HMMWV. The Oshkosh LATV actually won, but I guess anyone's guess if they will wind up calling that the JTLV or the LATV. Either way, I don't know if any are in service yet, but certainly none have gotten old and come out at auction. Very latest.
Thanks for that bit of info. After googling images of said vehicle it does look familiar. That thing appears to have an armored body so Uncle Sam will never surplus them out to private Citizens anyway. What is particularly disturbing about Va's ban is that it not only bans the current crop of MVs hitting the market, it is also banning the replacements for the vehicles currently serving...Before they even go to surplus.......

Matt
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks