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
scooter007
G-Private First Class
G-Private First Class
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Post by scooter007 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:55 pm

Here is a post from the 4x4 web site that I belong to for the Pinz.

OK Buckeroos, here we go. I have an appointment scheduled with Sen. Jon Erpenbach's staffer, Robert Doeckel and "someone from the DMV" on MONDAY OCTOBER 22, 2007 at 10 AM!! I intend to go with any and all Wiscinsin Pinzers who can attend. Mr. Doeckel requested a headcount and names of attendees, which I promised by the end of Friday. Please email, or better phone me, to join in!! I'm at 608 437-3465 home, and 608 333-8383 cell, but I don't always answer the cell phone. Please leave a message if you can't get me!! Thanks for all the support.
Paul Underwood
Blue Mounds, Wisconsin

Good point on the Wis. Ducks, I sent the link to Paul.

Scooter

User avatar
JAB
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:25 pm
Location: under the jeep in North Prairie, WI

Re: Wisconsin

Post by JAB » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:59 am

Chuck Nantz wrote:Why can you not drive in January? Thanks, Chuck Nantz
Because the Collector plates were being "abused" by people who were just using old cars as daily drivers.....& avoiding paying annual registration/licensing fees (Collector plates are a one-time fee). The original policy prevented you from driving through 3 of the winter months but enough hobbyists complained about being unable to drive to car shows around the Holidays, nice days in early Spring, etc. that it eventually got cut back to January. As most of us here fear road salt more than anything it was an easy fix for all concerned.
-Jeff

GR8GPN2U!!!

Image

Image

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

Post by Dave K. » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:47 am

Heck, that was simple JAB . . . .

scooter007
G-Private First Class
G-Private First Class
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Post by scooter007 » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:55 pm

the meeting is going to be limited to a small group on a pre-approved list. They want to keep it small and civil. this way it will be more acceptable and informative.

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 » Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:35 am

I'm sure Kevin knows about this, I have also emailed him but it's berry picking time up north and he's swamped. I don't believe the tracked guys are being tossed under the wheels either. That is clearly not the intent of the HMV people I have spoken to who are involved in addressing this issue.

This is a problem that all us old car people have to deal with. Given WisDOT's reasoning here, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from saying that a '50 CJ-3A is in the same category as a '50 M38, that is...no title in Wisconsin. Same basic vehicle, same rules apply. This is a slippery slope that DOT has headed down...no telling where it will end and who will get dragged down with them. Best to rein them in now then to deal with the aftermath.
T.F. Scobie
B/1/117/30


User avatar
moose53
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1713
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:01 am
Location: Upstate NY
Contact:

Post by moose53 » Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:03 pm

any updates on this issue? Got awfully quiet here lately...

Jim
Zigzag50, Northeast51, KC2QDZ
MVPA # 30032, G838.org

------------------------
1971 M151A2 1966 M416
1968 M101A1 1976 M116A1
1990 MEP-701A

_________________
Real Jeeps have horizontal grille slots!

User avatar
creinemann
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:42 am
Location: Johnson Creek, WI
Contact:

Updates

Post by creinemann » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:39 am

Yes, there has been progress, we have an action plan, legal counsel, and the process is moving forward to reverse the policy, and alter current legislation to specifically include MV's

Email me offline if anyone wants a copy of the MV groups minutes or plan.

Carl
Carl Reinemann
Wisconsin
1953 Dodge M37 & M101 and Military Radio Pages at

http://dodgem37.com

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 Nov 01, 2007 8:42 am

moose53 wrote:any updates on this issue? Got awfully quiet here lately...

Jim
Like hot dogs and creamed corn...you don't want to know how laws are made.

Bwaaahahahah!
T.F. Scobie
B/1/117/30

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 » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:07 am

Just an update now that deer hunting is done here in Wisconsin (aka the holey season.) 1st draft of suggested legislative changes are complete and we will be meeting with elected reps in the next few weeks.

Further bulletins as events warrant...bye-bye and buy bonds!
T.F. Scobie
B/1/117/30

User avatar
JAB
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:25 pm
Location: under the jeep in North Prairie, WI

Post by JAB » Wed Jan 09, 2008 8:48 pm

To Wisconsin HMV owners,



Now that the holidays are over and the legislative offices are open in Madison, action on the HMV Title issue is moving forward.



