Thoughts on the onslaught of State Laws that Pull us of the road

[Reworked LMTV]

Thoughts on the onslaught of State Laws that Pull us off the road

I am trying to wrap my head around the best leverage to change legislation when these types of things occur. One repeating concept keeps coming to mind. Climate change. More floods, fire, tornadoes, etc, and rescues of families. It basically trumps everything. Including legislation with unintended or intended consequences. In other words, our trucks are the first on the seen. Not the National Guard. Your neighbors know who has the flood vehicle for sure : ) If their Plan B was no longer around because it was not practical to own, where is their back up plan? This concept could garner a lot of support, well beyond military vehicle owners.

Hypothetical PSA: " Help us help you in times of tragedy. Our military vehicles that rescue families will no longer be an option if Senate Bill (pick a number) is not amended" "Support us, we are much more than just Parade Vehicle Owners, we save lives!" Thank you -Your Local Military Owners Association".

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ry-truck-rescue-hundreds-survivors/628235001/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJWiLqWfipA

https://www.cnn.com/videos/weather/...itary-vehicle-florence-lavandera-wolf-vpx.cnn

https://abc13.com/society/donor-gives-louisiana-cajun-navy-new-flood-rescue-vehicle/5182441/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcr35D1p9wc

Open to your thoughts...

 

[wheelspinner]

I like it! We have been working (loose term) on legislation here in NC to correct their idiocy. I will forward this to the staff that is reasonably friendly to our cause.

 

[doghead]

If your intended use is not simply historic, You will need to insure it properly. That will eliminate most of the specialty companies. Obviously, legislation based on intended use, will need insurance for intended usege.

 

[Sgt Jiggins]

I am by no means a qualified expert on this subject, but my gut tells me:

1)this is part of a larger pattern given how widespread it is - multiple states (in the US anyhow) are going/have gone down this road. this is quite likely being tied to federal funding/grants.
2)this isn't going to end any time soon
3)the best way to effect what we would see as positive change is likely to align with bodies that have lobbyists and play the "dc" game.

Who these bodies are, how to engage them, and ultimately how to fund them is beyond me. But one thing I am fairly certain of is that grousing on niche/esoteric forums isn't the solution.

Regards,
SJ

 

[dxhend2]

I agree with SJ's points. Definitely seeing multiple US states changing their positions on this. Question for everyone here - has anyone captured/documented any of their rationale for doing this? Is it a highway safety issue? Environmental issues? Or, just because they can? Usually regulations are designed to mitigate some specific risk for the public good. So...what is the problem that they think they're solving?

I think we may have a better chance of success by trying to directly address the risk or concern. Many times these get presented in a one-sided argument (oh, this might happen...so we should regulate away the risk...).

Anyone have any "on the record" notes about the risks/concerns? Any thoughts on this approach?

 

[Reworked LMTV]

On the record:



I borrowed this from another member named "Hometown" post. Apparently, it has no basis in actual law, but it is interesting to see how it was spun. I will add a link to this member's posts.

 

[cucvmule]

One of the problems is they see green or camouflage and the freakout begins. If you paint it pretty rainbow colors or it looks like construction equipment, which people hate but not as bad then it is ok.

I still believe that we live in a free country, a Republic. Precedent should apply as the use of surplus equipment has been used since the beginning of the Republic.

 

[dxhend2]

Thanks for the find from MD, Reworked. Interesting literary gymnastics they're doing:
"A study conducted on general public use of special purpose military vehicles...has identified that these special purpose military vehicles are not constructed to meet 49 CFR 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, as stated in 517.1(c)."
But that's not what 517.1(c) says:
§ 571.7 Applicability.
(c)Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

But, if your local police department (or fire department, etc.) acquires one of these vehicles to drive on public highways, that's ok...?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lu5_5Od7WY

 

[TacticalTruck]

Ever since HMMWVs started coming out again and people were getting all sorts of red flags thrown for trying to get around "off road use only" things have been steadily getting worse.

 

[wheelspinner]

On the record:

View attachment 772682

I borrowed this from another member named "Hometown" post. Apparently, it has no basis in actual law, but it is interesting to see how it was spun. I will add a link to this member's posts.

Every single statement is false. With the MVPA basically turning their backs and no real lobbying group representative of the more modern vehicles this will continue to happen more and more.

Unfortunately as we all sit here talking about it on Social Media/interwebs-we believe we are doing something. This interaction although informative is worthless in changing the tide Please get active in your local/state government; be vocal and annoying. Its the only way.

 

[dxhend2]

Found some other helpful threads, may be useful when making the case with local/state government:

49 CFR 571 exempts military vehicles from FMVSS (its does NOT say that they aren't built to those standards, as misrepresented by the MD DMV). However, they are governed by MIL-STD-1180B, which states:

1.2 Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to establish uniform requirements for incorporating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards into military ground vehicles consistent with their military characteristics. This standard establishes uniform requirements which satisfy the intent of, and are identifiable with comparable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The provisions of this standard shall not be construed to be the only safety requirements applicable to military ground vehicles.

Recent thread on this: https://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthread.php?184351-Safety-standards-MIL-STD-1180B

There was another thread about someone in WI that used this in a successful court case to show that their MV did meet or exceed FMSS.

 

[av8or]

When MV that were sold as off road only showed up on the market people had to find a loop hole and get a on road title. The efforts to get around the intent of the law has caused the law changes, and law changes will continue as long as people try to get around the intent of the law. Just my 2 cents.

 

[tobyS]

When MV that were sold as off road only showed up on the market people had to find a loop hole and get a on road title. The efforts to get around the intent of the law has caused the law changes, and law changes will continue as long as people try to get around the intent of the law. Just my 2 cents.

So the government intent was and is to sell surplus vehicles at full market price without the disclaimer (sure some HMMWV;s had the disclaimer) and then stop letting us use them because the manufacturers association is against having them on the road. One has to love a planned deception ... our government is sooooo good at it.

We should all let the MA know how much we appreciate their input.

 

[BKubu]

So the government intent was and is to sell surplus vehicles at full market price without the disclaimer (sure some HMMWV;s had the disclaimer) and then stop letting us use them because the manufacturers association is against having them on the road. One has to love a planned deception ... our government is sooooo good at it.

We should all let the MA know how much we appreciate their input.

I am unsure what full market value means. People bid on trucks. They bid against each other and drive prices up. That is not full market value. An off-road use only HMMWV is a big ATV and people should bid as such. But, many people have bid figuring they will convert their off-road use only titles into on-road titles. Much of the difficulties we are seeing stems from the HMMWVs that have come out with off-road use only titles. I have said previously that I don't see what makes them off-road use only, but that is how they are selling MOST of them. What sucks is the other trucks that are being caught up in the HMMWV nets, and I think this may be what you are pointing to...but let me know if mischaracterized your post.

 

[tobyS]

I am unsure what full market value means. People bid on trucks. They bid against each other and drive prices up. That is not full market value. An off-road use only HMMWV is a big ATV and people should bid as such. But, many people have bid figuring they will convert their off-road use only titles into on-road titles. Much of the difficulties we are seeing stems from the HMMWVs that have come out with off-road use only titles. I have said previously that I don't see what makes them off-road use only, but that is how they are selling MOST of them. What sucks is the other trucks that are being caught up in the HMMWV nets, and I think this may be what you are pointing to...but let me know if mischaracterized your post.

Public auctions that compete one buyer against the next, that have no specific requirements to bid (like a dealers license), are considered to bring fair market value. Anyone can bid...making the sales fully public and clearly at inflated retail, prices.

I know the HMMWV issues and have stayed away because of it, but the general laws pushed by the MA does not make that distinction....we will all get caught in this bait (we pay retail) and switch (making laws that restrict use to off road only.


