Colorado Bill SB19-054 RE: (Former) Military Vehicle Motor Vehicle Regulation

Steel Soldiers is supported by:

wyowillys46

New member
3
4
3
Location
CO
Hey all. Never posted on SS before, but I lurk the forums occasionally, know many military vehicle owners, and have been following this issue as it is nearly a "takings" issue in my opinion that amounts to the loss of use of tens of thousands of dollars worth of vehicles.

CO-HB1170 sponsored by Steve Humphrey, Vicki Marble, and others is coming up tomorrow March 4th for a House Transportation & Local Government Hearing in Room LSB-A at 1330. The bill is pretty simple and seems to fix the situation.

SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 42-4-109.7 as follows: 42-4-109.7. Military vehicles A SURPLUS MILITARY VEHICLE OR MILITARY VEHICLE MAY BE DRIVEN ON A ROADWAY.
https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1187054

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_1170_01.pdf

I'm out of town for work and can't be present. I know it's extremely last minute, but I'm hoping at least one person here can. Hopefully we can show some support in person for the committee meetings (are they open meetings?), and keep up with the bills progress to prevent any malicious strikes and/or replacements of wording as with happened with the last bill. I am wondering if it needs an addition to remove SURPLUS MILITARY VEHICLES from the definition (11.5) (b) Off highway vehicle.

For research purposes, you can view the changes to the previous bill SB19-054 below. It's interesting to see how the original bill, which was extremely friendly to FMV owners, was changed in April. Digging through the various changes under the Associated Documents tab, both Crowder and Valdez wrote the original, friendly version, and it was completely and suspiciously changed by April. The original version included what looked like some emissions exemptions, which is what may have caused some head turning.

https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1005117

EDIT. I've found a rough summary of events for the progress of SB19-054 last year. The link below lists each session of each committee in the House and Senate by date and by cross-referencing the steps in the bill tracker above you can access each meeting's documents.

https://leg.colorado.gov/content/committees?field_session_target_id=30

I've reviewed the changes last year. The body of SB19-054 from the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting on March 13th did not get struck and replaced to include SURPLUS MILITARY VEHICLES under the definition of Off highway vehicle until the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting on April 9th. The related amendments on that date, J.002 and L.010 are unavailable on the Committees page here. The only information available is that the motion to adopt the amendments was moved by Moreno.
 
Last edited:

ramack

New member
18
10
3
Location
Centennial, CO
Searching https://leg.colorado.gov/ produced several hits.
SB20-115 Register Surplus Military Vehicle As Farm Vehicle
Appears to be addressing similar issues, but for farm vehicles.

I've emailed the two sponsors of CO HB1170 and will try to get updates on what is coming next.


Poking around on the site, so far that bill is successful:
Refer House Bill 20-1170, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole.The motion passed on a vote of 11-0.


I'm not sure what happens next, this bill started in the House, so I think it will go the the Senate next. SB19-054 started in the Senate, then went through the House before being signed by the Governor.
 
Last edited:

wyowillys46

New member
3
4
3
Location
CO
Don't get your hopes up. HB1170 went through today's meeting and had a lot of changes. Amendment L.001 passed. I see some negative points to this amendment. The bill is limited to Historical Military Vehicles over forty years old and can only be issued a title under the following conditions:

42-12-503. Authorized use.

(1) A PERSON MAY DRIVE A REGISTERED HISTORICAL MILITARY VEHICLE ON THE HIGHWAYS, BUT ONLY:

(a) TO AND FROM ASSEMBLIES, CONVENTIONS, OR OTHER MEETINGS WHERE HISTORICAL MILITARY VEHICLES AND THEIR OWNERSHIP ARE THE PRIMARY INTEREST

(b) ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS, FOR DEMONSTRATIONS AND PARADES

(c) ON OCCASIONS WHEN THE OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE ON THE HIGHWAYS WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A TRAFFIC HAZARD; AND

(d) TO, FROM, AND DURING LOCAL, STATE, OR NATIONAL TOURS HELD PRIMARILY FOR THE EXHIBITION AND ENJOYMENT OF HISTORICAL MILITARY VEHICLES.

(2) A PERSON SHALL NOT DRIVE A HISTORICAL MILITARY VEHICLE ON THE HIGHWAYS UNLESS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION
Amendment L.002 changes the forty year old requirement to those model year 1980 and older.

Firstly, L.002 answers some questions. The standardized VIN system came into use in 1981. My guess is that the CO DRIVES system probably demands a 17 digit VIN when entered with a 1981 or newer year. NSNs, serial numbers, etc. probably can't be recognized by the software. There may be a way forward here by setting up a system to get a CO assigned VIN.