Since we submitted our proposal to Rep Van Roy’s office, we have learned that the DOT itself is reported to be preparing a proposal with language that addresses the issue of titling former military vehicles in WI. It is said to have “language that they (DOT) can live with”. Despite requests from legislative offices to see the DOT proposal, it is not being shared or shown to anyone outside the DOT. And our sources have tried. It is expected to be presented to the transportation committee. As soon as it see’s daylight we will have a chance to review it.



More research has been done on our part including providing specific examples of similar HMV amendments that have been introduced and passed into law in Texas, Kansas and Mississippi. This was submitted this to Rep Karl Van Roy’s office today.



We were in the lead until the DOT realized that this is a hot button issue and they have gone pro-active. Could be bad or could be good.



Copies of the statute language from other states is attached for your information.



Some of us will likely be asked to review and discuss the proposal language with legislators before it becomes a bill and I’ve been assured that there will be plenty of time for public hearing and comment before the issue is introduced to the legislature.



We’ll again keep you all posted. Please forward this general information to all the members of your MV groups.



The info to look at in the attached Mississippi manual is TLR- 38 Page 79.



Thanks



Jeff Rowsam


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLR – 38. U. S. Government – Vehicles Purchased From
When an individual or company purchases a Motor Vehicle that came through a title exempt
agency, such as agencies of the United States Government and such vehicle was manufactured or
assembled after July 1, 1969, the new owner must make application for Certificate of Title.
Where such vehicle is purchased directly from such United States Agency, application for
Certificate of Title can be supported by a Current Bill of Sale, only, provided the vehicle was not
previously titled. July 27, 1970

