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

[MaverickH1]

That looks like it grandfathers in current owners with their current usage intact. Am I missing something?

It does, but the looming monster is still passing inspection. Which state police swears it won't pass again once their inspectors are "re-educated".

The version that left the subcommittee after our appearance allowed ANY vehicle to be registered as normal as long as it passed inspection. So this one is more restrictive. Again.

 

[98G]

It looks like it is designed to get all the big scary green trucks off the road,

Edited again because i decided i said too much that might lead to a thread derail...

 

[MaverickH1]

It looks like it is designed to get all the big scary green trucks off the road /snip

Basically.

The biggest annoyance to me is that no amount of facts or logic seemed to enter the picture. No senator asked of the State Trooper "Captain, do you have evidence to support that these vehicles are more dangerous than any others on the road in VA today?"

Nothing of the sort. The state police and the word of the DMV are gospel. And they get to say ominous things like "The federal government said these were designed for off road use only and all of them should have been stamped that way". He wasn't talking about HMMWVs. He was talking about ALL military vehicles.

And when I asked "WHO is he referring to when he says 'the federal government'?" Details that don't matter. The congressmen and women don't have enough time to get into that level of details. The State Police and the DMV MUST be correct in their view.

 

[Action]

The senate version was modified AGAIN. Looks like it was made worse again.

I'm fuming, again.

Some of the newly added text is:

C. Any owner of a military surplus motor vehicle applying for registration pursuant to this section shall submit to the Department, in the manner prescribed by the Department, certification that such vehicle is capable of being safely operated on the highways of the Commonwealth.

E. Military surplus motor vehicles registered with the Department under any other provision of this Code prior to January 1, 2018, may continue to be registered under such provision. Such vehicles shall be considered to be registered under this section for the purpose of § 46.2-1158.01. In the event that any such vehicle is transferred to a new owner, the vehicle must be registered pursuant to this section.

F. No military surplus motor vehicle shall be registered as an antique vehicle pursuant to § 46.2-730.

Doesn't this addition "E" ALLOW previously tagged former military vehicles to stay on the road , as long as they stay with the same owner? That sounds better than losing your tags when you go to reregister.. (as long as it was registered last year. If so, don't let your registration lapse.

 

[MaverickH1]

[/I][/COLOR]Doesn't this addition "E" ALLOW previously tagged former military vehicles to stay on the road , as long as they stay with the same owner? That sounds better than losing your tags when you go to reregister.. (as long as it was registered last year. If so, don't let your registration lapse.

It does. But registration won't matter if the state police are being honest about every one of them failing inspection. When you fail inspection, your only option will be the military plates.

That is their position.

 

[98G]

It does. But registration won't matter if the state police are being honest about every one of them failing inspection. When you fail inspection, your only option will be the military plates.

That is their position.

Is inspection a recurring event? Or is it just once when you first title it?

 

[hndrsonj]

Is inspection a recurring event? Or is it just once when you first title it?

Its been awhile since I lived there but I believe its every year.

 

[98G]

You'd think that the law would set the inspection standards and the state police would have to adhere to those standards, applying the same rules to everything evenly.

As it appears to be written, the inspection standards can be arbitrarily applied unevenly by the state police, failing your vehicle and relegating you to second (last?) class plates while passing an identical vehicle belonging to his brother in law and issuing unrestricted plates there...

Please correct any misconceptions I have.

 

[MaverickH1]

You'd think that the law would set the inspection standards and the state police would have to adhere to those standards, applying the same rules to everything evenly.
As it appears to be written, the inspection standards can be arbitrarily applied unevenly by the state police, failing your vehicle and relegating you to second (last?) class plates while passing an identical vehicle belonging to his brother in law and issuing unrestricted plates there...
Please correct any misconceptions I have.

To summarize it, the VA Code is written to give the "Superintendent" which I assume is the State Police Superintendent the authority to define inspections. As legislators typically do, they punt the details of their legislation to the unelected bureaucrats in departments like the DMV, or VA State Police, or ATF, etc.

In the Administrative Code of VA, the Superintendent defines everything. Up until September of 2017, the administrative code said something bland like "The inspection program was developed to promote highway safety. Its aim is to assure all registered vehicles are mechanically safe to operate."

