We need a unified voice

[bonshawman]

Good discussion

First: It is always a challenge with volunteer/membership organizations to "speak with one voice". The "mission statement" needs to be clearly defined so that all reasonable expectations are incorporated.

Second: Either through existing established 501C3 or like organizations with a national presence, develop and support a "state" specific branch that can monitor legislation and administrative code changes which effect the hobby. Or, create a new entity, (Corporation- non-profit) in a base State, apply for Federal 501C3 designation to be able to solicit tax-free donations, conform to all formation State and Federal regulations, raise funds to open an office, hire staff, hire lobbyists, prosecute your agenda.

Third: Wrangling legislators takes lobbying, grass roots intel, and money. Lots of money.

Fourth: There are two clear fronts: National (as in how FMCSA laws could impact the hobby, Federal regulations about ownership of former "implements of war", etc), and the State-by-State effort. Fighting a war on two fronts is labor and financially intensive.

It might be most time and cost effective for a coalition (as has been discussed in the post) of existing organizations, such as the American Historical Truck Association, the MVPA, SS, and even brand specific clubs (Mack, etc) to define a clear agenda, targeted budget, and move forward together with a unified front:

First: Education about the vehicles and the hobby, including their historical benefit, the need for preservation, the educational aspect of the hobby. This can include the delicate category of USE, as the larger MVs and trailers can bump up against State interpretations of commercial vehicles. Create a listing (with regular updates) of the state-by-state regs highlighting those that have a positive effect on the hobby, to help those more restrictive states understand the benefits, and demonstrate the lack of negative impact to a more reasonable approach. Outreach and education is where you start - and it takes money to develop and publish web pages, targeted brochures, etc.

Second: Work on legislation that will have a positive impact on ownership, titling/registration/display of tags, use and operation. Unfortunately, local zoning regulations can have an impact on the ability to have certain types of vehicles on property in certain districts (local code enforcement) - I am not sure that this issue, which some members face, can be addressed by such a group.

If such a coalition can be cobbled together, and a clear (achievable) mission statement and budget developed, then the action plan (Federal and State targeted) can be developed and deployed. It will take a lot on consensus and volunteers (members) opening their wallets AND putting in time and effort to make this happen, but I believe it is NEEDED and DOABLE.

Although some of these existing clubs have divergent missions, there is enough common ground to create the working group suggested, with benefits for all.

In Florida, I have no current issues. My vehicles face no storage/zoning issues, no tagging, titling or insurance issues, and no operational issues (use or related to the driver/operator) - however many members face all of these issue in more restrictive or inflexible States. The National issue would be any legislation restricting ownership (similar to those effecting ownership of firearms), or even the "climate" where the government destroys vehicles rather than allowing their release. The State levels usually effect title, tag, and use. The local issues are usually storage and zoning related.

Define the mission, set the target(s) and timetable, determine the strategy and tactics, assemble the resources and deploy - a lot of us are familiar with this......

 

[Amer-team]

Don't forget you can make a difference by getting involved in the process.Go to the meetings of whatever political affiliation that you have. Send a note to your legislators once in awhile telling them you appreciate what they are doing for you. They will remember that becuause it doens't happen too often. If they don't hear from you or see you, they don't know and remember you.

For those of you that do parades, when you are in line with your MV, go talk to some of the politicians that are also waiting. Should not be any problem to find one this year. Invite them over to look at your truck. A couple years ago, we had a congressional candidate that was immediately ahead of my 5T in a parade. He had a few walkers, I was there for fun and to remember the vets. He had some older people that were vets and it was going to be a long walk. I offered for them to use the truck and they accepted. I don't really like doing that as I think no streamers, flowers, or anything else but a flag, but that guy remembers me and if there is an issue like some of these going on, he will talk with me about it.
This was just some ideas. We can fight but it will be mostly on the local level with advice and help from our brothers and sisters across the county. Keep up the good fight.

 

[badga the badger]

i agree that the MVPA is for show and we need to orginize so we can actually fight these laws.

 

[quickfarms]

Most car clubs are about the show but there probably 100's of national clubs and 1000's of local clubs.

Legislation is generally aimed at historic vehicles in general.

MV's are a small segment of this huge hobby.

It would be nice to have one unified voice to fight all of this crap.

 

[Atomic]

I usaully keep my mouth shut on things like this but...

2 weeks ago my fathers best friend and good friend of mine was driving his 1964 Superformance Cobra 427, topped a hill where two cars were parked in the road for some reason, veered into the oncomming lane and was killed outright. The 2 people in the car he hit are still in the hospital. At lunch after the memorial, my father informed members of his Cobra club that their are going to be massive legal challenges since he was driving "what must be a car that can go way too fast and therofore be dangerous". They are already having some unwanted attention because of this. Luckly, the sports car guys have SEMA and other just like it.

We just like the sports car clubs have vehicles that are very noticable on the road. And yes, it will only be a matter of time before someone posts a similar story here driving a M35 or such.

So, if we really want to have a voice, I say we go ahead and partner up with the MVPA. They maybe a bunch of old guys driving jeeps that spend more time trying to get the correct seat cushion stuffing then actually driving the MV but there voice and name are not unknown to the lobbyist and legislators.

I am all for a partnership with this site and others to the MVPA. They will have to change, or be left to the dust of history. Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing a package deal between us and the MVPA. $15.00 yearly thru SS and that gets you into the MVPA. $200 one time and that gets you a lifetime MVPA and special red color or your name on here, or whatever. The NRA would be a great model but we don't have the luxury of the 2nd amendment backing us up.

We need a voice now and not later. The wheels of trying to make a perfect society are and have been in motion for some time, and I think (I stress this is my opinion) we as in free thinking, responsible people are becoming a minority. You say you are patriot at the GA rally and people nod respectfully and raise a toast. You say that around other areas of the country and people launch into a diatribe about how you are the problem, you and your love of country/freedom are destroying the country.

I enjoy this hobby (although I'm up a creek with out running truck) but I could easily see it legislated away by people who think everyone ought to drive a prius or take mass transit.

Our mobility and our choice in how we become mobile are one of the great things about our counrty, but it is in jeopardy.


Thanks Chris for this site and all you do to promote this hooby of ours.

 

[bonshawman]

The other issue with the MVPA is that a lot of younger people are NOT getting involved. SS has a good mix, and that could benefit this effort.

 

[zout]

 

[emmado22]

Perhaps this would be a great way to get younger people involved with the MVPA... It's all in the spin you put on it. Win win for everyone.

 

[ARYankee]

The other issue with the MVPA is that a lot of younger people are NOT getting involved. SS has a good mix, and that could benefit this effort.

I think that has a lot to do with the age difference and style of club management. It could also be an economical one as well. You have to pay a due to be a member of the national MVPA and pay dues to be a local chapter member. Here on SS you have a choice of being a freebie member or paying dues.

I know I have attempted to get our chapter of the MVPA involved with the legislative effort for Arkansas but I get nothing from them. I have on the other hand gained support from local car clubs which is great.

Like I said previously count me in. I can be the rep from Arkansas.

 

[EMD567]

Ouch!
Having read all the comments in this thread, I think that the effort should be focused on the states. The Feds are not the ones that make the rules concerning registration, operation, and insurance. The only place the Feds might have a say is in the realm of the CDL, and again, this is left for the states to decide what is on the test.
For example, in SC, you do not have to parallel park a semi truck to obtain your CDL. In Georgia, you do. Here in SC, I had more trouble getting insurance because of the state's stupid insurance regulations, then I did registering the M814 for legal, full time operation over the states's highways. As long as I don't do it for hire, I can haul anything anywheres. In some other states, there would be no way you would be able to have the same freedom as I do in SC.
So, I would think that the main effort would be to monitor the states procedures concerning MV's, and make changes in the states that need updating/ revamping.

 

[onegmjack]

M16ty,is Tennessee trying to change the law or ban MV?I have tried to keep up with the news,could have missed something.

 

[Tanner]

My perspective on this is that there is an agenda that is slowly infiltrating the goverment in each state in regards to Ex-MV civilian ownership. I don't think this is karma, happenstance, or sheer luck on the part of the states that have already tried to pass or have passed restrictive legislation on MV owners. As stated somewhere before, are logging companies, fire departments, construction companies, or other users of ex-MV's being barred from tagging/using their trucks? Are states pulling the registrations/tags from older trucks that lack a FMVSS/NHTSA sticker or safety features? Are the legislators concerned that some nefarious entity will procure an Ex-MV for use in questionable deeds?

What's the REAL story behind the states getting their knickers in a twist over civvy Ex-MV ownership? UNTIL the REAL REASON is disclosed, I don't see anything that will prevent states from continuing their legislative assault on civilian ownership... Is the crash damage done by a Class 8 Kenworth or Volvo truck any less than that of an MV? Any records or crash study data available to say that MV's are more dangerous & need to be banned? Do politicians operate & judge on knee-jerk reactions, or based on empirical data?



'Tanner'

 

[m16ty]

M16ty,is Tennessee trying to change the law or ban MV?I have tried to keep up with the news,could have missed something.

No laws are coming up in TN that affects MVs that I know of. I just see it happening in other states and it's just a matter of time ,unless something changes, before we are dealing with it here. I just like to be proactive.

I mainly started this thread to see what the comments and ideas would be. We've had some good ideas and Chris' announcement should offer good results.

One national issue we may be dealing with in the future is emissions testing for older trucks. There's already been talk of it on the national level.

 

[onegmjack]

You are right and I do agree with you.They have passed some strange laws in Tennessee lately,guns in bars.Glad I no longer go to bars.What Chris said was in the works was great to hear.We do need to come together for the good of all MV people everywhere.Dwight

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Chris,
This is certainly worth repeating. We ALL appreciate your efforts.......

The timing of this thread is perfect. I was actually on the phone yesterday for about 30 minutes with a high ranking MVPA board member discussing ways that SS and the MVPA could work together to better support and protect the hobby. We did a lot of brainstorming and came up with some really good ideas. We are hoping to have a conference call this week or next with some more board members to discuss the feasibility of our ideas. Stay tuned!

........ And we anxiously await any updates and SITREPs that come of this.

opcorn:



​

 

[undysworld]

A couple of thoughts, from what we've been through here:

The authority which sets FMVSS requirements: the Federal Govt., is the same authority that determines which former military vehicles may be resold as surplus on-road licensable Motor Vehicles, and only provides SF-97 forms for obtaining a title with those vehicles. Surplus vehicles sold with a SF-97 should not be denied regular registration options.

Former Military Vehicles should be considered on-road licensable Motor Vehicles, based on the same determinant criteria used for civilian versions: Federal and State laws.

Virtually all "Tired" (as opposed to "tracked"), tactical standard and tactical support (as opposed to "combat"), vehicles built through 1987 were contractually required to meet FMVSS under Dept. of Defense document MIL-STD-1180B. This means they met the same FMVSS standards as civilian vehicles of the same model year/s.

Federal Regulations exempt ALL vehicles older than 25-yrs old from ANY FMVSS requirement or regulations. This means if the vehicle is pre-1987 model year, it is exempted from FMVSS. [Title 49 USC Sec. 30112] Pre-'87 military vehicles are still subject to the state's equipment requirements.

Registration is the responsibility of, and is entirely the under the jurisdiction of, the individual state. However, if the state's laws contradict federal laws, there is an issue. State's laws should respect Federal requirements.

From my communications with MVPA folks, they are/were reluctant to get too involved with individual state laws, since they felt it was the local club members who could best determine what those laws should be. Hopefully, recent events will illustrate how MVPA could at least provide local groups with the background info and communication service to help maintain our operating rights. it's probably unfair (and unlikely) for MVPA to be providing funds for such local efforts, IMHO.

The same laws which protect those guys who are the historical collector must also provide for normal registration options for us "bubba's", who want/need to USE our vehicles. The existence of the farmers, loggers, and construction workers who use these vehicles for work does nothing but benefit the true "collector" group.

Owners of ALL OLD VEHICLES must absolutely stick together and support each other's uses and rights. If anyone manages to split this relatively small group into even smaller segments, then everyone is more vulnerable to losing rights. We must all work to maintain awareness of this need for unity. - This includes the Model-T crowd, the Hot-Rodders, the Muscle car group, the Military collectors and "bubba's", and even the early Ricers (and no offense intended by the names!).

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

ditto !​

a couple of thoughts, from what we've been through here:

the authority which sets fmvss requirements: The federal govt., is the same authority that determines which former military vehicles may be resold as surplus on-road licensable motor vehicles, and only provides sf-97 forms for obtaining a title with those vehicles. Surplus vehicles sold with a sf-97 should not be denied regular registration options.

Former military vehicles should be considered on-road licensable motor vehicles, based on the same determinant criteria used for civilian versions: Federal and state laws.

Virtually all "tired" (as opposed to "tracked"), tactical standard and tactical support (as opposed to "combat"), vehicles built through 1987 were contractually required to meet fmvss under dept. Of defense document mil-std-1180b. This means they met the same fmvss standards as civilian vehicles of the same model year/s.