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approved: March 29, 2006
Date
MINUTES OF THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gary Hayzlett at 1:30 P.M. on March 15, 2006 in Room
519-S of the Capitol.
All members were present except:
Representative Barbara Ballard- excused
Committee staff present:
Hank Avila, Kansas Legislative Research
Bruce Kinzie, Revisor of Statutes Office
Betty Boaz, Committee Secretary
Conferees appearing before the committee:
Sally Howard, Chief Counsel, KDOT
John Lay, President, John Lay Signs, Inc., Wichita, KS
Kenlon Johannes, KS Soybean Association
Brad Harrelson, State Policy Director, KS Farm Bureau
Bob Totten, KS Contractors Association
Patrick Hurley, representing Economic Lifeline
Ethan Erickson, Budget Manager, KDOT
Representative John Edmonds
Kevin Lockwood, Military Vehicle Preservation Association, Great Bend, KS
Jon Snapp, Citizen, Washington, KS
Travis Bartholomew, Citizen
Tim Reed, Citizen, Olathe, KS
Stu Entz, Member of Military Vehicle Preservation Association
Carmen Alldritt, Director, Motor Vehicles Div., KS Department of Revenue
Lt. John Eichkorn, Kansas Highway Patrol
Others attending:
See attached list.
Chairman Hayzlett opened the meeting with a hearing on Substitute SB 253.
Sub. SB 253 - Highway advertising control act of 1972
Representative Hayzlett recognized Sally Howard, Chief Counsel for the KS Department of Transportation.
(Attachment #1) According to Ms. Howard, the federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 was enacted to
control the placement of billboards along the nation’s highways. The Act recognizes that outdoor advertising
is a legitimate, commercial use of private property adjacent to the highway, but that the erection and
maintenance of advertising signs along the highways should be regulated. The new legislation requires a
permit and then requires a license for each structure that is erected.
The next proponent was John Lay, President of George Lay Signs Inc. and Vice President of the KS State Sign
Association. (Attachment #2) Mr. Lay said he was here to express his support for this bill which began in the
Senate in January of last year. He said last year the bill as presented would have been very damaging to their
businesses but now they have worked out compromises with KDOT that will keep them in business and retain
opportunities to grow while keeping Kansas in compliance with Federal mandates.
There were no other proponents and no opponents to this bill. After questions were answered the Chairman
closed the hearing on Substitute SB 253 and opened the hearing on SB 388.
SB 388 - Establishing Kansas qualified biodiesel fuel
The first proponent for this bill was Kenlon Johannes, CEO, KS Soybean Association. (Attachment #3)
According to Mr. Johannes, the KS Soybean Association has been actively involved in the promotion of the
use of biodiesel in Kansas making this effort their number one market development priority. He said the use
of biodiesel has increased steadily over the past few years and is on the verge of a rapid increase in use. AllCONTINUATION SHEET
MINUTES OF THE House Transportation Committee at 1:30 P.M. on March 15, 2006 in Room 519-S of
the Capitol.
Unless specifically noted, the individual remarks recorded herein have not been transcribed verbatim. Individual remarks as reported herein have not been submitted to
the individuals appearing before the committee for editing or corrections. Page 2
of the soybased or other biodiesel sold in Kansas is imported form nearby states which ultimately increases
the cost of biodiesel to Kansans and limits sales of product and the use of Kansas’s agriculture feed stocks
in its production.
The next proponent was Jeff Swearingen, a board member of Northeast Kansas Bioenergy. (Attachment #4)
Mr. Swearingen said SB 388 would be a big boost in helping Kansas catch up in biodiesel production. He
said it would result in money directly invested in the Kansas economy, more jobs for Kansans, and hopefully
an adequate supply of biodiesel for Kansas consumers who wish to use it as a lubricity agent once EPA’s Ultra
Low Sulfur Diesel requirements take full effect in 2007.
Brad Harrelson, State Policy Director, Governmental Relations for Kansas Farm Bureau was the next
proponent for SB 388. (Attachment #5) He said biodiesel has a tremendous upside not only for ag producers,
but also fuel consumers. He said consumption of biodiesel fuel reduces our dependence on foreign oil and
enhances market demand for soybeans and other crops, which is good for Kansas agriculture, and the rural
Kansas economy.
There were no other proponents so after questions the Chairman called for Opponents to SB 388. Chairman
Hayzlett recognized Bob Totten (Attachment #6) who said their main concern was the Comprehensive
Transportation Program which needs all the funding available to finish all the projects proposed in 1999. Mr.
Totten said their association endorses the concept of both the biodiesel measure and the shortline railroad
measure but suggest that the funding of either one of these programs be taken over by the EDIF fund or the
State general fund.
There being no other opponents, Chairman Hayzlett recognized Patrick J. Hurley, representing Economic
Lifelines as being neutral to this bill. (Attachment #7) According to Mr. Hurley, Economic Lifeline has no
opposition to the Biodiesel Fuel Producer Incentive Fund, however, it appears that the purpose of such a fund
is clearly for the economic development and expansion of this industry in the State and therefore constitutes
an economic development program. He said they recommended an amendment to delete reference to the
transfer being from the State Highway Fund and insert that the transfer be from the Economic Development
Initiatives Fund.
Ethan Erickson, Budget Manager for the Kansas Department of Transportation, was the next to speak.
(Attachment #8) Mr. Erickson said KDOT supports the use of biodiesel products and continue to increase use
of them in their operations. However, he said, this bill would reduce revenues to the State Highway Fund by
$3.5 million annually and any erosion of dollars will be a detriment to completing the Comprehensive
Transportation Program.
Chairman Hayzlett asked if anyone else wanted to testify on SB 388. After questions were answered he closed
the hearing on SB 388 and opened hearings on HB 2882.
HB 2882 - Historic military vehicles registration of, regulation of
The first proponent was Representative John Edmunds (Attachment #9). According to Representative
Edmunds, HB 2882 clarifies the registration status of antique military vehicles by making it clear that such
vehicles are a sub-type of antique motor vehicle, subject to the same rules and restrictions as would be true
of any other motor vehicle greater than thirty-five years of age. Representative Edmunds had a balloon
amendment he wanted to have included which, if adopted, would make it clear the fully tracked vehicles are
not to be included in the definition of antique motor vehicle.
The next proponent was Kevin Lockwood who is a member of a Military Vehicle Preservation Association.
(Attachment #10) Mr. Lockwood said the surplused outdated vehicles have been used in almost every
imaginable task including farming, ranching, logging, etc. Additionally, he said, no vehicle has ever been
released to civilian use without first passing a review by the US State Department of Defense and Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives. Lastly, the common factor of everyone there in support of this
bill is an unfailing devotion to our servicemen and women, active or honorably discharged.
CONTINUATION SHEET
MINUTES OF THE House Transportation Committee at 1:30 P.M. on March 15, 2006 in Room 519-S of
the Capitol.
Unless specifically noted, the individual remarks recorded herein have not been transcribed verbatim. Individual remarks as reported herein have not been submitted to
the individuals appearing before the committee for editing or corrections. Page 3
Jon Snapp was the next proponent for HB 2882. (Attachment #11) He urged support for favorable passage
of HB 2882. He responded to concerns from the Kansas Highway Patrol on V.I.N. Inspection and safety
issues.
The next proponent was Travis Bartholomew. (Attachment #12) Mr. Bartholomew said he was before the
Committee to discuss the security and military/public relations aspects of having military vehicles on the
roadways of Kansas. He gave examples of some destructive activities, some involved military vehicles and
some did not. Mr. Bartholomew said it just shows that it is the person and their resolve, not the vehicle used,
that are the primary factors in attacks. He said another aspect of this issue is the effect these vehicles have
on military/public relations and recruiting.
Tim Reed was the next proponent. (Attachment #13) Mr. Reed felt the Manager of Titles and Registrations
Bureau, KS Department of Revenue, overstepped his authority with regard to the acceptance of applications
for vehicle registration pertaining to the antique military vehicles. Mr. Reed also belongs to the Military
Vehicle Preservation Association. He encouraged the Committee’s support for HB 2882.
The last proponent was Stu Entz on behalf of the Board of Directors and members of the Military Vehicle
Preservation Association. (Attachment #14) According to Mr. Entz, members of this association strive to
represent their military vehicles historically correct and have provided vehicles and information for several
History Channel productions as well as for some major motion pictures. Members fulfill a variety of requests
from providing a tank for M-TV to vehicles for Veterans Day parades to helping the Corgi Scale Model
Company produce a series of accurate WWII Military vehicles.
There were no other proponents and no opponents.
Chairman Hayzlett recognized Carmen Alldritt, Director, Motor Vehicle Division of the Department of
Revenue, who was listed as being neutral to HB 2882. (Attachment #15) According to Director Alldritt last
fall an individual went to an inspection station with an Indiana title, declaring the vehicle as a passenger
vehicle. The vehicle was a ferret scout. Revenue Policy 06-01, dated November 18, 2005, denies applications
for registration on privately owned, armored military combat vehicles. She said that passage of HB 2882, as
written, would grant armored military vehicles, the same roadway privileges as the vehicles currently
registered as Kansas antiques.
Lt. John Eichkorn was the next neutral conferee to present testimony on HB 2882. (Attachment #16)
According to Lt. Eichkorn, this bill adds the definition of an “Antique Military Vehicle” to the current
definition of an “Antique” vehicle. This would include any vehicle, regardless of the vehicle’s size or weight,
which was manufactured for use in any country’s military forces and is maintained to represent its military
design. As antique vehicles, these military vehicles would be required to be more than 35 years old, propelled
by a motor using petroleum fuel, steam or electricity or any combination thereof. In addition to complications
in the inspection process, their concerns include traffic safety and homeland security. He concluded by saying
the Kansas Highway Patrol strongly urges the Committee to give his bill careful consideration.
The Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to written testimony provided by Buck Causey, Sheriff of
Barton County. (Attachment #17)
After questions were answered the Chairman closed the hearing on HB 2882.
It was the Chairman’s desire to work SB 558 so he opened it up to the Committee. Bruce Kinzie, from the
Revisor’s Office refreshed the Committee on this bill. Representative Vickrey made a motion to pass this bill
favorably to the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Representative Humerickhouse and the
motion carried.
SB 411 was also worked by the Committee. Representative Olson made a motion to amend SB 411, (balloon
amendment attached) this motion was seconded by Representative Yonally and the motion carried.CONTINUATION SHEET
MINUTES OF THE House Transportation Committee at 1:30 P.M. on March 15, 2006 in Room 519-S of
the Capitol.
Unless specifically noted, the individual remarks recorded herein have not been transcribed verbatim. Individual remarks as reported herein have not been submitted to
the individuals appearing before the committee for editing or corrections. Page 4
Representative Peck made a motion to amend the fee amount in SB 411, as amended, this motion to amend
was seconded by Representative Beamer and the motion carried.
Representative Olson made a motion to favorably pass SB 411, as amended. Representative Treaster
seconded the motion and the motion carried.
The Chairman opened Substitute for SB 253 to the Committee to work. Representative Humerickhouse
made a motion to favorably pass this bill from Committee, seconded by Representative Olson and the motion
carried.
There being no further business before the Committee the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be
March 17, 2006, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 519-S.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8-166
Chapter 8.--AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER VEHICLES
Article 1.--GENERAL PROVISIONS
8-166. Registration of antique vehicles; antique military vehicles; definitions. The following words and phrases when used in this act shall for the purpose of this act have the following meaning:
(a) "Antique" means any vehicle, including an antique military vehicle, more than 35 years old, propelled by a motor using petroleum fuel, steam or electricity or any combination thereof.
(b) "Person" means every natural person, firm, copartnership, association, corporation, club or organization.
(c) "Antique military vehicle" means a vehicle, regardless of the vehicle's size or weight, which was manufactured for use in any country's military forces and is maintained to represent its military design, except that an antique military vehicle shall not include a fully tracked vehicle.
(d) The words and phrases defined in K.S.A. 8-126 and 8-126a, and amendments thereto, when used in this act shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by such sections.
History: L. 1955, ch. 62, § 1; L. 2006, ch. 136, § 4; July 1.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Texas version won't cut & paste, but if I figure it out I'll post it here later.