Second, I see no reason why a 1980 or older model surplus military vehicle is different from any other classic car or standard vehicle on the road of a similar age. Owners should have unrestricted use on normal titles.
 
Last edited:

Taborljoshua

Active member
124
26
28
Location
Pampa Texas
I have memorized some lines sense mine is registered prior as historical.

I am an exhibition of 1, I am warming up the engine, seals and moving tires in accordance with required maintenance, I am demonstrating the lift/carry/towing capacity of this vehicle to the public, I am transiting on the highway system and evoke the right of vehicle reciprocity. That my friend is a period correct M16 for display purposes only. Just got to think of more, being active duty I do have a get out of jail free card that I haven't used yet.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
 

Ajax MD

Well-known member
984
369
63
Location
Mayo, MD
Don't get your hopes up. HB1170 went through today's meeting and had a lot of changes. Amendment L.001 passed. I see some negative points to this amendment. The bill is limited to Historical Military Vehicles over forty years old and can only be issued a title under the following conditions:



Amendment L.002 changes the forty year old requirement to those model year 1980 and older.

Firstly, L.002 answers some questions. The standardized VIN system came into use in 1981. My guess is that the CO DRIVES system probably demands a 17 digit VIN when entered with a 1981 or newer year. NSNs, serial numbers, etc. probably can't be recognized by the software. There may be a way forward here by setting up a system to get a CO assigned VIN.

Second, I see no reason why a 1980 or older model surplus military vehicle is different from any other classic car or standard vehicle on the road of a similar age. Owners should have unrestricted use on normal titles.
The 17 digit VIN thing irks me to no end. It's practically a religion.

There will ALWAYS be vintage vehicles on the road from the era before 17-digit VINs. MVA's/DMV's need to either accept this fact and carve out an exemption , or issue 17-digit VINs with metal plates unique to the state the vehicle is being titled in. If states choose to issue VIN tags, then there should be exemptions on forcing owners to defile their collector's item by drilling and afixing these tags.

Either the owners should be allowed to carry and present these VIN tags on demand without permanently affixing them (in the glovebox with other paperwork), or be allowed to afix them in a location that impacts the vehicle's collector value in the least possible manner, wherever that may be.
 

wyowillys46

New member
3
4
3
Location
CO
The 17 digit VIN thing irks me to no end. It's practically a religion.

There will ALWAYS be vintage vehicles on the road from the era before 17-digit VINs. MVA's/DMV's need to either accept this fact and carve out an exemption , or issue 17-digit VINs with metal plates unique to the state the vehicle is being titled in. If states choose to issue VIN tags, then there should be exemptions on forcing owners to defile their collector's item by drilling and afixing these tags.

Either the owners should be allowed to carry and present these VIN tags on demand without permanently affixing them (in the glovebox with other paperwork), or be allowed to afix them in a location that impacts the vehicle's collector value in the least possible manner, wherever that may be.
Not sure what your argument is, as DMVs do recognize nonconforming VINs for pre-1981 vehicles, which is evidenced by the fact that older vehicles are still titled, registered, and operated on the roads. Just as the government has never retroactively banned all pre 1967 vehicles for not meeting FMVSS 209 (seatbelts), they've never retroactively banned vehicles solely for lacking a 17 digit VIN because they were manufactured prior to 1981. That is Ex Post Facto law.

Back to the bill at hand, I see a third issue. The 1980 "rule" prevents the use of CUCVs, which as understand, have a standard 17 digit VIN.
 
Last edited:

ramack

New member
18
10
3
Location
Centennial, CO
I see that HB20-1170 is on the menu on Monday.


Upcoming Schedule
Mar 9
Monday
House Floor Work
10:00 am | House Chamber



This is getting weird. According to the FISCAL NOTE:

Summary of Legislation
The bill allows surplus military vehicles and military vehicles to be driven on roadways without
requiring them to be titled or registered.

Background
Under current law, a surplus military vehicle is considered an off-highway vehicle. Owners may
request an Off-Highway Vehicle Colorado Certificate of Title, but the vehicle may not be registered
for on-road use by the Department of Revenue.
There are currently 1,399 surplus military vehicles titled in Colorado; however, they are not required
to be titled, so the exact number of surplus military vehicles in Colorado is unknown.
 
