Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Discussion of Local, State, and Federal issues regarding MV Legislation, MV use restrictions, MV registration refusals, etc. As these issues may ultimately affect other jurisdictions, information and education of all MV owners is crucial for the future ownership and use of our MVs.
This is not a board for Political discussion.
This is not a Q&A Forum on how to title or register a MV.
Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1477
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:13 am
Location: Kansas

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by Kevin Lockwood » Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:24 pm

Ben,
Just a point to consider. Paul Underwood's non-restrictive bill, which prior to opposition from others included all former MVs older than 20 years, was given the number SB392. The very restrictive DOT sponsored bill was introduced as SB404. Given that 392 precedes 404 I am not sure hindsight is at play here more like foresight.
I am sure that Jeff and others tried to get the best deal. No doubt. BUT the passage of 392 out of committee with a 9 - 1 vote ( the only dissenter being the rep who introduced the DOT's 404 bill) showed that working with the Wisconsin legislators could have and did produce great things. Now that same bill has passed the general assembly.
No matter how you cut it, Paul needs to be applauded for overcoming enormous obstacles!!!!.
Kevin Lockwood
42 Ford GPW
42 Oshkosh AAF Snowblower
41 White M2 halftrack
42 Autocar M2A1 was M2 halftrack
42 Autocar M3-75 halftrack
42 White M4A1 was M4 halftrack
43 Diamond T M3A1 halftrack
43 White M16 was M13 halftrack
44 LVT-3 Landing Vehicle Tracked

Ernie Baals
G-Major General
G-Major General
Posts: 3472
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:27 am
Location: Southern New Jersey

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by Ernie Baals » Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:13 pm

Hi Ben
Paul was in the fight a year before Jeff got involved. Once Jeff took over for the clubs, Paul was given the bums rush.
Paul offered many times to combine forces, but Jeff felt that Pauls approach was wrong, and that all he was doing was pissing off the DMV ( this is a quote from the MVPA directors meeting).
Jeff took what the DMV offered him and did not put up a fight. He sold it to the local clubs and the national by telling all involved that it was his bill or nothing at all.

Jeff may have thought he was doing well, but Paul just proved Jeff incorrect on all fronts.

I also think that Military Vehicle Magazine, ie John Adams Graf, owe Paul an appology for the treament he received.

Ernie
Rip Dad 1/22/24 to 12/21/11
I will always love and miss you.
Ernie Baals MVPA 104C and 3104, AACA, SJC MVPA

Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured……but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen”

Ben Dover
Gee Addict
Posts: 42317
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Proving Ground

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by Ben Dover » Fri Apr 23, 2010 7:59 pm

It still appears there is some hindsight involved. Remember early on there was complaining that the MVPA was not getting involved, Jeff did provide some MVPA connection, now the MVPA and Jeff's hard work is being snubbed which is unfair.
2011 MVPA PIONEER AWARD - MVPA #1064
HONOR GRAD-WHEELED VEHICLE MECHANIC SCHOOL 1960 - US ARMY ORDNANCE SCHOOL(MACHINIST) ABERDEEN PG 1962 - O-1 BIRD DOG CREWCHIEF - 300,000+TROUBLE FREE M-38A1 MILES
LIFE MEMBER AM LEGION-40/8-DAV
7 MIL SPEC MAINTAINED MV'S
COL. BRUNO BROOKS (ARMY MOTORS) IS MY HERO

StudebakerM275
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:31 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by StudebakerM275 » Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:37 pm

So what is going with this "new deal" non-restrictive use bill ? what dose this mean in regular term's ?

I can tag it as pleased ? for use as i pleased ?

Mike

Not directed at anyone in particular, but please remain on topic. Postings with diversions and ramblings that detracted from the chronology and continuity of this legislative process have been edited and/or trimmed from this discussion.

Moderator
1953 Studebaker M275.
1962 GMC K4500.
1969 AMC-AMX.
1976 Arctic Cat Jag.
1977 Ford F350.
1982 AMC-Jeep J/20 Honcho.
1988 AMC-Jeep V8 Comanche .
1992 Trans Am GTA.
2007 Honda Rubicon.

Ernie Baals
G-Major General
G-Major General
Posts: 3472
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:27 am
Location: Southern New Jersey

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by Ernie Baals » Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:49 pm

Hi Ben
I have no complaints about the MVPA Board.
the club had no direct control on events. Jeff merely kept the club informed to his actions.
The national is not equipped to handle problems in all 50 states. The resources just aren't there. It would be nice if we had the funds to send lawyers in, but at this point we do not.
The club was placed in a tough spot. It could not distance itself from Jeff, even if it felt the bill Jeff got was not good. As they, MVPA, really had nothing to do with it.

