California CDL: Another Clarification (long)

[yellobronc]

The only problem with everyones research is you still need a CDL.

Floyd

Not Me!!!

He He!

Actually I have done a ton of research and never found what has been stated above. Interesting.

 

[yellobronc]

I was pretty sure I checked into this at one time and a CDL is not required but CA has non-CDL class A and B driver's licenses.

Non CDL Class A or B will not work with 3 Axles, sorry.

 

[yellobronc]

Argh, not this dead horse again!

Either a Class B or Class A license is required to legally drive an unmodified M35A2C in California, no matter what your intended use is. A Class C license (the kind that regular car-drivers have) is not sufficient. This is different (and more stringent) than federal regulations and most other states' laws. I've researched this myself, and have consulted the Commercial Vehicle Enforcement guys at the CA Highway Patrol to verify.

From the original post, with the key phrase boldfaced and underlined:



Because of this, even a pickup truck is considered a "commercial vehicle" in California, simply because it is designed primarily for hauling cargo. If you keep your eyes open as you drive around, you'll notice that cars and passenger-carrying SUVs have the non-commercial license number format (1ABC234), while pickup trucks and semis both have the commercial license number format (1A23456). THe pickup trucks are light enough to be driven on a Class C license, and it can be a non-commercial license if the truck isn't used for commercial purposes (if the truck is being used for commercial purposes, then you need a commercial Class C license).

Ok, so an M35A2 is considered a commercial vehicle in CA because it is designed primarily for hauling cargo, just like a pickup truck is. Now, we get into the area of required license class. This is another thing that commonly confuses people who aren't familiar with the CA vehicle code, in particular because it differs from federal regulations (and is more stringent). All of the usual features which put a non-tractor truck into the "B" class apply in California, such as "GVWR over 26,000 pounds". To folks who don't know CA law but do know federal requirements and/or their own state's laws, the M35A2 doesn't look like a Class B truck, since its GVWR is around 24,000 pounds. However, CA has one extra rule for putting trucks into the "B" class, and this is the one that catches the M35A2:




It's that danged third axle, along with weighing over 6,000 pounds (an unladen deuce weighs at least 12,000 pounds), that makes a deuce drop into the "B" class in California.

One thing that I will admit to being unsure about is whether a noncommercial Class B or Class A license is OK. I haven't read up on those lately, and I don't recall whether they only apply to motor homes, or also apply to any other vehicles in the A/B classes that aren't being used commercially. However, one thing I can be absolutely sure of is this:

An ordinary Class C driver's license is not sufficient for legally driving an M35A2 in California, no matter what you use the truck for.

Non-commercial Class A or B will not suffice., I do.nt remember why, but it was ruled out quickly at the DMV. If you stay with commercial plates, a motor carrier permit, CA numbers, BIT enrollment, Medical etc. will be required. Historical, they still say 3 axle will require commercial Class B.

 

[yellobronc]

Here is another (LONG) thread on the issue:
http://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthread.php?t=13273&highlight=california

 

[FreightTrain]

Here is the short of it.....MOVE OUTTA OCCUPIED AMERICA!Easy as that.Move back to Free America and abandon the land of Nuts and Fairies

 

[jpinst]

You are just wrong. Did you really look at case law, case cites, the definitions section of the Veh Code and the legislative (intent) notes?

You don't need to go that far down the statute as you are not using the vehicle for commercial purposes. Its that simple. The legislators expressly allowed for some situations where large vehicles or trailers would need another form of Driver's license, but it is expressly "non-commercial" which implies that the other category is expressly for commercial drivers.

You are also not looking to the definition of a commercial vehicle, which is what you would need a CDL to drive. An M35 driven for recreational purposes does not fall within the definition.

"A commercial motor vehicle is a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles designed or used for either the transportation of persons for compensation or property and:"

This refers to a limo, bus, tractor trailer, semi, etc...and for those of your that are going to pull definitions for words used in the part of the code defining commercial vehicles out of a hat, all I can say to you is that is not how the law works.

If the words in question are not defined by the codes themselves, then you have to look elsewhere, but you should have a legal basis for telling a court that soldiers are persons for hire and military machines and cargo are "property" in the eyes of the law, and they are not. You need to get past this definition before you even get to the 3 axle requirement.

Like I said, as a lawyer, I believe that is an easy sell to any judge on the bench, but maybe not a police officer. But that is how the law works in this country. That said, once somebody fights this is wins, things could all be changed permenantly, as the case could set a precedent.

