Way Ahead for Kansans to on road title MV stamped Off Road Use

Steel Soldiers is supported by:

Jesse Dorman

New member
5
1
3
Location
Hutchinson, Kansas
You see, the owner of title pictured resides in Wichita KS and he somehow got an on road Kansas title, as where in Reno county has still been a no go at our DMV as well as our local KHP inspection office when Humvees are bought out of state with out of state on road titles, things do not add up in my opinion.
 

98G

Former SSG
Steel Soldiers Supporter
4,576
337
83
Location
AZ/KS/MO/OK, varies by the day...
You see, the owner of title pictured resides in Wichita KS and he somehow got an on road Kansas title, as where in Reno county has still been a no go at our DMV as well as our local KHP inspection office when Humvees are bought out of state with out of state on road titles, things do not add up in my opinion.

Culture war.

The single biggest determinant as to whether you have a problem at any DMV isn't even what the law states. The single biggest variable is whether the person behind the counter thinks you should be able to own it. Those in petty positions of power love a nice complex grey regulation. This allows them to arbitrarily deny.

Laws do not permit things. Laws prohibit or mandate. In the absence of a law prohibiting something it should be permitted. I am not aware of any Kansas law prohibiting the titling or on road registration of hmmwvs or other military vehicles.

So some DMV denies in the absence of legal basis. Legislation is proposed as the remedy. What is desired is black letter law mandating that DMV title and license them. Unfortunately, by putting it in front of lawmakers, we're as likely to get black letter law prohibiting them as we are to getting black letter law forcing the DMVs to title them.
 

Jesse Dorman

New member
5
1
3
Location
Hutchinson, Kansas
Culture war.

The single biggest determinant as to whether you have a problem at any DMV isn't even what the law states. The single biggest variable is whether the person behind the counter thinks you should be able to own it. Those in petty positions of power love a nice complex grey regulation. This allows them to arbitrarily deny.

Laws do not permit things. Laws prohibit or mandate. In the absence of a law prohibiting something it should be permitted. I am not aware of any Kansas law prohibiting the titling or on road registration of hmmwvs or other military vehicles.

So some DMV denies in the absence of legal basis. Legislation is proposed as the remedy. What is desired is black letter law mandating that DMV title and license them. Unfortunately, by putting it in front of lawmakers, we're as likely to get black letter law prohibiting them as we are to getting black letter law forcing the DMVs to title them.
Hopefully a permanent solution can be passed as to where every DMV is notified it's a green light to tag these bad boys. Otherwise, I may of just bought a $20,000 toy that will never see the highway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 98G

TMOMW

Member
21
34
13
Location
temple texas
We have a M35a3 and a hmmwv,
maybe we’re lucky that nether one
said”off road only”
ONLY HMMWVS that were sold under 1 contract (there are many contracts) were stamped "off road only" by iron planet. no other vehicles prior or after were. i cleared that up with the head of the KS lic branch after the hearing. she now knows what a bunch of BS that is and will be telling her local offices to disreguard the stamp after the bill passes.
 

MWMULES

Moderator
Moderator
Steel Soldiers Supporter
5,517
157
63
Location
DESOTO, KANSAS
ONLY HMMWVS that were sold under 1 contract (there are many contracts) were stamped "off road only" by iron planet. no other vehicles prior or after were. i cleared that up with the head of the KS lic branch after the hearing. she now knows what a bunch of BS that is and will be telling her local offices to disreguard the stamp after the bill passes.
Wasn't it the DLA and not GP that stamped the SF97? I just looked on GP and a bunch that sold this month plus in Dec
have ORUO restriction as shown below on them, only the private sale and the former USMC HMMWV in Albany, Georgia and Yermo, California don't.
Thank you for making to the hearing.​
Notices & Restrictions
Notices & Restrictions

This item is offered for Off-Road Use Only.
Buyer will be required to sign a Hold Harmless Agreement.
Buyer is required to submit an End-Use Certificate (EUC) to be reviewed prior to removal of the item.First-time buyers of Demil B,D,E,F,Q, OR C items may experience an extended review period in the Trade Securities approval process.
GovPlanet is only permitted to sell Demil B,D,E,F,Q, OR C items within the United States and only to U.S. citizens.
Security requirements and restrictions may apply at the time of pickup. See shipping terms for details.
Specific terms & conditions apply. See details.
Items may be subject to U.S. export controls. See details.
 