I know Jeff did alot of work, but alot of it was not neccessary as Paul had already laid out all the ground work.
Jeff went and took a different path, one of appeasing the Wisc DMV. I put Jeffs actions on par with Nevel Chamberlins (spelling?) before WWII, Well meaning, but wrong.
AS far as snubs are concerned, Paul was snubbed repeatedly by Jeff and MV magagine, and was excluded from Jeffs work, Until this January when Jeff attempted to switch his backing to Pauls bill. But the committee decided that is was too late to change. The quote was, this is the bill you wanted, this is the bill you will get.
Jeff also refused help from the Kansas group, who had , as you know, fought and won against their DMV.

Ernie
Last edited by Ernie Baals on Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rip Dad 1/22/24 to 12/21/11
I will always love and miss you.
Ernie Baals MVPA 104C and 3104, AACA, SJC MVPA

Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured……but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen”


User avatar
gerrykan
G-General
G-General
Posts: 9067
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:37 am
Location: Ozark Mountains, USA

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by gerrykan » Sat Apr 24, 2010 5:50 pm

Well said Ernie.
Roy

dick dobs
USMC Sergeant
USMC Sergeant
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:56 pm
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by dick dobs » Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:14 pm

Men of the G,
I'm very proud of all who put the time and effort in this fight.

Semper Fi
Dick dobs
43-? MB jeep
Date of purchase 5-08
currently info gathering
very soon full resto.

StudebakerM275
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:31 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by StudebakerM275 » Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:03 am

Somebody translate this ? so i know whats going on ?

Mike
1953 Studebaker M275.
1962 GMC K4500.
1969 AMC-AMX.
1976 Arctic Cat Jag.
1977 Ford F350.
1982 AMC-Jeep J/20 Honcho.
1988 AMC-Jeep V8 Comanche .
1992 Trans Am GTA.
2007 Honda Rubicon.

Old Dodge Guy
G-Captain
G-Captain
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:54 am
Location: Very far Northwest Missouri

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by Old Dodge Guy » Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:24 pm

Ok, StudebakerM275, I'll try to give it a shot for you. If I am wrong, I am sure that somebody will correct me, so I'll serve as the lightening rod for you. :D The "good" bill has passed the state legislators, and needs to be signed by the governor. If signed, 392 becomes law, if vetoed, it's done. So, that means if signed, that if you have a vehicle on the "list", then your good to go. If your not on the list, then it's PARADE time, ....... or lawn ornament time, or get your vehicle on the list next go around. No offense is meant toward anyone here, just an outsider looking in.
Still crazy after all these years.
The OD bug bit me in 1970......and I have never been the same

Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 24058
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Novato, CA

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by Chuck Lutz » Sun Apr 25, 2010 6:38 pm

Again.....I think this is the timeline and result...

392 started out to cover ALL the HMVs as being "OK" for registration...in other words, like other vehicles, no exceptions by the WisDOT trying to make up their own "definition" of ANYTHING, they had to register the HMVs and stop playing God.

Then 404 with the "parade or nothing" language was brought up.

Not sure of the chronology, but somewhere 392 got gutted except ....mysteriously for the Pinzgauers....then the DUKW owners found a way into the bill and eventually some M715 owners got included before it went to the vote....wonder who the last two groups know in the legislature up there?

I believe you now have 392 and 404 to cover the HMVs and if you ain't in the 392 group that has free rein on the highways and byways of Wisconsin, you are now the owner of a parade-only vehicle....forget taking it to a jeep meet or hunting....unless you slap some bunting on it and flags and claim you are honoring Groundhog Day or something....

I guess the Wis HMV owners need to put a calendar of "events" that include at least ONE parade in the state for every day in the year so owners can claim "they wuz jes goin' on down to that lil 'ol pah-rade"......

Just wait until the Model T owners find out that THEIR vehicles are not as "safe" as a WWII jeep is and they are told to register as a "parade cehicle only".....
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
GPW 108552 4/17/43 Louisville, KY. USA 20371278 (DOD est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3 4582 10/29/42 USA 0173499 (est.)

Ernie Baals
G-Major General
G-Major General
Posts: 3472
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:27 am
Location: Southern New Jersey

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by Ernie Baals » Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:22 pm

Hi Chuck
Before either bill, Paul had his reg revoked by the Wisc DMV (Pinz) He took the DMV to court and won, forcing them to register his truck. The following year, DMV refused to reg his Pinz again.
This is how 392 was born, In the begining it was Paul by himself, fighting to reg his truck.
When the DMV refused Pauls truck the second time, they also started refusing other MVs. This is when Jeff got involved. Paul wanted to work with Jeff for a bill that would respect all vehicles. But Jeff was not interested in working with Paul. So Paul continued to fight for his rights, alone.
Somewhere along the line DUKWs and M715 got added to Pauls bill.
Paul has over 900 hours of time invested trying to get his Pinz registered as a truck. It is also worth noting that Paul also owns a M35. That he can only take to parades now.

At least Pauls bill is a foot in the door to add more vehicles.

Ernie
Rip Dad 1/22/24 to 12/21/11
I will always love and miss you.
Ernie Baals MVPA 104C and 3104, AACA, SJC MVPA

Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured……but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen”

StudebakerM275
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:31 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by StudebakerM275 » Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:30 pm

2 things I find funny here IS.