They updated it to say the same, but add: "The program model is based on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Vehicles submitted for inspection must be compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable on the date of manufacture."

It's my suspicion that they are targeting imported antique vehicles AND former military vehicles with this change. They are choosing to interpret it as "it must have an FMVSS sticker or a letter from the manufacturer that certifies it as applicable with FMVSS".

And they're choosing "Date of manufacture" to be the day a FMV leaves the military. Which blows my mind.

In any case, they're purposefully requiring an impossible test to hundreds or maybe thousands of vehicle owners across the state of VA. "Retraining" was heard to be taking place in June of 2018. I have a few people I know who are inspectors and I have asked them for details if they ever receive a bulletin update from the VA State Police in regards to this.

 

[tobyS]

You'd think that the law would set the inspection standards and the state police would have to adhere to those standards, applying the same rules to everything evenly.

As it appears to be written, the inspection standards can be arbitrarily applied unevenly by the state police, failing your vehicle and relegating you to second (last?) class plates while passing an identical vehicle belonging to his brother in law and issuing unrestricted plates there...

Please correct any misconceptions I have.

I think you're right 98G. I've seen it and it's getting worse.

 

[cwc]

So per 46.2-740.1 E, those already registered under "any other provision of this Code" may continue to be registered under such provision. Then it says that for the purpose of inspections (46.2-1158.01 - which in item 22 EXEMPTS military surplus vehicles registered as defined in 46.2-100 and registered per 46.2-730.1) that such vehicles are considered to be registered under "this section". That "thus section" means 730.1 is clear from the next sentence in E, referring to transfers.

So it looks like a grandfathered MSV should not come up for inspection as a recurring 12 month thing, if I am reading this right.

The bill itself does not seem all that bad; it's the position of the SP regarding inspections that makes things unworkable. I wonder if this bill really was driven by desire for a crackdown on MVs, or whether it started with good intentions. It shows as introduced by Rep David Yancey, Chair of the House Transportation Committee; does he realize that the position of the SP on item 46.2--730.1 C is going to thwart any new registrations?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sintorion]

F. No military surplus motor vehicle shall be registered as an antique vehicle pursuant to § 46.2-730.

​

So that means if I buy a chevy cruze that was used by a recruiter and is the same as any other chevy cruze on the road that I can never register it as an antique?

 

[MaverickH1]

So per 46.2-740.1 E, those already registered under "any other provision of this Code" may continue to be registered under such provision. Then it says that for the purpose of inspections (46.2-1158.01 - which in item 22 EXEMPTS military surplus vehicles registered as defined in 46.2-100 and registered per 46.2-730.1) that such vehicles are considered to be registered under "this section". That "thus section" means 730.1 is clear from the next sentence in E, referring to transfers.

So it looks like a grandfathered MSV should not come up for inspection as a recurring 12 month thing, if I am reading this right.

The bill itself does not seem all that bad; it's the position of the SP regarding inspections that makes things unworkable. I wonder if this bill really was driven by desire for a crackdown on MVs, or whether it started with good intentions. It shows as introduced by Rep David Yancey, Chair of the House Transportation Committee; does he realize that the position of the SP on item 46.2--730.1 C is going to thwart any new registrations?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The intent and the verbiage of the entirety of the code make it pretty clear to me that only vehicles registered with the FMV plates are free from inspections AFTER a "certificate of safety" has been given to the DMV. Which is a terrifying thing, since it's not defined. That means the DMV and/or state police gets to choose what is an acceptable "certificate of safety".

Regularly plated vehicles need to pass the periodic (currently annual) inspections.

I called and e-mailed Yancey, and I spoke with him briefly in person. He does think he's helping. And the bill IS helping. But only through the lens that if it doesn't pass, the state police is promising that nobody will pass inspections again.

I wanted a bill that acknowledged certain FMVs as being designed for the road and conforming to military safety standards, the FMVSS not entering into the conversation for safety requirements, offering FMV plates to people who wanted to maintain the vehicles in historically accurate conditions for purposes of shows and avoiding inspections and (currently) annual registration fees. In other words, I wanted congress to set the State Police and the DMV straight. Instead, we get a bill that codifies the State Police and DMV's factually false positions.

