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

[bachman502]

Just had a good conversation with MaverickH1. This is something I brought up with him. If this bill is passed anybody operating a former mv such as a 5 ton, 10 ton, lmtv for examples for their business use, would have to surrender their tags and get a former mv tag. Once receiving their new tag, they would be unable to operate that vehicle for daily use. Would possibly crush somebody’s business.

 

[porkysplace]

It's worth a try but I don't think the one time $50 fee will go very far except as historic.

Just for Reference in La, Former Military Vehicles are lifetime registration with Vin Stencil. The registration fee is very close to $50 but of course sales tax is due also plus a $75 title fee required of all LA transactions involving issuing a title.

I was thinking more along the lines of someone using it for a business . Here in Michigan if you want to use it for hauling plates are $500 a year and they won't give that money up.

 

[Sintorion]

This is NOT a nod to HMMWV owners. I have a HMMWV that I can drive anywhere, anytime, for any reason today. If this passes un-amended, I could be charged with a misdemeanor for driving my truck to the store for groceries and lose the registration on my truck for 5 years. NOT a good deal for us in any way.

Is this better than DMV coming to you invalidating your registration and you getting a ticket for not having a valid registration? That is really the alternative because we know there is not a clear and defined path to registering a FMV. I am not saying that this is the best route, but I see it as a step in the right direction. This will encourage more people to buy FMVs and then with that growth you can take it to the next step. Right now there are so many people terrified of buying a Humvee because of all the horror stories of dealing with DMVs.

 

[98G]

Is this better than DMV coming to you invalidating your registration and you getting a ticket for not having a valid registration? That is really the alternative because we know there is not a clear and defined path to registering a FMV. I am not saying that this is the best route, but I see it as a step in the right direction. This will encourage more people to buy FMVs and then with that growth you can take it to the next step. Right now there are so many people terrified of buying a Humvee because of all the horror stories of dealing with DMVs.

Hmmwv's are not the only former military vehicles.

This proposed law adds crippling restrictions where currently there are none.

 

[kcobean]

Is this better than DMV coming to you invalidating your registration and you getting a ticket for not having a valid registration? That is really the alternative because we know there is not a clear and defined path to registering a FMV. I am not saying that this is the best route, but I see it as a step in the right direction. This will encourage more people to buy FMVs and then with that growth you can take it to the next step. Right now there are so many people terrified of buying a Humvee because of all the horror stories of dealing with DMVs.

There has been NO indication that VA is targeting HMMWVs that have received plates/titles for revocation, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. I don't know anyone in VA that hasn't been able to successfully title/tag a HMMWV. This law, in my opinion, will discourage people from buying HMMWVs because if this passes it will reduce their freedom to drive the truck when/where they want significantly.

VA is not like the other states that are denying outright or rescinding titles (IL comes to mind if I remember it correctly)

 

[MaverickH1]

The plate fee is their existing rate of $50 that already passed the House. For reference, this part of the law mirrors the Antique part of VA Code and the fee for that is $10 for lifetime tags.

The amendment I added mentions that periodic registration fees would be required, which would make it like any other vehicle and should correspond to GVWR.

 

[Sintorion]

There has been NO indication that VA is targeting HMMWVs that have received plates/titles for revocation, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. I don't know anyone in VA that hasn't been able to successfully title/tag a HMMWV. This law, in my opinion, will discourage people from buying HMMWVs because if this passes it will reduce their freedom to drive the truck when/where they want significantly.

VA is not like the other states that are denying outright or rescinding titles (IL comes to mind if I remember it correctly)

If it is anything like Fla, you will get a letter in the mail stating that your registration is being revoked and you have 30 days to surrender your tags and comply with the new law. They don't grandfather. Now there are still people out there with regular tags, and those are considered grey market tags and will eventually get caught. They don't grandfather and you will have to comply with the new law. Remember, driving is a privilege and not a right.

 

[kcobean]

Just had a good conversation with MaverickH1. This is something I brought up with him. If this bill is passed anybody operating a former mv such as a 5 ton, 10 ton, lmtv for examples for their business use, would have to surrender their tags and get a former mv tag. Once receiving their new tag, they would be unable to operate that vehicle for daily use. Would possibly crush somebody’s business.

We need to gather all of the examples like this that make it a bad bill and be prepared to drive those points home next week.

 

[Action]

There has been NO indication that VA is targeting HMMWVs that have received plates/titles for revocation, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. I don't know anyone in VA that hasn't been able to successfully title/tag a HMMWV. This law, in my opinion, will discourage people from buying HMMWVs because if this passes it will reduce their freedom to drive the truck when/where they want significantly.

VA is not like the other states that are denying outright or rescinding titles (IL comes to mind if I remember it correctly)

E. The provisions of this section shall apply to all owners of military surplus motor vehicles registered with the Department under any other provision of this Code prior to July 1, 2018. Such owners shall, based on a schedule and in a manner prescribed by the Department, reregister such vehicle and receive an appropriately designed license plate in accordance with this section. The Department shall cancel the registrations of vehicles owned by persons that, prior to January 1, 2019, do not re-register such vehicle with the Department.

 

[kcobean]

E. The provisions of this section shall apply to all owners of military surplus motor vehicles registered with the Department under any other provision of this Code prior to July 1, 2018. Such owners shall, based on a schedule and in a manner prescribed by the Department, reregister such vehicle and receive an appropriately designed license plate in accordance with this section. The Department shall cancel the registrations of vehicles owned by persons that, prior to January 1, 2019, do not re-register such vehicle with the Department.