porkysplace

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
9,146
275
83
Location
mid- michigan
You can bet General Motors is behind keeping HMMWV's from being titled for on road use since they plan on reviving the Hummer brand as a electric vehicle.
 

acudanut

Member
68
13
8
Location
Gardner, Ks
AM General and the U.S. Government sent out notices to all 50 States that the HMMWV was not to be allowed on Public Streets (on road). Sorry if you learned this the hard way. When AM General made these Military Vehicles they signed a agreement to this, so must of us knew it was a worthless investment. Your best chance of using it on the road is to find a wreck civilian H1 and use GI parts to get it back on the road. Cheers.
BTW General Motors does not own AM General (nor have they ever). However...GM supplies all the parts to them. Figure that one out.
Google AM General ownership (past and present). Cheers.
 
Last edited:

98G

Former SSG
Steel Soldiers Supporter
4,576
337
83
Location
AZ/KS/MO/OK, varies by the day...
it was a worthless investment. Your best chance of using it on the road is to find a wreck civilian H1 and use GI parts to get it back on the road.

Nonsense.

Your best bet of using it on the road is to live in a state that allows registration or change your state's laws to look more like TX or ID.
 

acudanut

Member
68
13
8
Location
Gardner, Ks
Nonsense.

Your best bet of using it on the road is to live in a state that allows registration or change your state's laws to look more like TX or ID.
What, a State defy the Federal Government. ? Hmmmmm
LOL

"change your state's laws to look more like TX or ID" .. GOODLUCK WITH THAT. You don't live in either State.
 
Last edited:

98G

Former SSG
Steel Soldiers Supporter
4,576
337
83
Location
AZ/KS/MO/OK, varies by the day...
What, a State defy the Federal Government. ? Hmmmmm
TX explicitly allows for registration and on road use of milsurp HMMWVs, explicitly including the ones with the offroad stamp.

Many states are willing to title and register them. KS is hit or miss.

Edit to add link to TX's law. And to suggest it as a model....

 
Last edited:

acudanut

Member
68
13
8
Location
Gardner, Ks
TX explicitly allows for registration and on road use of milsurp HMMWVs, explicitly including the ones with the offroad stamp.

Many states are willing to title and register them. KS is hit or miss.

Edit to add link to TX's law. And to suggest it as a model....

If you are going to Quote me, Please include all of it.
Anyway, Kansas sucks for titling anything anymore. They put the brakes on everything here. I can't even get a Title for a 60 year farm truck, because the title was lost and I got it rolling again with a Mustang II front steering Rack/Pinion. Went 2 times and came home S.O.L. They told me, Sorry it's modified. I said really, it's 60 years old. What do you expect.
 

Ajax MD

Well-known member
984
369
63
Location
Mayo, MD
AM General and the U.S. Government sent out notices to all 50 States that the HMMWV was not to be allowed on Public Streets (on road). Sorry if you learned this the hard way. When AM General made these Military Vehicles they signed a agreement to this, so must of us knew it was a worthless investment. Your best chance of using it on the road is to find a wreck civilian H1 and use GI parts to get it back on the road. Cheers.
BTW General Motors does not own AM General (nor have they ever). However...GM supplies all the parts to them. Figure that one out.
Google AM General ownership (past and present). Cheers.
Ok, time to de-bunk this. What you're stating is a partial truth. Yes, AM Gen did push an Off-Road Use Only restriction, but not because the vehicles are unsafe. It's a ploy to protect their market.

The US Army made a bad deal with DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) at the behest of AM Gen to have all SF-97's stamped with the "Offroad Use Only" restriction.

The USMC however, refused to make this deal with DLA and auctioned off their surplus HMMWVs in a different manner, and those SF-97's DO NOT, NOT, NOT carry this restriction. These SF-97's are as valid for on-road use as any SF-97 for an M35, 5-ton, FMTV etc. The USMC basically told AM Gen to kiss off.

