Renodogs, I think a point you are missing here is that the US Government via the US military originally fielded these trucks, not state government, and not a private party. There are exceptions at the Federal level (read as "act of Congress") for military vehicles as operated for the purposes of the federal government and under the Military, which meet military functional requirements and requirements for use in countries other than ours. This exception goes away once the vehicle is released from the ownership of the US Government, unless there is a specific exception on the books with a state (to date, I am not aware of an exception at the federal level). This is similar to the EPA emissions exceptions for federal vehicles that people frequently complained about the double-standard for (
this article is just an example of many like it). You can whine about it all you want and demand the documentation that the poster before you show documentation to their case, but this forum is only a place of shared love of military vehicles and personal opinions - doesn't do much good in a court of law.
If you are street-ing a truck that does not meet FMVSS or state regulations (even for the year it was built), and you get pulled over or fail to pass a safety inspection - just remember, YOU as a private owner (even if you're active in the military) don't have a special exception from Congress to run your truck on the road (unless you ARE in the military AND actively conducting military business). If the DMV for the state you are registering your truck in shows you a law that says that YOU must modify your vehicle after the fact if it doesn't meet a criteria (as the CT law the earlier posted submitted DOES), and the DMV person actually shows you the law on the books in printed text, I would expect one of two things: 1) No registration if it doesn't meet the criteria, or 2) YOU modify your truck to meet the standard and then get your valid registration. This is the same reason I backed down from wanting to install USS Cobra MRAP seats in my CUCV project - yes they are used in trucks that the US Military runs on the road currently (again under a Congressional exception), but the 5-point seat-belts built into the seats don't meet the CFR code for street-legal vehicles (the shoulder belt meets the lap belt within 6" of the torso center line, a release that twists instead of a single push-button with the word "PRESS" on it to release the belt, and there are more than one hole for a tab to insert into a buckle). Until I succeed in getting the Federal regulations amended to allow for what I and thousands of racers consider an improved safety device than a single shoulder belt - I plan on accommodating the existing laws on the books. This is the same reason I am setting up the wiring so that I cannot black-out the lighting using the blackout light switch unless I specifically remove a jumper block under the hood - the practical equivalent of removing a fuse or a lightbulb - to avoid the possibility of being cited for running a vehicle where the lights can be disabled from the cab.
I'd like you to separate this in your mind from an LEO recognizing a military vehicle on the road, appreciating it for what it is and the nice person you are, and electing to not inspect and enforce laws - and not having an LEO who just found out her husband was sleeping with her brother, throwing the book at you, and impounding your ride in the middle of the desert. Personally it is my opinion that extra caution should be exercised by all on this forum so that we can continue to have our hobby - people who want everyone else to not have military vehicles don't just stop thinking that when a neighbor's truck gets impounded, they keep building their case, because again in my opinion they have little else to do with their lives. Showing a willingness to "pick a fight" with anyone who suggested otherwise, and having a hair-trigger for wanting to litigate your position, in my opinion makes you an easy target for those who want to set you off and tie you up in courts for years at your expense (all the while saying to the clamoring reporters: "Look how aggressive he is, I don't want him to have a military weapon like a truck or tank!!!").
It's a constant threat, like a politician that loses an election by a land-slide and just doesn't get the memo that nobody but their campaign team wants them in charge of anything, and runs again next time.
[EDIT] Moderator, the original point has been resolved I believe except the follow-up from the original poster about the outcome, and I think this thread went way off-topic. Can we lock this one up in the best interest of the community? [/EDIT]
a) Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and motorcycles;(b) Retroreflective sheeting and reflex reflectors manufactured to conform to S5.7 of this standard; and(c) Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies.