Exactly. I meant there was no indication that they were coming after titles prior to this horrible bill. Point being, this is not a benefit to HMMWV owners.

 

[bachman502]

This thread needs to be merged with the other one.

 

[donkren]

MaverickH1,

I noticed the following in your draft:

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.


Language like this concerns me. What if the Department decides the certification they need is FMVSS and EPA compliance? I think you should be sure that Former Military Vehicles are explicitly exempted from both in your bill. The federal exemptions do not automatically carry through to the states.

Good Luck in your efforts!

Don

 

[MaverickH1]

I just responded to your PM and completely agree.

I will revise it to completely remove that section. At most, I think it should say in the definitions that a military surplus motor vehicle is defined as a WHEELED vehicle that etc, etc.

This will bring all former military vehicles under the part of existing military standards for safety and road operation.

Thank you for the thorough proof-read, Don!

 

[kcobean]

I just responded to your PM and completely agree.

I will revise it to completely remove that section. At most, I think it should say in the definitions that a military surplus motor vehicle is defined as a WHEELED vehicle that etc, etc.

This will bring all former military vehicles under the part of existing military standards for safety and road operation.

Thank you for the thorough proof-read, Don!

I was discussing that very thing with someone else earlier. Later in the bill it talks about state inspections. I think that is sufficient, as that is what other vehicles must do to prove road worthiness.

 

[hndrsonj]

Have you guys looked at Wisconsin's bill or talked to Undysworld for additional info yet?

 

[hndrsonj]

Have you guys looked at Wisconsin's bill or talked to Undysworld for additional info yet?

I was just thinking Wisconsin had several changes after it was approved; you may as well get a similar "final product" from the beginning. Also might benefit to try and get SEMA pushing since they are already involved to get a nationwide push and just be done with it if it passed for everybody.

 

[BKubu]

I just responded to your PM and completely agree.

I will revise it to completely remove that section. At most, I think it should say in the definitions that a military surplus motor vehicle is defined as a WHEELED vehicle that etc, etc.

This will bring all former military vehicles under the part of existing military standards for safety and road operation.

Thank you for the thorough proof-read, Don!

Thank you for your efforts! Are you a lawyer? I may have missed that. If not, I suggest you hire one. Perhaps, you should start a go-fund-me site...or ask for donations on this site. I believe that is allowed. I'd donate money toward the legal fees.

 

[cwc]

Maybe it would help you in Virginia to reference the Military Surplus Vehicle (MSV) law that went into effect in Kentucky in 2017. When the KY Transportation Cabinet was studying the matter, they were interested in what adjacent states were doing. I am attaching a compilation of the affected sections of KRS 186 and 186A, with some non-relevant material deleted but with links to the full versions. At the end I have also attached the Administration Regulation KAR23:020, along with the MSV inspection form TC 96-344.

Those of you in KY who followed the passage of the law in the first part of 2017 may not have seen KAR23:020 yet, since it was issued only recently. It fills in certain details, such as: there is no need to re-inspect a MSV when it is transferred if it has already been previously inspected; the inspection requirement does not apply to vehicles built before 1968, because the 49CFR571.7 exemption to FMVSS for military vehicles is irrelevant for vehicles built before FMVSS went into effect; also MSVs are eligible for a speed title.

While the bill was under consideration I was somewhat concerned about this statement in KRS 186A:115: "[FONT="&amp]The Transportation Cabinet shall note that military vehicles were originally manufactured under the federally mandated requirements set forth in 49 C.F.R. sec. 571.7 and shall only require these vehicles to meet applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards." It could be interpreted in a way that would impose FMVSS requirements that did not exist at the time of manufacture of a vehicle. Fortunately the inspection form (which was written after the law passed) focuses on FMVSS items related to crash avoidance and basic occupant safety such a seat belts and safety glass, and lists only items that are also required by State law.

The process in KY took about a year from start to finish, starting with a public meeting of the Transportation Cabinet committee in the summer of 2016, a legal research effort, the drafting and passage of the legislation, and then the implementation in July 2017. I thought that the law was not really necessary based on many of the arguments that have appeared in this forum related to NHTSA letters, the FMVSS exemption, etc. However, while everyone in both the Transportation Cabinet (Administrative branch) and the legislature was very supportive (it passed both houses unanimously), the state wanted the legal basis of these registrations to be absolutely clear. The law in KY previously required that the inspector locate the FMVSS sticker when the vehicle is brought into the state. Those of you arguing that such-and-such vehicles should be allowed to be registered in your state, be sure to look at all of the relevant laws, including those for inspections, emissions, etc. Everybody is motivated by incentives, and public officials do not have a lot of incentive to make liberal interpretations of motor vehicle laws. And there is potential to "poke the bear" in some states based on the laws as they are. As we are seeing, that can cause trouble for others with different types of MVs.

View attachment KY Form TC 96-344 Military Surplus Vehicle Inspection.pdfView attachment KY Military Surplus Vehicle Law.pdf


​

​

[/FONT]

 

[MaverickH1]

I'm hearing you guys. Just busy and haven't been able to post much. Just starting a business and my wife is pregnant with our first and going through some rough spots.

Not making excuses, just explaining why I've been slow to respond. Trying to finish a big order tonight so I can focus on HMMWV things tomorrow.

 

[98G]

This thread needs to be merged with the other one.

Yes, but....

Consider - it got a lot more attention here than the other one did. Would you have even looked at the other one if I hadn't nudged you with a text?