I still don't understand why it is taboo to talk about it here. The Defense Logistic Agency isn't the organization that determines what your state DMV issues titles and registrations too. Yes they stamp them with "off road only", but that is for their protection and has absolutely nothing to do with them not wanting them on public roads. When I completed my paper work for mine, I didn't sign anything with the govt stating that I would only use this off road and never use it on public highways. Personally I think sharing the information here would make life easier for everyone involved (including the DMV) because it isn't as if there are not a large number of them on the roads already. In Fla you can buy a golf cart and get tags for it. I am pretty sure that a Humvee is just as road worthy. My neighbor custom built a motorcycle that he titled and registered. I know for sure that my Humvee is way more road worthy than that disaster.
-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
taboo to talk
- Thread starter Sintorion
- Start date
Jakob1944
New member
- 314
- 10
- 0
- Location
- Copperas Cove / Texas
Last edited:
- 2,703
- 749
- 113
- Location
- Oakwood, Ga
I did not buy one so I am not tempted to do bad things 
Have you read the link you posted? It simply states the way they are being sold. Have you purchased one? I have and I did not sign anything stating that in agreement for purchase that I would use it exclusively off road. That statement in the link is simply there to protect the seller. DOD has zero influence over the federal Department of Transportation nor individual states that regulate the registration and titling of vehicles that are used on public roads. This would be different if the DOD had some requirement that you could only use them as collector items or something silly like that.
I assume the owners of this site assume that they could be held responsible if they allow people to discuss the process in the way craigslist allowed escorts to advertise. I understand the concern, but I think in this case it is an over reaction to something that is legal if the states allow it. Judging by the number on the road, this isn't illegal and I have seen nothing from the Department of Defense that would stop this from happening at a federal level.
Videris
New member
- 148
- 0
- 0
- Location
- San Diego CA
SHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Its a secret Sintorion. You dont have your 1st amendment rights here pal! Hahahaha.
Haaa, no kidding. I feel like I am back in the military.
- 26,247
- 1,168
- 113
- Location
- NY
Videris
New member
- 148
- 0
- 0
- Location
- San Diego CA
Now get down and give me 50, maggot! Hahaha. Go ahead delete my post again.
86m1028
Active member
- 1,687
- 16
- 38
- Location
- Murphy TEXAS
I'm just surprised it wasn't Kalifornia to do it first !
- 26,247
- 1,168
- 113
- Location
- NY
It's no secret, you do not have any rights on this site as it is privately owned.
Stir the pot and watch what happens.
- 4,266
- 3,887
- 113
- Location
- Brentwood, Calif
And Gp continues to sell M1123's without that same restriction, as well as previously auctioned vehicles that were titled and then put up for sale on the same web site for sale...I.E. Plan B supply.
its hypocrisy at its finest...
86m1028
Active member
- 1,687
- 16
- 38
- Location
- Murphy TEXAS
Its all about the $$$
- 9,604
- 1,486
- 113
- Location
- mid- michigan
You can always start your own forum and run it how you want .
That is exactly my point of ignorance. Someone misinterprets a seller doing some CYA as support for their position makes no sense to me. Much like Jakob, I wonder if Ms Johnson has actually read what she uses as her support. I also assume that Ms Johnson is not familiar with Michigan's Assembled Vehicle process. http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1585_1587_1588-25476--,00.html
The State of Michigan is making a statement that is not factual and at some time with be litigated and will loose on the fact of finding but they have the right to prohibit any vehicle they want. All that being said... they can prohibit HMMWV's without regard to logic or findings of fact.
Their first paragraph of page two states :Further, when ex-military Humvees are sold at auction, the federal government requires the buyer to sign an end-use agreement acknowledging the Humvee cannot be registered for street use, as well as a Hold Harmless Agreement that the vehicle is for off road use only.
But the hold harmless agreement states paragraph 1: Buyer acknowledges that the Humvee is not roadworthy and agrees that Humvee is for off-highway use only.
The End-Use Agreement asks what you are going to use the vehicle for. (I said I was going to make mine road worth and drive mine to work in bad weather and keep it as a collector) The EUC also has a bunch of restrictions for resale. (This is where I see it is hard for me to see exactly how someone legally resells a HMMWV because an person does not know who they are selling to (normally) with enough surety to keep these rules.)
These are small points but one is a condition of state as: The hold harmless says 'As the vehicle was sold it at this time has no right or known capability to be roadworthy.' Michigan is expanding this to say it cannot ever be registered for street use. By law they have to make their own laws to prohibit the Humvee directly on the road as there are some being sold with valid transferable titles. Ruth Johnson must not be a lawyer or a very good one as not see this distinction. But is lawful for Michigan to prohibit Humvee and the Federal government to drive all over Michigan with a Humvee and all the while people in Michigan be stopped. It would appear right now in Michigan that there is no ability to make a Humvee road-worthy until and unless someone challenges this writing (of Ruth Johnson Secretary of State of Michigan) by the Michigan legal system.
IMHO.
Their first paragraph of page two states :Further, when ex-military Humvees are sold at auction, the federal government requires the buyer to sign an end-use agreement acknowledging the Humvee cannot be registered for street use, as well as a Hold Harmless Agreement that the vehicle is for off road use only.
But the hold harmless agreement states paragraph 1: Buyer acknowledges that the Humvee is not roadworthy and agrees that Humvee is for off-highway use only.
The End-Use Agreement asks what you are going to use the vehicle for. (I said I was going to make mine road worth and drive mine to work in bad weather and keep it as a collector) The EUC also has a bunch of restrictions for resale. (This is where I see it is hard for me to see exactly how someone legally resells a HMMWV because an person does not know who they are selling to (normally) with enough surety to keep these rules.)
These are small points but one is a condition of state as: The hold harmless says 'As the vehicle was sold it at this time has no right or known capability to be roadworthy.' Michigan is expanding this to say it cannot ever be registered for street use. By law they have to make their own laws to prohibit the Humvee directly on the road as there are some being sold with valid transferable titles. Ruth Johnson must not be a lawyer or a very good one as not see this distinction. But is lawful for Michigan to prohibit Humvee and the Federal government to drive all over Michigan with a Humvee and all the while people in Michigan be stopped. It would appear right now in Michigan that there is no ability to make a Humvee road-worthy until and unless someone challenges this writing (of Ruth Johnson Secretary of State of Michigan) by the Michigan legal system.
IMHO.
- 9,604
- 1,486
- 113
- Location
- mid- michigan
So how does your OPINION hold any more truth than you claim Ruth Johnsons . It is my understanding that there have been HWWMV's from the 99 sale that have titles pulled here in michigan. Assembled vehicles here in michigan still have to have a state certified vehicle inspector sign off on them and i doubt they will.
Videris
New member
- 148
- 0
- 0
- Location
- San Diego CA
Nobody was saying anything negative about this forum or anyone on here directly.
I was just having a little fun with my response to what Sintorion posted.
I think people having an opinion is good for any forum as long as its not vulgur or verbally abusive, non of which applies to Sintorion's post/s or my post/s.
Now you want me to start my own forum. Come on dude, relax, lighten up, take it in stride. I think we are all here to help one another out but at the same time we can have a little fun and express ourselves as well? Yes/no?
This forum does not have to be run like the military ok. I know we all love our military vehicles and some of us are deeply involved with the military way but not all of us are here to salute and stand at attention all day long. That being said I'm sure this post is gonna rub someone the wrong way and maybe it will get pulled but I did not post this to keep things going in a negetive way I felt it had to be said and I'm a proponent of our 1st amendment.
- 14,588
- 4,614
- 113
- Location
- Buchanan, GA
I do too. I've tried to open up lines of discussion, but it appears nothing will come of it.
Totally agree. I am buying something that in the condition it is being sold that it isn't road worthy. Mine was missing a headlight, the other didn't work, Mirror was broken, etc. Clearly it wasn't road worthy. That is the CYA on the government/govplanet's side. They have to do that because they are essentially selling them 'as is'. This is no different than when I bought my XR600. I signed something at the dealer stating that I knew that it was for off road use. After getting a conversion kit, getting a state inspection, following the process, I was able to legally ride it on the street. There was nothing shady or taboo about this process.
lonesouth
Active member
- 322
- 29
- 28
- Location
- Tallahassee, FL
I found the Michigan edict interesting that the vehicles are prohibited from on road title due to DOT and EPA restrictions. Prior to sale, these vehicles were permitted on state/federal roads, but since they were sold to the public, they are now somehow more dangerous/polluting. That statement doesn't stand to logic, but we are talking about politicians here, so forget logic.
What I was questioning, with the OP, is that if the off-road only language is adhered to, are there enough off-road activities that warrant the purchase, vs some other machine which may do the job better or cost less? I can get behind pride of ownership and just because as reason enough for owning one(multiple).
What I was questioning, with the OP, is that if the off-road only language is adhered to, are there enough off-road activities that warrant the purchase, vs some other machine which may do the job better or cost less? I can get behind pride of ownership and just because as reason enough for owning one(multiple).