As a result, several surplus USMC HMMWVs easily obtained on-road titles. This has led to a great deal of confusion and cross-pollination of surplus Army HMMWVs also obtaining on-road titles and registration. On top of this, some liberty-minded states simply didn't care about the "Off-road" stamp on the SF-97 and titled the vehicle in whatever manner the owner requested. Is this the owner's fault? No, it is not.

I have spoken to several HMMWV owners who stated that their SF-97's did NOT carry the off-road restriction. These owners are totally within the law and they are not responsible for the current debacle.
 

TMOMW

Member
21
34
13
Location
temple texas
AM General and the U.S. Government sent out notices to all 50 States that the HMMWV was not to be allowed on Public Streets (on road). Sorry if you learned this the hard way. When AM General made these Military Vehicles they signed a agreement to this, so must of us knew it was a worthless investment. Your best chance of using it on the road is to find a wreck civilian H1 and use GI parts to get it back on the road. Cheers.
BTW General Motors does not own AM General (nor have they ever). However...GM supplies all the parts to them. Figure that one out.
Google AM General ownership (past and present). Cheers.
am general has sent letters to every state demanding they NOT title them, BUT they are doing it knowing they have lost in court and in the fed government on the on road issue..... you are 100% wrong on the government sending anything out about the titleing (recently last few years) of the vehicles. they now state that they have no say or opinion about former MVs being on or off road and they have been saying it it up to the state to title or not title them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 98G

TMOMW

Member
21
34
13
Location
temple texas
Ok, time to de-bunk this. What you're stating is a partial truth. Yes, AM Gen did push an Off-Road Use Only restriction, but not because the vehicles are unsafe. It's a ploy to protect their market.

The US Army made a bad deal with DLA (Defense Logistics Agency) at the behest of AM Gen to have all SF-97's stamped with the "Offroad Use Only" restriction.

The USMC however, refused to make this deal with DLA and auctioned off their surplus HMMWVs in a different manner, and those SF-97's DO NOT, NOT, NOT carry this restriction. These SF-97's are as valid for on-road use as any SF-97 for an M35, 5-ton, FMTV etc. The USMC basically told AM Gen to kiss off.

As a result, several surplus USMC HMMWVs easily obtained on-road titles. This has led to a great deal of confusion and cross-pollination of surplus Army HMMWVs also obtaining on-road titles and registration. On top of this, some liberty-minded states simply didn't care about the "Off-road" stamp on the SF-97 and titled the vehicle in whatever manner the owner requested. Is this the owner's fault? No, it is not.

I have spoken to several HMMWV owners who stated that their SF-97's did NOT carry the off-road restriction. These owners are totally within the law and they are not responsible for the current debacle.
not 100% true.... only 1 contract (ending soon) required all hmmwvs in that one contract be stamped by iron planet (NOT the government DOD or GSA). all other contracts selling DOD rolling stock is not required to have the stamp, and the stamp is only required on the first SF97... replacement SF97s are not required to have the stamp. the army just recently sold a batch of GMVs that were army owned and did not have the stamp.... fun fact the lawyer that demanded the "off road only" stamp in the contract was fired by the DOD and no longer works at DLA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 98G

TMOMW

Member
21
34
13
Location
temple texas
You can bet General Motors is behind keeping HMMWV's from being titled for on road use since they plan on reviving the Hummer brand as a electric vehicle.
AMG is attacking anything that uses there products, they sued activision and other video game companies for over a billion, they have gone after toy companies, they have gone after people selling HMMWV parts... AMG is currently for sale and the current owners are trying to get 2 billion for it. and the HMMER brand is expected to come back as a singe vehicle under chevy.... BUT its not a done deal, and AMG will not have anything to do with it... currently AMG has orders for the HMMWV to last them for years, but also they are trying to team up with JEEP to build military jeep pick ups for export (cheap HMMWVs) . all in all AMG is a dying company that wants to get out of making vehicles and go into auto software and quality testing (they have a new MI facility that they are putting all there money into right now for that)
 
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