(sentence removed)

 

[wheelspinner]

When MV that were sold as off road only showed up on the market people had to find a loop hole and get a on road title. The efforts to get around the intent of the law has caused the law changes, and law changes will continue as long as people try to get around the intent of the law. Just my 2 cents.

The problem is, it WASN"T law-it was policy. And faulty policy at that.

 

[Sgt Jiggins]

The problem is, it WASN"T law-it was policy. And faulty policy at that.

Faulty policy doesn't stand if challenged. See it all the time. The folks down in Richmond will craft 'laws' knowing they won't stand up to a challenge. Is is allowable? Apparently? Is it crappy? Definitely. Will it stand up in in the courts? Not if properly challenged.

Folks in MD might find a solicitor who has a fondness for heavy green metal and go after that MD 'policy' statement if it truly has no basis in law.

 

[98G]

When MV that were sold as off road only showed up on the market people had to find a loop hole and get a on road title. The efforts to get around the intent of the law has caused the law changes, and law changes will continue as long as people try to get around the intent of the law. Just my 2 cents.

I don't think so. Here's what I'm seeing -

For every MD or CO, we have an ID or TX. TX law explicitly provides for unrestricted titles and on road license plates for M998 HMMWVs that were sold with the offroad stamp....

Granted, the HMMWV sales greatly increased public awareness of the existence of military surplus vehicles. GP did a much better job advertising and expanded awareness.

But what we're seeing with these laws is just more of the culture war. The Left views the MV hobby as an activity of the right and wants to restrict or prohibit it merely as a means of throwing a rock at people they dont like.

Consider this - this single most important variable as to whether or not you'll get your MV titled and plated is who you get behind the counter at the DMV office. Get some leftist who doesn't think you should be permitted to have them and the answer is "NO!" even if black letter law clearly allows them. Conversely, consider all the MVs registered and titled in areas where DMV policy supposedly prohibits it...

 

[waayfast]

I don't think so. Here's what I'm seeing -

For every MD or CO, we have an ID or TX. TX law explicitly provides for unrestricted titles and on road license plates for M998 HMMWVs that were sold with the offroad stamp....

Granted, the HMMWV sales greatly increased public awareness of the existence of military surplus vehicles. GP did a much better job advertising and expanded awareness.

But what we're seeing with these laws is just more of the culture war. The Left views the MV hobby as an activity of the right and wants to restrict or prohibit it merely as a means of throwing a rock at people they dont like.

Consider this - this single most important variable as to whether or not you'll get your MV titled and plated is who you get behind the counter at the DMV office. Get some leftist who doesn't think you should be permitted to have them and the answer is "NO!" even if black letter law clearly allows them. Conversely, consider all the MVs registered and titled in areas where DMV policy supposedly prohibits it...

98G I believe you are spot on!!

Hopefully, without getting to political (and hopefully without getting kicked off here) I would say that LOTS of employees in LOTs of Govt. agencies are not of the conservative persuasion. The local DMV folks are no exception, and I can only guess the mentality behind this homespun ban on titling milsurp vehicles is a way for them to feel good about them doing their little part to help "save" the country from the so called right wingers that would dare drive a Military vehicle on public streets.

Just the thought of a mere citizen operating a machine built for the military has just got to be a head spinning event for these folks.

NOW! before the mods take aim- please understand what I'm tossing out here with this opinion is just an observation and NOT a rant-- just sayin'----------------------------------

 

[wheelspinner]

Consider this - this single most important variable as to whether or not you'll get your MV titled and plated is who you get behind the counter at the DMV office. Get some leftist who doesn't think you should be permitted to have them and the answer is "NO!" even if black letter law clearly allows them. Conversely, consider all the MVs registered and titled in areas where DMV policy supposedly prohibits it...

Funny story, I went in to my local DMV office, and I got the usual guy. He looked at the paperwork I gave him for a Dodge Dually, and said "what no military today?" He is so used to me bringing them in I surprised him with a non-MV. He is trained well so my titles for all of my MVs usually go right through.