Last edited:

Ohiobenz

Active member
Supporting Vendor
323
32
28
Location
Seville, OH
I'm in Ohio and my '98 M1079 titled as an RV without a problem.
After investing $1000's in just upgrades to the basic rig, in addition to the costs of the RV components, "Historical" or "Offroad" use doesn't do me a bit of good.
Maybe a baseless worry, but once things become laws in some states, inevitably other sheep follow the precedent.....
It's already near impossible to get RV insurance. This would just be another excuse for insurance companies to deny coverage or at ridiculous prices.
The fight needs to be for/over former MV period!
 

SgtMajHarper

Member
118
15
18
Location
Falcon, CO
@Ohiobenz
Agreed. I've been in contact with the offices of both sponsors. Since all this COVID crap has blown up, things in Colorado have been paused.
Unless I understood it wrong; the last I heard on Colorado was that the bill had gone thru a couple of meetings, had some wording changed and that it was just kind of sitting on the shelf and that it would be automatically be passed without objection and the end of the current legislative session and then the Governor signs it into law and that sometime like mid Aug. it was a done deal.......maybe so / maybe not now?
 

ramack

New member
18
10
3
Location
Centennial, CO
OB,
Yeah. You missed a very key word...[so willingly without question] compromised due to C19. Funny that you say that. Last night I was [half] joking with a brother in CA, that I this was a great opportunity for the Fed to see just how easily or not we would conform to a government mandate or martial law.

TlJ,
The phone will not be answered because the building is empty. I don't think it will be until Fall before it reconvenes.

SgtMH,
That's the "plan" to have it go through as is. The last I corresponded with the sponsors, I had asked to allow ALL MVs allowed on the road to travel at any time. Currently the bill restricts historical MVs to be driven to an event. It's still fuzzy what non-historical MV are allowed. I've been working OT for the past several weeks and haven't had a chance to see what's happened recently.
 

Ohiobenz

Active member
Supporting Vendor
323
32
28
Location
Seville, OH
I
OB,
Yeah. You missed a very key word...[so willingly without question] compromised due to C19. Funny that you say that. Last night I was [half] joking with a brother in CA, that I this was a great opportunity for the Fed to see just how easily or not we would conform to a government mandate or martial law.
There are many who think this was exactly that. Not only willingly, but willing to report others deemed to be in violation.... without a single shot fired...
 

SgtMajHarper

Member
118
15
18
Location
Falcon, CO
OB,
Yeah. You missed a very key word...[so willingly without question] compromised due to C19. Funny that you say that. Last night I was [half] joking with a brother in CA, that I this was a great opportunity for the Fed to see just how easily or not we would conform to a government mandate or martial law.

TlJ,
The phone will not be answered because the building is empty. I don't think it will be until Fall before it reconvenes.

SgtMH,
That's the "plan" to have it go through as is. The last I corresponded with the sponsors, I had asked to allow ALL MVs allowed on the road to travel at any time. Currently the bill restricts historical MVs to be driven to an event. It's still fuzzy what non-historical MV are allowed. I've been working OT for the past several weeks and haven't had a chance to see what's happened recently.
I'm a retired Trooper, still instruct at the academy and deal with lots of cops all the time and the guys think this is all "Bravo Sierra" and don't give a darn about stopping MV's and looking for registration anyway. Many of them are owners themselves, Vet's or at least fans and say drive without plates, they don't care........not my position however. I guess we continue to wait and see.
 

Taborljoshua

Active member
124
26
28
Location
Pampa Texas
Martial law? Dude Im an Active Duty E-6 all of us from almost every branch are on quarantine orders meaning if we break quarantine then it's I believe UCMJ Article 84.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
 

SgtMajHarper

Member
118
15
18
Location
Falcon, CO
I'm a retired Trooper, still instruct at the academy and deal with lots of cops all the time and the guys think this is all "Bravo Sierra" and don't give a darn about stopping MV's and looking for registration anyway. Many of them are owners themselves, Vet's or at least fans and say drive without plates, they don't care........not my position however. I guess we continue to wait and see.
From the state legislature web site following the 3rd reading of the bill: Act subject to petition - effective date. This act takes effect at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the expiration of the ninety-day period after final adjournment of the general assembly (August 5, 2020, if adjournment sine die is on May 6, 2020)
 

snowtrac nome

Well-known member
1,651
72
48
Location
western alaska
If you look at all the constitutional rights we have compromised due to COVID-19, losing the right to own and drive our trucks on roads is barely on the radar....
Nice to see i'm not the only one that noticed this. When I swore to protect and defend the constitution and the country it wasn't the police state it now is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 98G
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