Federal regulations exempt all vehicles older than 25-yrs old from any fmvss requirement or regulations. This means if the vehicle is pre-1987 model year, it is exempted from fmvss. [title 49 usc sec. 30112] pre-'87 military vehicles are still subject to the state's equipment requirements.

Registration is the responsibility of, and is entirely the under the jurisdiction of, the individual state. However, if the state's laws contradict federal laws, there is an issue. State's laws should respect federal requirements.

From my communications with mvpa folks, they are/were reluctant to get too involved with individual state laws, since they felt it was the local club members who could best determine what those laws should be. Hopefully, recent events will illustrate how mvpa could at least provide local groups with the background info and communication service to help maintain our operating rights. It's probably unfair (and unlikely) for mvpa to be providing funds for such local efforts, imho.

The same laws which protect those guys who are the historical collector must also provide for normal registration options for us "bubba's", who want/need to use our vehicles. The existence of the farmers, loggers, and construction workers who use these vehicles for work does nothing but benefit the true "collector" group.

Owners of all old vehicles must absolutely stick together and support each other's uses and rights. If anyone manages to split this relatively small group into even smaller segments, then everyone is more vulnerable to losing rights. We must all work to maintain awareness of this need for unity. - this includes the model-t crowd, the hot-rodders, the muscle car group, the military collectors and "bubba's", and even the early ricers (and no offense intended by the names!).

 

[saddamsnightmare]

April 12th, 2012.

Respectfully, based on what the MVPA has done in Wisconsin, Iowa and anywhere else the working or everyday use of Former Military Vehicles has been threatened or abolished by state governments and DOT's, there is no use whatsoever expecting anything from that bunch of political thumb suckers! I regret to have to say it but as an organization it is, and they are (as members willing to fight for the right to retain everyday registration on FMV's) completely useless and without any merit.

Sorry if I ruffled the old fogies feathers, BUT realistically, they are like Rolls Royce owners, if you don't own one, you are of no interest to them, and neither are your plebian concerns... Federal purchasing contracts exempted these vehicles from all such state regulations, and now may be the time for the Federal government to pass a law requiring that the states bring their Motor vehicle reguklations into conformance with the Federal regs as applied to these vehicles when they were pruchased, or risk losing their Federal Transportation monies. Hit the sorry suckers where they will notice, in the state's wallets. Only Texas seems to have any common sense when it comes to FMV's....

 

[hndrsonj]

April 12th, 2012.

Respectfully, based on what the MVPA has done in Wisconsin, Iowa and anywhere else the working or everyday use of Former Military Vehicles has been threatened or abolished by state governments and DOT's, there is no use whatsoever expecting anything from that bunch of political thumb suckers! I regret to have to say it but as an organization it is, and they are (as members willing to fight for the right to retain everyday registration on FMV's) completely useless and without any merit.

Sorry if I ruffled the old fogies feathers, BUT realistically, they are like Rolls Royce owners, if you don't own one, you are of no interest to them, and neither are your plebian concerns... Federal purchasing contracts exempted these vehicles from all such state regulations, and now may be the time for the Federal government to pass a law requiring that the states bring their Motor vehicle reguklations into conformance with the Federal regs as applied to these vehicles when they were pruchased, or risk losing their Federal Transportation monies. Hit the sorry suckers where they will notice, in the state's wallets. Only Texas seems to have any common sense when it comes to FMV's....

The MVPA has an elected BOD. They generally do what the "constituants" want them to do. The problem is too many people have the mindset that they are a bunch of "old fogies" and do nothing to change them. If there was a large group of the membership that wanted this change it would happen or you could just vote those out of office. The MVPA was a jeep clup for the most part in the past (in my opinion) but I believe that it is slowly changing. They also are beginning to realize they won't exist in the future if they don't recruit new members. Change is slowly happening, it's just that not enough people are pushing fot it. How many people have called/emailed a BOD member to voice their opinion? I guarantee it is a small number.......

 

[vtdeucedriver]

All of this is great but we ALL need to be on our toes for each other. PB was right in stating that we need to watch ourselfes. In the last 3 yrs on this site ive seen some crazy pics from some of its members and it has literally made me nervious for our hobby. I have ALOT of time and $$$$ invested in it and it will take only ONE guy to not know and attempt to recover his 900 series with his F-250 with a home made towbar and have it come off and kill a family of 4 to ruin it for all of us!!!!