Wis DOT v. ex-military vehicles - AB-592

[undysworld]

Okay, to clarify, yes, you fellows are correct that the military version of the Blazer reportedly has a 17 digit VIN. An owner told me that the fifth digit is a "D" if it's military, instead of a "K".

I'll admit that this is an area which I'm not too familiar with (the Blazers and pickups).

Nilsen claims the issue is whether the DOT's computer recognizes the VIN, or not. It was my understanding that any 17-digit VIN would fly.

EnglishMauser, I would VERY MUCH like to talk with you about your hearing. I'll PM you. Please give me a shout. Paul

 

[DavidB]

DO YOU SEE WHY ALL THE HAPPY COWS LEFT FOR CALIFORNIA ?
DavidB

 

[undysworld]

There will be a Public hearing Jan. 20th, 2010 to discuss both bills before the Senate:



This is Zigmunt's (DOT's) Bill:

Senate Bill 404 has been scheduled for a public hearing by Committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources in the Senate. Date/time: January 20, 2010 at 10:01 AM. Location: 300 Southeast.
Bill History: History of Senate Bill 404
Relating to: registration of former military vehicles.


This is Erpenbach's Bill:

Senate Bill 392 has been scheduled for a public hearing by Committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources in the Senate. Date/time: January 20, 2010 at 10:01 AM. Location: 300 Southeast.
Bill History: History of Senate Bill 392
Relating to: registration of former military vehicles.

 

[skinnedknuckles]

Paul, I take it that 300 South East is at the capitol in Madison?


Paul in Janesville

 

[DavidB]

Good, maybe all for one and one for all will trump the cause and bring good sense to Wisconsin! Tourism ? DUCKS a golden child? IOLA large state event .Forestry they use MVs for many uses.DNR same thing.
DavidB

 

[6x6guy]

Hey Dave, since us Illinois guys like to use your state as our back yard because the roads are better, and I realy like hanging out in Iola -what can I or we do to help you guys out john.

 

[vtwinpilot]

Exemption's are made for public service use so that eliminate's that side of it, however many of these employee's fire service, deputies etc. do aspire to get them for thier own use. I am lucky to still be working so it's very remote chance that I can make it. I really do feel this is the first step in de-valueing and eliminating all vintage vehicle's with exceptions of eltist ownership. Good luck to all of us,

 

[poof]

2009 SENATE BILL 392
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB-392.pdf

2009 SENATE BILL 404
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB-404.pdf

SB392 looks to be the less of the two Evils.

 

[tmbrwolf]

CUCV's were manufactured under an EPA and USDOT "national defense" exemption, thats why there is no FMVSS label applied to them, other than that they were built to all applicable statndards at the time.

 

[undysworld]

Hi Guys,
Just checking in here.

Paul,
Yes, this is at the Capitol. Not positive which room, but just ask.

Dave,
Yeah, "Parade-Only" use seems excessively limiting. I think we understand the concerns over Strykers or M-1's travelling down 18-151, but come on!

6x6Guy,
Your comments, etc. to our lawmakers will do nothing but confuse things, I'm afraid. But if you know any Wisconsin residents, and can fill 'em in on what's going on. Urge them to stay informed. If/WHEN we manage to get a decent, fair bill written, that's when we need every Wis. citizen to call their Senator AND their Assembly Representative and ask them to vote for the bill. They should also call our Governor's office, and tell them that he should sign it. But NOT until the bill gets written to include some reasonable operating limits.

Poof,

Thank you. I agree. It's better than being forced into a "Parade-only" registration.

From what I've heard, both from comments on this board and discussions with Jeff Rowsam (Catman), people who own their trucks as just parade vehicles seem to be okay with 404. I don't want to take that option away from them.

But there are plenty of us out here who want to license their Blazer or Pinzgauer or deuce for normal uses or Farm uses. I'd like to see some manner for getting registered for these uses included in the bill if 404 were to proceed.

Otherwise, 392 is my choice.

Tmbrwolf,

The exemption is detailed in 49CFR571.7(c). No argument that they were allowed to be built for the military without an FMVSS label. I believe they were not labeled because they were not being sold in a manner which required a certification label, ie. to someone in the US other than the military.

At issue is whether current Wis. Stats. allow such a vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Do you know of any (govt.) document which would actually specify that CUCV's meet the standards?

Cheers,
Paul

ps. See you on Wednesday.

 

[poof]

the language I like in both is no size or weight restrictions to tag it and drive on road to and from display.
I have a M274a5 and might have to find a M553 to follow me down the road.
also no trailer restrictions.
But I would hope for a way for them to be tagged and used for every day service vehicles too.. ( Not the above mentioned)

 

[CatMan]

More About WI DOT Issue

Here are a couple things to keep in mind on the Wisconsin DOT issue.

1) MVPA Board and MVM magazine involvment. The editor of MVM is the one who campainged to make me the point man on this issue for Wisconsin collectors and the magazine continues to recieve information from us and get it to their readers who are the ones who must take action and contact their Wisconsin legislators. The Presedent of the MVPA and the board of directors are very much informed and involved in the issue. And we have published information in Supply Line. As an MVPA member for many years I'm also (suprise) the chairman of the MVPA legislative issues subcommittee. And we are working a better plan for the future for all the MVPA clubs and collectors in all states. But right now the fight is in Wisconsin. And let me tell you it takes lots of time and effort that you don't see.

2) It is very easy to say "we should be able to licence and operate any vehicle for any reason by anyone, anytime". It is quite another to change an existing state law to allow military vehicles. WE are working on behalf of over 600 owners with some 1500 historic Military Vehicles in Wisconsin. We regularly meet with the the MV clubs and with individuals and they have provided plenty of input about what they want and don't want.

3) There are two bills. Both of which would create protection and allow use of former military vehicles in Wisconsin. Niether bill is perfect. We continue to work with the assembly bill (The Zigmunt Bill) and are working to amend it to simplify the language, make it easier to register your vehicle and
to expand the language so that owners can use their vehicles. My friend Paul Underwood is NOT correct that the bill only allows "parade use". But we are amending the language to spell out recreational use.

4) The Erpenbach bill that would allow us to keep out HMV's under the states collector vehicle statute (what we proposed two years ago) does not solve everything either. For example, under the Erpenbach Bill, 1993 M35A3's would not be allowed because they are too new. GL is also selling more vehicles with "Mfg date unknown". The Zigmunt bill eliminates year designations for US Mfg vehicles. So if it is Ex military you can register it period.

5) What will be likely, is parts of both bills will be merged into a single bill that will meet most of our requirements. You never get everything in these legislative issues. We are up against a very large and powerful DOT organization here.

So please read both bills and attend the hearings next week and contact your Wisconsin legislators and tell them how important this issue is and what you want them to legislate.

As in the assembly bill hearings, I'll be speaking on behalf of Wisconsin MVPA members and Clubs and HMV owners for preservation of Historic Military Vehicles. As always I'm happy to discuss your concerns and continue to advocate for you for the hobby.

Cat Man aka Jeff Rowsam

 

[vtwinpilot]

It was mentioned before about driving being a "privledge", sure but your property is also your asset's and equity. Just like the comprehensive land planning we are now having to deal with it strips your equity via putting your property in non-compliance. The people of Oregon were wise enough to push for compensation for loss of valuation. This sudden ruling on what "was" acceptable to no longer compliant devalue's a useful property item in a vehicle. Now because of some obvious over sight's on the DMV's behalf all MV are suddenly defunct. What is hypocritical is the fact that with law usually if you do not protest something it mean's you are in acceptance of it. Which is the decietful way this is set up, publish it then expect folk's to accept the fact that which they have legally driven for year's is suddenly illegal. One more thing I know that some CUCV's were actually auctioned off by the State Of Wisconsin themselve's and then titled for road use. These were ex-sherriff vehicles that were aquired from the military to save taxpayer dollars, no different than selling former law enforcement vehicles (This is a perfect comparison as CUCV's have better brakes, suspension and the turbo 400 police interceptor transmission) So how can the state defunct vehicle's they themselves have sold? May as well outlaw ex cop cars.

 

[johnBoy]

I think my FMSS label fell off my M35 or was painted over. HA! Regardless of what happen to it, do we not have any competent people to inspect my truck to see that it in fact does comply to all of the 1971 laws??

 

[poof]

There will be a Public hearing Jan. 20th, 2010 to discuss both bills before the Senate:



This is Zigmunt's (DOT's) Bill:

Senate Bill 404 has been scheduled for a public hearing by Committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources in the Senate. Date/time: January 20, 2010 at 10:01 AM. Location: 300 Southeast.
Bill History: History of Senate Bill 404
Relating to: registration of former military vehicles.


This is Erpenbach's Bill:

Senate Bill 392 has been scheduled for a public hearing by Committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources in the Senate. Date/time: January 20, 2010 at 10:01 AM. Location: 300 Southeast.
Bill History: History of Senate Bill 392
Relating to: registration of former military vehicles.

There will be a Public hearing Jan. 20th, 2010 to discuss both bills before the Senate
Thats tomorrow .
I could use a ride to and from Watertown, if some one is passing through.
thank you.
J.P.

 

[vtwinpilot]

California emmissions

You folk's may want to stick around for the 11am hour. Weighing even heavier on this hobby and what's left of Wisconsin's economic stability and liberty. There are 2 bill's up trying to adopt California style emmissions standard's for Wisconsin, effectively handing control right over to California's emmission's board. So don't be suprised if you get a DNR ticket some day for idling your MV too long or be told it can no longer be run. They are already looking to restrict or eliminate non-highway diesel's like pump's tractor's and generator's.

 

[undysworld]

John Boy,
A State Patrol Sgt. from the DeForest office refused to even inspect my Pinzgauer...
If DOT doesn't want you to get an inspection, you won't get one.

JP,
Sorry, but I'm west of town. I hope you make it in.

VTwin,
Got any numbers on those bills. We should probably be looking into those two too.

See you all in Madison!

 

[vtwinpilot]

Sorry, I did not get on here in time, had phone issue's........Could not make it with work, but if I would have known about the Kalifornia bill's I may have had to miss. I do not have the numbers I just heard it from a caller on a radio show that there were 2 bills up. This is being done quietly just like small town BS to hold off the oppostition. You have to remember who is calling the shot's on these bloated agencies.

 

[Monty]

Piss this is the second time I missed a hearing, (note to self check back more frequently).

Sorry to all that I couldn't lend my support.

Good luck and i'll keep my fingers crossed.

Chad

 

[poof]

well it was very interesting..
first glad to meet the members I did..
The DOT legal council.. is a complete T.W.A.T.. he needs to rewrite his resume and find a new job..
he went so far as to say that MV are Made to kill people... the attending Senators had to point out to him," sounds like he has a chip on their shoulder at DOT".. and another Senator had to apologize to a Korea war vet for DOT council remarks , calling him "irresponsible...."

its wait and see still.. for now as I understand it..
one thing I would like to know.. with manditory Insurance comming... if our MV are made for parades only BS, will we get a pass on insurance or will we have to posibly pay $1000 or more a year to drive less than the 300 miles used now.in a year?
J.P.
Thanks again for the ride Guys.