This was a horrible thing for me to be a part of. And it's a great example of a government so large that nobody writing the laws has the time, energy, or desire to know even the most basic of truths before making law. After being involved in this, I honestly feel like the State Police and the DMV might as well be the legislators on all transportation issues. They practically are already.

 

[MaverickH1]

So that means if I buy a chevy cruze that was used by a recruiter and is the same as any other chevy cruze on the road that I can never register it as an antique?

I tried very hard to get them to change the definition, because it's a horrible definition. In a way, they agreed. But nobody has the time to do anything about it.
If I told a lawyer that the definition of a "Former Military Surplus Vehicle" was "a multipurpose or tactical vehicle that was designed for off road use"... there's a lot there that doesn't define anything.

What is a "multipurpose" vehicle? If I can carry passengers AND tow a trailer, is that multipurpose? If it can be driven while playing the radio, is THAT multipurpose?

What is a "tactical" vehicle? If it at any time had flat green paint, is that a tactical vehicle? If it ever had a vehicle mounted rifle carrier, is that a tactical vehicle? If any variant ever wore body armor, is that a tactical vehicle?

How do I distinguish whether it was designed for off road use?

/sigh

Horrible.

 

[AndyC]

New Ristricted FMV Licence in Va.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRwPwPROymk&feature=youtu.be

 

[tobyS]

Note the change is only with titles marked "off road use only" and you have to 2019 to be "grandfathered" in.

Nothing else but HMMWV is coming through with "off road use only" on the Bill of Sale or the SF97 title that I know of, so this will not apply to anything but HMMWV at this time.

The guy that buys one after 19....including from a person previously grandfathered, will have only the restricted plates.

Moderator could put this in the above thread...very relevant.

 

[Navo]

So if I buy a Humvee, from say Plan B or Midewest Military Equipmemt that are already are titled and registered. I can get a normal unrestricted plate? Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[tobyS]

So if I buy a Humvee, from say Plan B or Midewest Military Equipmemt that are already are titled and registered. I can get a normal unrestricted plate? Am I understanding this correctly?

The amendment passed to give to 2019. You have until 2019 to be considered "grandfathered". If you let it lapse after that or sell it, it is under the new plate rules from then on. Does not affect any that are not marked "off road only".

You got off lucky if this is all of it.

 

[Lionel]

As I understand it from the other thread, https://www.steelsoldiers.com/showt...ary-Surplus-Off-Road-Moves-to-Virginia-Senate , the real problem is going to be with the Virginia State Police and how they mandate inspections going forward.

 

[MaverickH1]

Has everyone seen this?
https://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthread.php?177003-New-Ristricted-FMV-Licence-in-Va

Yeah, that's my YouTube channel. I spliced that video from the senate and house stuff after our subcommittee meeting.

The takeaways from the video are:

1) Carrico still doesn't seem to understand what the definition of vehicles impacted are. I can promise you the DMV will not agree with his definition. For example, my clearly NOT MARKED OFF ROAD USE ONLY M1123 will be classified as a HMMWV. And according to State Police testimony, "those were all supposed to be stamped off road use only" with no citations and no proof given. Just the statement. Carrico seems to be confused about whether a stamp is on a piece of paper or on the vehicle itself. Which are two very different things.
2) A democrat (Wexton) was the only one to ask questions on behalf of the owners that showed up. Carrico went so far as to PERHAPS mock us and our activism to protect our property when that phone rang.
3) After we spent 30 minutes or so trying to have discussions in Subcommittee of which Carrico was the chairman, we arrived at the best hope for us. After the hearing I followed up with a long e-mail with legal citations which has been copied and pasted here. After not responding to us at all, Carrico's first action in the Senate was to throw away our amended bill and replace it with his own. No reason cited. Probably came from the DMV and State Police camping in his office since they get paid to do that and the rest of us plebs have jobs.

Disgusting.
I was very happy with how we were treated by DeSteph and many of the others. But there was no follow up and ultimately many of the things changed.