1. the dells duk tour place mentions nothing About these laws, Nor dose it seem I heard tell of them being part of this fight ?


2. Funny how this no bill allowing 3 rugs r of which bring the W2 Duks gets passed for signing a month before there season starts ?


Who is greasing who's palms ? ! ?



Mike
1953 Studebaker M275.
1962 GMC K4500.
1969 AMC-AMX.
1976 Arctic Cat Jag.
1977 Ford F350.
1982 AMC-Jeep J/20 Honcho.
1988 AMC-Jeep V8 Comanche .
1992 Trans Am GTA.
2007 Honda Rubicon.

User avatar
gerrykan
G-General
G-General
Posts: 9067
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:37 am
Location: Ozark Mountains, USA

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by gerrykan » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:39 am

This has been going on for 2 years, and Paul Underwood has done an excellent job of keeping everyone informed.
A few owners have took a stand for their rights, that is what the second bill is all about.
Roy

Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 24058
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Novato, CA

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by Chuck Lutz » Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:51 am

I thought 392 was for ALL HMVs and then cut back to the Pinzs and then the DUKW and M715 guys found a way to get "added" to the bill but for some as-yet unknown reason, the rest of the HMVs were not included in it....

If it smells fishy to some people I'd have to agree that the whole process for 392 and 404 in Wisconsin is a classic example of "HOW NOT TO DEAL WITH DMV IN YOUR STATE" and an after-battle damage report if circulated to MV owners in the rest of the US would be very helpful. Even better if an after-battle damage report from Kansas was included on "HOW TO DEAL WITH DMV IN YOUR STATE". I can't think of a better pair of articles to teach the rest of us what to do and what to avoid and how the process works....or doesn't work....
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
GPW 108552 4/17/43 Louisville, KY. USA 20371278 (DOD est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3 4582 10/29/42 USA 0173499 (est.)

undysworld
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:58 am
Location: Blue Mounds Wisconsin

Re: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by undysworld » Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:06 am

Mike,
2 things I find funny here IS.
I'll try to answer you.
1. the dells duk tour place mentions nothing About these laws, Nor dose it seem I heard tell of them being part of this fight ?
The Wisconsin Duck tours are allowed to operate under a specific Wisconsin state statute:
341.05(20)
(20) The vehicle is an amphibious motor vehicle capable of carrying 10 or more passengers when used for sight-seeing purposes, registered as a boat with the department of natural resources and operated upon a highway for a distance not to exceed 2 miles.
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gatewa ... &jd=341.10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Amendment 3 to SB-392 was introduced by Sen. Luther Olsen in order to allow them Duck tour companies to travel further than 2 miles, for advertising purposes (per my conversation with Sen. Olsen's office staff).
From memory, I believe that at least one owner of a Duck tour company did testify at the DOT's July 29, 2009 public hearing over Trans-123. People choose to participate, or not, as they see fit. While the Duck tour owners may not be vocal in their support of SB-392, to my knowledge, none of them are opposing it either.
2. Funny how this no bill allowing 3 rugs r of which bring the W2 Duks gets passed for signing a month before there season starts ?
Sorry, I don't understand your comment. Is this a question?
Who is greasing who's palms ? ! ?
If any greasing has occurred or is occurring, I am unaware of it. The only grease on my hands came from my Pinzgauer. If you know something, please bring it up. Otherwise, don't insinuate things. Slinging mud is unproductive.

If you supported AB-592/SB-404 (the parade bill), you ought to be thrilled with the current situation. If you have questions about SB-392 (Erpenbach's bill) or want to support it, let me know. If you think things got all screwed up and want to learn from mistakes which were made, then let's do that for the future's sake. But even there, insinuating that something sinister or illegal has gone on just isn't true, at least to my knowledge.

Chuck,
I thought 392 was for ALL HMVs and then cut back to the Pinzs and then the DUKW and M715 guys found a way to get "added" to the bill but for some as-yet unknown reason, the rest of the HMVs were not included in it....
I can't speak for the manner in which 404 ended up totally cutting regular users out. Jeff Rowsam assured me, early on, that guys like me, who used our trucks for ag purposes, etc., would be included. At some date, our concerns got dropped and 404 became a parade-only bill.
392 got narrowed to only include a specific truck, Pinzgauers, during a meeting with Sen. Holperin, due to the promised opposition to the bill by DOT as well as due to what he viewed as "last minute" interest by Jeff. Sen. Holperin promised to "ram it down DOT's throat". The other vehicles got added later, due to specific requests from various Senators and Assembly Reps. I found widespread support for such less-restricted operation among the legislators, contrary to what Jeff seems to have encountered. In fact, 392 passed both the legislative houses by "voice votes", which means that there was sufficient bipartisan support that an actual vote count was considered unnecessary.

The best thing that can come out of this is for everyone else to learn.

Paul Underwood
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

Info on Legislation at: http://www.alfaheaven.com/MilitarySecti ... Legis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest