Wisconsin banning military vehicles?

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.
Locked
Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:13 am
Location: Kansas

Hang together

Post by Kevin Lockwood » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:12 am

I agree with the previous poster. This should NOT be approached as a Pinz issue. Someone needs to consolidate the MV interest. In Kansas the MV groups had a agreed upon group of spokesmen. We did not sell out other MVs to save our own. Hopefully the MVPA can help coordinate a meeting with key senators and representatives before individuals begin making statements that compromise other MV owners.
K Lockwood
Last edited by Kevin Lockwood on Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

User avatar
jagjetta
G-Sergeant Major
G-Sergeant Major
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by jagjetta » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:31 am

K Lockwood
Not sure I have understood your post correctly, but the group that got together last night and has formulated a state-wide action plan isn't focused on the Pinzy. Rather, we are following Kansas' lead to include ANY historic military vehicle. I hope that I didn't goof the report to give the impression that we were banding together as the "save the Pinzy" group! :)

However, Pinzy, 'Mogs kubelwagens, Horches, Stalwarts, etc. will all be able to be registered and obtain titles when we are finished.

John A-G

Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:13 am
Location: Kansas

Post by Kevin Lockwood » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:55 am

John, we are on the same page. I was replying to the steel soldiers link posted by 1stmate. I was apparently typing my reply as you posted your update. I am certainly glad to hear that the MV groups are banning together and sharpening the spear. I hope the gentleman with the pinz can be reigned in and included in the group effort.
K 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

User avatar
tfscobie
G-Sergeant Major
G-Sergeant Major
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 8:36 am
Location: St. Paul, MN

Post by tfscobie » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:56 am

John G...sounds like we're on track with a unified front. As noted, this is not just a MV/Pinz/Mog/whatever issue. This is an historic, hobbyist, 4x4, farm, hwy department, etc, vehicle issue.

First off, the position DOT takes is inconsistent with the legislator's (and DOT's) stated intent of allowing historic vehicles (whether they are MVs or not) to be operated on Wisconsin roadways. The Collector Plate project is based entirely on this reasoning. Apparently however, under the statute (341.10) and internal documents cited by Mr. Busalacchi in a letter to Sen Mike Ellis, dated 4 October 2007, the DOT could very well refuse to title a '48 CJ2A, or a '49 Chevy staff car, depending on their definition of "military use" and "manufactured." Clearly, the DOT's policy is, if the vehicle "was manufactured military use in the US" or the vehicle "was manufactured for military use in any other country" it cannot be titled in WI.

Additionally, this position is inconsistent from a more base level...if using our same sample vehicles, the CJ2A/Chevy was purchased (for military use) from a local dealer, by a (let's say) US Army base procurement office, and painted OD, it would be okay. Remember, it was not "manufactured " for military use, rather, it was purchased after it was manufactured. But if it were purchased under US Government contract from Willy's/Chevy, this magically makes the vehicle not road worthy!?!

Although at this point, we do not have the DOT's definitions as to what constitutes "military use" or "manufactured," under any stretch of the imagination, it makes no sense...same cars, same factories...just different paint when they came off the line.
T.F. Scobie
B/1/117/30

User avatar
jagjetta
G-Sergeant Major
G-Sergeant Major
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by jagjetta » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:08 am

Boy, TF summed it up really well!!

Having read all of the Kansas documents, boy, I have to say, they paved the way for any state that encounters this problem! Their wording to amend the statute is a good foundation for any state to build on.

Okay, I better get back to work or folks will wonder why the magazine is late!

Best to all,
john


Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:13 am
Location: Kansas

roadworthy

Post by Kevin Lockwood » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:10 am

Almost all MVs, were designed to be driven among civilians on the highways.
They were equipped with lights, wipers, brakes, etc. WWII vehicles all made a convoy speed of 45mph (excepting heavy trucks and fully tracked vehicles) The Kansas NG routinely drove to Colorado and Minnesota in halftracks for their maneuvers. I think the roadworthy argument will become he said she said. We argued that the traffic record of MVs was not an issue because the Ks highway patrol could provide no proof of MVs involved in Motor vehicle fatalities/ violations/ or crimes. The DOT could provide no proof of road surface damage by the heavier MVs. We argued that MVs have travelled thousands of miles upon Kansas roads during and after their military service and had compiled a very safe record.
K 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

User avatar
jagjetta
G-Sergeant Major
G-Sergeant Major
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by jagjetta » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:10 am

Ooops...I should've said to, that we aren't faced with "reigning in" anyone really. It is just a matter of letting folks know they don't have to fight the battle alone. I have been in touch with the Pinzy guy and he is more than happy to know that he wasn't a lone wolf.

But, KLockwood is 100% correct, the unified front is the best plan of action. A group speaking with a single voice and a single agenda will get the attention. That is what we are hoping to do.

NOW, back to work...
John

Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:13 am
Location: Kansas

pinzy guy

Post by Kevin Lockwood » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:21 am

Glad to hear pinzy guy is a stand up fellow and the team is coming together.
The ferret guy in Kansas who was first to feel the policy effects of our DMV was very patient and recognized that his presence at meetings with DMV officials resulted in a strained dialogue. To his credit he waited in the wings and supported the unified front. I am glad to here that all MVers are rallying to the colors.
It was a test to all here in Kansas when the DMV director contacted many in our ranks offering to tag jeeps and trucks if they would agree to roll over on the armored cars, halftracks etc. She only made this offer when it became apparent that her policy was crumbling. I thank all of the fine jeep folks who stood fast and rejected her offer.
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

Tom Wolboldt
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:39 am

Hello Group,

Whatever comes out of all this we need to include any vehicle regardless if it is a collector/antique with driving restrictions or a daily driver being older or newer with no driving restrictions. Treat these vehicles just like any other vehicle made in the same year and let the owner decide how he/she wants to plate/use the vehicle.

I may be wrong but doesn't the Kansas law restrict military vehicles of any age to collector plates only.

Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1565
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:13 am
Location: Kansas

ks

Post by Kevin Lockwood » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:00 pm

Tom, Kansas law only deals with antique (35yrs or older in Ks most other states are 25yr) It does not however preclude owners of newer vehicles from obtaining regular plates. Not to kick a sleeping dog but so far the DMV here has not restricted the issue of plates to any newer MVs. Lets face it unfortunately the only newer MVs that are commonly available to civilians are trucks or HMMVVs. The antique plate in Kansas does not restrict the usage of the vehicle many antique plated commercial and farm trucks still travel the roads every day.
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

Tom Wolboldt
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:06 pm

Hi Kevin,

You are lucky to have collector/antique plates with no restrictions in Kansas. I doubt you will find that in very many other states. I believe John A-G told me collector/antique in Wisconsin is 20 years old and with restrictions.

I just want to be sure we cover all military vehicles of any age no matter how the owner wants to use them.

Dave K.
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:15 am

Post by Dave K. » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:16 pm

John A-G, Tom

Correct me if I'm wrong here but the only collector plate restriction that I know of here in Wis is that you can't drive the vehicle in January (save for maintenance cruise or if you're moving etc . . . ). I've never had a problem and find the restriction unobtrusive. Of course there are some in Wis that complain about even this apparently . . . .

Edit:

Here's the link . . . http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/pl ... pecial.htm

**Can drive it in Jan with a temp plate.


Hope this helps.

Regards, Dave.

Tom Wolboldt
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8360
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by Tom Wolboldt » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:32 pm

Hi Dave,

John A-G can answer better but I think there is also a 500 lb. limit on cargo ( which is less than a jeep engine with transmission and transfercase ) and where you can and can not drive. If you're driving a jeep with trailer ( one unit ) , M37, M715, or 2 1/2 ton 500 lbs. is next to nothing. And it might true that no one has been bothered yet but as long as the restrictions are on the books they could be enforced so owners need to have an option if they want to use their vehicle and still be legal or at least more legal.
Last edited by Tom Wolboldt on Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chuck Nantz
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2002 3:58 pm
Location: Statesville N.C.

Wisconsin

Post by Chuck Nantz » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:38 pm

Why can you not drive in January? Thanks, Chuck Nantz

Dave K.
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:15 am

Post by Dave K. » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:21 pm

Good points Tom, thanks.

Ref the January question--dunno. I do know that I have driven one of my MVs to the Polar Bear insanity on Lake MI one year and about all the police said was nice Jeep. According to the local police and a state trooper I know this is not an oft enforced law so most, if not all, ignore it (or don't know it). Brings up a good question though for those in the know! In my experience there's a big difference between what the DMV says and what the police actually pursue when it comes to classics . . . .

Locked

Return to “Legislative Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bharr and 24 guests