 

[bajajoaquin]

When I posted earlier, I must confess I didn't see Yellobronc's posts in "Conversations." I just searched this forum.

However, a couple of people have highlighted the "hole" in the logic. The handbook only addresses the towing, but not the driving of the vehicles. I was unable to find the specific codes that define Class A and B licenses, either commercial or non-commercial.

Judging by the way other things are written, you need a Class "--" license to drive the same class of vehicle. You need a commercial license to drive for money or profit. Theoretically, this means you would be legal with a non-commercial Class B license. (The historical/commercial plate thing is a different ball of wax, covered well in Yellobronc's linked thread.)

I just can't find the darn actual language for those codes.

I like Jpinst's logic, but if I'm not a lawyer myself, and I haven't hired one to make that case for me, I'm not entirely comfortable trying it out on a cop.

But what the heck. I need to buy a deuce first!

 

[Djfreema]

I think its just easier to live life by the rules and either get a class B license or "bob" a duece and not have to worry about it instead of trying to find every little loophole in hopes a judge would side with you should you ever get stopped, cited, truck impounded etc. But
I guess thats how lawyers make their money, trying to find those loopholes for the people who dont like to live by the rules . It all seems pretty clear to me what license is required per the letter of the law and I can see there is no winning this argument with some people.

 

[DanMartin]

I like Pie!

 

[nf6x]

You are just wrong. Did you really look at case law, case cites, the definitions section of the Veh Code and the legislative (intent) notes?

I looked at the Vehicle Code, including the definitions section. I have not looked at case law or case cites (and I admit to not knowing how to do so). To my non-lawyerly eyes, the Vehicle Code appears to unambiguously state that a Class B license (or a Class A license, which encompasses all Class B vehicles) is necessary to legally drive "a single vehicle with three or more axles, except any three-axle vehicle weighing less than 6,000 pounds", no matter what the intended use is.

I called the CHP Commercial Enforcement Division to try to prove myself wrong, but the advice that was given to me agreed 100% with what I had read myself, and the guy I spoke with (I do not recall his name) cited Vehicle Code sections (which I checked up on myself) for everything he told me. In other words, he never simply said things like "you need to do this" or "you can't do that"; he said things like "you need to do this because section 123 says blah blah". This is in stark contrast to the uninformed assertions that one might receive from a computer terminal driver at the local DMV office!

I did not base my determination on the contents of the DMV's handbooks and/or anything I was told by the DMV, since I've already figured out that the DMV's knowledge of these things is often incomplete and/or inaccurate. I've learned how to say what I need to say to get a clueless DMV employee to register one of my odd military vehicles as a Historical Vehicle, and I've learned when to simply smile, nod, and not try to correct them.

What I write next will probably sound like I'm trying to provoke a pissing match, but that really isn't my intention: Prove Me Wrong. I've cited CVC to support my determination, and I could dig up more citations if I had to (I'd really prefer not to... it's been a while since I did my CVC research, and digging this stuff up is far from entertaining to me!). I'm not satisfied with "I'm a lawyer, so I'm right". Lawyers can be wrong, too; when two lawyers show up in court and argue contradictory interpretations of a law, at least one of them is wrong!

Really, I'm not trying to insult you in any way. I'm just not satisfied with an argument of "I'm a lawyer, so trust me" without citations that support your assertion, when I have already studied the matter and came up with an opposite determination, despite really wanting to agree with you (I did my research when I was trying to figure out whether I needed to go to the trouble and expense of getting and maintaining a CDL). I would be happy to be proven wrong, but as an engineer, I won't accept your answer unless you show your work.

As long as we're on this topic, I'd like to bring up a related one: It was asserted in discussions long ago that any vehicle registered as a Historical Vehicle does not require a CDL. Somebody claimed that there was case law about that, but never produced any citations. I was unable to find anything in the CVC that suggested that a Historical Vehicle plate modifies licensing requirements in any way. The plate does exempt the driver from paying weight fees and stopping at scales, and I was able to find those exemptions in the CVC. I suspect that the confusion over this came about because when you register a Historical Vehicle in CA, the registration shows a body type of "car" (I forget the specific name or code used). After registering a number of Historical Vehicles (and walking the confused DMV clerks through the process, since I was more familiar with it than them), I figured out that their computer system is programmed to only allow the "car" body type to be entered for a Historical Vehicle. The registration then shows the vehicle as a "car" not because of any legal definition or requirement, but simply because of a programming error. If you can produce any of these mysterious court cases that determined that a class C is OK for any Historical Vehicle (even if it has a GVW, GVWR or configuration that would normally require a different license), you would probably make many people happy.

One last time: I'm not trying to be as confrontational as this probably sounded. I just need to see those citations that you referred to before it'll change my mind about what I've already researched as carefully as I was able to. I mean no disrespect to you, even if we end up walking away from this without reaching an agreement.

 

[TheBuggyman]

A commercial motor vehicle is a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles designed or used for either the transportation of persons for compensation or property and:

• Has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 26,001 pounds or more.
• Tows any vehicle with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds or more.
• Tows more than one vehicle or a trailer bus.
• Has three or more axles (excludes three axle vehicles weighing 6,000 pounds or less gross).
• Is any vehicle (bus, farm labor vehicle, general public paratransit vehicle, etc.) designed, used, or maintained to carry more than 10 passengers including the driver, for hire or profit, or is used by any nonprofit organization or group.

I don't live in Cali but in reading this it is pretty obvious-
you do have three or more axles and GVW is greater than 6K pounds,
but you are not being compensated for carrying passengers or freight = no CDL.

Wouldn't hurt to have a CDL, LEO's can be troublesome, but it says that you don't need it.

 

[jpinst]

God, you are wearing me out. You are lucky you are not paying some lawyer for this advice. Think, intent, purpose and Commercial, COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL!

Look at the "and" between the definition of a commercial vehicle and the characteristics of a vehicle. Think commercial purposes. That is the key here and the m35 does not meet the definition. Why? Because they [the legislators] never thought of it. Until you bitch to your congressman, or state legislator, or until this situation comes to their attention and they address it with legislation, its up to the courts to resolve what you need to drive a 3 axle for military truck not designed for commercial purposes or to carry persons for hire or property, and is used for non-commercial recreation purposes, but is not a house car and is not over 40 feet in length....you get the point. Its very ambiguous to a lawyer and judge, but maybe not to a laymen. Every single word, even a comma, has a meaning that can and will be defined by the courts and then by case law at some point.

Example: What kind of license do I need to have if I invented a car that could drive on the highway and also fly in the air? Hint: its not covered by the law. Don't mock lawyers and judges when its your legislators who have failed to clearly define the law. Its not a loophole at all, this is how common law works and this is what judges do for a job. Analyzing the law when its unclear is what judges do for a living. They hear arguments from both sides and decide. Nothing is cut and dry unless you live in a police state. It may just take somebody getting a ticket and fighting it victoriously in order for it to end up in the case book and settle this matter. That will only happen if the DA appeals the case to a higher court. If its dropped by the traffic court judge, then its gone to history and we start all over.

I would also argue that requiring a CDL to drive a non-commercial vehicle imposes and undue burden on the driver, as the costs of training and the medical exams are only tax deductable if they were obtained for use in emplyment. Why only you and you military vehicle and not some guy in a camper? Whats the difference in use?

In addition the legislative intent notes that truck drivers spend long hours on the road, often with hearvy and hazerdous material and thus need to be in top shape so as to not pose a safety threat to the public. However, you can see that the legislators were aware that even a non-commerical vehicle that was over 40 feet (think 3 axel house car) would be difficult to drive and the driver shoudl have some additional licensing requirement. An M35 is not near 40 feet long or the size of a house car--yet both are used for recreational pruposes. Keep in mind the Vehicle codes main focus is safety.

As for the definition, if its not listed in this code, or in the definitions section of the entire veh code, then you have to look for case law as reference. Look to state veh codes, then to other states, then to Feds. A law dictionionary has three pages to define property! Really.

Anyway, I spent nearly two hours on this researching on Lexis/Nexus, but you can also use Westlaw, a country library or a court library to find the same. Maybe one day when I am contemplating suicide I will write a legal memorandum on the topic. but I will NEVER, EVER go though the trouble of obtaining a CDL to drive my M35 in CA.


One more note, if you haul loads in your M35 of any kind, all bets are off. You need a CDL, not because it was designed as a commerical vehicle, but because you are using it as one.

Good luck.

 

[jpinst]

The buggyman has hit the nail on the head.

 

[jpinst]

The reason historical vehicles don't need a CDL,is because Historical vehicles are forbidden from being used for COMMERCIAL purposes. Thus we get back to why you don't need on on an M35--a non-commerical vehicle.

I am not insulted by you not believing me for not providing you citations, but to be frank, I am not sure if you are going to understand their significance if I did, and it would be a lot fo work, just to mke you happy. I don't plan on writing a legal memo any time soon, but maybe one day when I am bored to death.

BTW, I went to law School at an ABA school in California, and always fight my own traffic citations in superior court (layers can't argue in front of judge pro tems what is what you get in most traffic courts). I am a contract lawyer for an aeropace firm, so you don't have to automatically hate me. I also serve in the military reserve.

One more note, and case from traffic court win/lose can be re-argued at a higher court. Traffic court is really not even a court. That is why if you lose, you won't be appealing to the Superior court, you can re-argue the case all over again.

 

[Jake0147]

Question: If I were to drive a deuce into California, and I got pulled over for whatever reason, would they dock me for not having a CDL?

If your driver's license allows you to drive specific vehicles.
If the state of Washington decided to give up the federal money and write their own rules, and allowed you to drive a semi tractor with three tank trailers full of nitroglycerine on just a plain old drivers license, then that drivers license would be good to drive that truck in all fifty states. For the record, Washington probably will not do this. But, if Washington says you can drive a deuce and a half with a regular Washington drivers license, then that privledge does extend to all fifty states.
As do safety inspection standards. If it's not historic, then I think it's "commercial" anywhere you go, in that you need to keep flares/triangles and a fire extinguisher, but keep it out of commerce (ie, don't use it for business in ANY way), then if it's good (good for real, not "good 'cause I know a guy who gives out stickers), but if it's good at home, it's good anywhere.

 

[nf6x]

A commercial motor vehicle is a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles designed or used for either the transportation of persons for compensation or property and:

That is not what the definition in the California Vehicle Code says, though. It says:

260. (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

This states that a vehicle is considered a "commercial vehicle" under CA law if it is used for commercial purposes or if it is designed primarily to haul cargo. Even a personally-owned, not-used-for-hire pickup truck is considered a commercial vehicle by the state of California.

I am not insulted by you not believing me for not providing you citations, but to be frank, I am not sure if you are going to understand their significance if I did, and it would be a lot fo work, just to mke you happy.

So I am to accept your word without supporting information because you are a lawyer (and lawyers are never wrong), and I'm not smart enough to understand any supporting information that you might provide anyway? You should not be surprised that your opinion on this matter fails to sway me, then.

I am willing to accept the possibility that you are right and I am wrong, but given a choice between plain unambiguous legal text that I have read myself vs. an assertion from somebody I do not know who insults my intelligence in a public forum and chooses not to provide any supporting citations for their opinion, I will put my bet on the legal text. The consequences of my being wrong are that I went to some unnecessary effort and expense several years ago when I got my Class A CDL, and I need to get a medical exam every two years (I get them more often than that, anyway). The consequences of you being wrong are a ticket, vehicle impoundment, and if convicted a large fine and higher insurance rates.

Even if you are correct, and even if you are 100% confident of winning in court if pulled over by CHP in a deuce and charged with driving out of class, you'll still get the ticket and spend the time in court, because the CHP's Commercial Enforcement guys are trained that a vehicle like the M35A2 is a commercial vehicle (regardless of how it is used), and that a Class B or greater CDL with appropriate endorsements is necessary to drive it.

Like you said, it may never have been the intent of the legislators to require a CDL for a vintage military vehicle that is only used recreationally. Also, I am aware that court findings change the meanings of laws without necessarily changing the text of those laws (for example, the way the Harrott v. County of Kings ruling thoroughly guts portions of California's assault weapon bans). However, it is my understanding that documentation of legislative intent only matters when there is ambiguity in the actual text of the legal code that was created by the laws that they enacted and/or the validity of the law is in question, and that matter needs to be ironed out in court. The actual text of the law takes precedence over any documentation of their intent until and unless the law is challenged in court, if I am not mistaken.

If you choose to present any citations of court rulings which have modified the plain meaning of the California Vehicle Code text in this particular situation, then I will be happy to read them... especially if they prove me wrong. Absent such evidence, I can only rationally act on the evidence which is available to me, which supports my opinion without any ambiguity.

 

[bajajoaquin]

Geez. I'm sorry I brought it up. But I'm glad, too. It's made me go back and re-read all the stuff I've read before.

I'm now thinking that, as a practical matter, I agree with Nf6x. If we separate out the requirements, it looks like this:

A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code

used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit

or

designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

To me, that's pretty clear, and I don't know how I missed that previously.

The other thing that makes me think a Deuce is a "commercial" vehicle is that my F350 is a commercial vehicle. I use it to haul dirt bikes, tow race cars, and other recreational things. California's position seems to be, "if it can haul, it's commercial."

Having said that, if I had paid a lawyer to look through case law and could present an argument differently, I'd do it with confidence. But I haven't, and I think I'm just going to have to get a "bigger" license.

 

[nf6x]

Having said that, if I had paid a lawyer to look through case law and could present an argument differently, I'd do it with confidence. But I haven't, and I think I'm just going to have to get a "bigger" license.

If you ever do that lawyer/case law thing, please share the info here! I would really enjoy being proven wrong on this matter. I'm just acting and advising based on the information available to me, and I'll be happy to admit I was wrong if anybody manages to change my mind... I just won't change it on a "trust me" without seeing the evidence myself. Danged engineers... it's no wonder people don't like us!

Incidentally, whether I really needed to get my CDL or not, I do feel that the process of studying and training to pass that test has made me a better, safer driver. Having actually driven a tractor-trailer on the freeway, I now have a much better understanding of what it's like to be behind that big wheel, and I think that I do a better job of safely sharing the road with the big rigs now. Until you've been behind the wheel of one of those things in traffic, it's hard to understand just how stupid and dangerous so many drivers are!

 

[jpinst]

"This states that a vehicle is considered a "commercial vehicle" under CA law if it is used for commercial purposes or if it is designed primarily to haul cargo. Even a personally-owned, not-used-for-hire pickup truck is considered a commercial vehicle by the state of California."

This is just a Wrong layman's reading of the law. That is factually and totally incorrect.

A commercial vehicle, according to the statute, is one that is designed or used for the transport of people for a fee (not M35) or Property (for a fee is implied). Don't forget, property is a very common "legal" term. Its a legal term, not just a generic word that can assume any meaning you pin on it.

Go look at blacks law dictionary and see how many legal definitions property can have. In this care "property" like refers to-(-and I say likely, because the statute itself does not define it) what is known as a chattel, or personal property. Property owned by the state is not considered a chattel in the legal sense. These are principles that neither you, nor a law enforcement officer comprehends.

Ask yourself this question: how many time a year do you think the average CHP officer pulls over an M35 truck?

 

[jpinst]

Come one man--what law is not ambiguous? This is what they tell you on the first day of law school. This is why we have lawyers and judges. Don't you get that much?

You are starting to sound like some belligerent ass though. I never said I was never wrong, but I do have 3 years of law school, a masters in law, and am working on my SJD at night school, which is the equivalent of a PhD. Of course you can say I am bull****ting, but I have no reason to do so.

If I could not fix my own truck and you knew how, I would ask you, and that's what these baords are all about. I happen to have some expeience and training that others here do not. Yet I am also a fan of MV's. I have an m35a3 and an HMMWV. I whish i coudl repair them as well as some of the people on this board, but I am not going to belittle them because I don't think they know what they are talking abiout as I don't have this training or experience.

You are correct, I am not a traffic ticket lawyer, but I have spent many years studying the law and legal process for the purpose of furthing my career. If I can spread a little bit of my knowledge I am quite happy to do so, as even for me, the law was not an easy thing to grasp, nor was understanding how the leagal process works.

If I were to write a memorandum stating that there is a federal case where a man who drove a privately owned fire truck was cited for not having a CDL and won on appeal, you would tell me that a fire truck is not an MV, etc. I would then have to explain to you that you may never find any case where a person has been cited for not having a CDL when driving an M35--it only ends up on the books if its appeakled to an appelate court. If the fine is paid, won, or the case is dropped at a lower court that is it, its never publsihed. So we can only look to similar situations, i.e the fire truck. The real emphasis here seems to be "commerical," and that is what the entire CDL issue hinges on, ie. commerical driver's license==driving to make money. None of us are talking about that.

You are totally correct though, that you could be cited for driving without a CDL. Then again, you coudl be cited for driving you bicycle drunk in CA. But that is not how I, in my professional opinion, read the law--nor do I believe any other lawyer would read the law. Its really up to you to do what you want. I have stated I am never going to get a CDL. I have a class C and motorbike license and that's enough. Good luck.