With some help from BobN here's the Texas stuff;


Don't know if this would be of interest but we like it. No plates on MVs....

The 2007 Florida Statutes

Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES Chapter 320
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES View Entire Chapter

320.086 Ancient or antique motor vehicles; horseless carriage, antique, or historical license plates; former military vehicles.--

(1) The owner of a motor vehicle for private use manufactured in 1945 or earlier, equipped with an engine manufactured in 1945 or earlier or manufactured to the specifications of the original engine, and operated on the streets and highways of this state shall, upon application in the manner and at the time prescribed by the department and upon payment of the license tax for an ancient motor vehicle prescribed by s. 320.08(1)(d), (2)(a), or (3)(e), be issued a special license plate for such motor vehicle. The license plate shall be permanent and valid for use without renewal so long as the vehicle is in existence. In addition to the payment of all other fees required by law, the applicant shall pay such fee for the issuance of the special license plate as may be prescribed by the department commensurate with the cost of its manufacture. The registration numbers and special license plates assigned to such motor vehicles shall run in a separate numerical series, commencing with "Horseless Carriage No. 1," and the plates shall be of a distinguishing color.

(2)(a) The owner of a motor vehicle for private use manufactured after 1945 and of the age of 30 years or more after the date of manufacture, equipped with an engine of the age of 30 years or more after the date of manufacture, and operated on the streets and highways of this state may, upon application in the manner and at the time prescribed by the department and upon payment of the license tax prescribed by s. 320.08(1)(d), (2)(a), or (3)(e), be issued a special license plate for such motor vehicle. In addition to the payment of all other fees required by law, the applicant shall pay the fee for the issuance of the special license plate prescribed by the department, commensurate with the cost of its manufacture. The registration numbers and special license plates assigned to such motor vehicles shall run in a separate numerical series, commencing with "Antique No. 1," and the plates shall be of a distinguishing color. The owner of the motor vehicle may, upon application and payment of the license tax prescribed by s. 320.08, be issued a regular Florida license plate or specialty license plate in lieu of the special "Antique" license plate.

(b) Motor vehicles licensed under this section which have been issued a permanent license plate prior to October 1, 1999, shall maintain such plate unless the vehicle is transferred to a new owner. Motor vehicles licensed under this section which have been issued a "Collectible" license plate prior to October 1, 1999, may retain that license plate until the next regularly scheduled replacement.

(3) The owner of an ancient or antique firefighting apparatus, former military vehicle, or other historical motor vehicle 30 years old or older which is used only in exhibitions, parades, or public display may, upon application in the manner and at the time prescribed by the department and upon payment of the license tax prescribed by s. 320.08(2)(a), be issued a license plate as prescribed in subsection (1) or subsection (2). License plates issued under this subsection shall be permanent and valid for use without renewal as long as the vehicle is in existence and its use is consistent with this subsection.

(4) Any person who is the registered owner of a motor vehicle as defined in this section and manufactured in the model year 1974 or earlier may apply to the department for permission to use a historical Florida license plate that clearly represents the model year of the vehicle as a personalized prestige license plate. This plate shall be furnished by such person and shall be presented to the department with a reasonable fee to be determined by the department for approval and for authentication that the historic license plate and any applicable decals were issued by this state in the same year as the model year of the car or truck. The requirements of s. 320.0805((b) do not apply to historical plates authorized under this subsection.

(5) A former military vehicle that is used only in exhibitions, parades, or public display is exempt from the requirement to display a license plate or registration insignia if the exemption is necessary to maintain the vehicle's accurate military markings. However, the license plate and registration certificate issued under this section must be carried within the vehicle and available for inspection by any law enforcement officer.

(6) For purposes of this section, "former military vehicle" means a vehicle, including a trailer, regardless of the vehicle's size, weight, or year of manufacture, that was manufactured for use in any country's military forces and is maintained to represent its military design and markings accurately.

History.--s. 1, ch. 57-326; s. 1, ch. 59-206; s. 6, ch. 65-190; ss. 24, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 6, ch. 78-363; s. 33, ch. 83-318; s. 2, ch. 87-197; s. 18, ch. 96-413; ss. 10, 51, ch. 97-300; s. 30, ch. 99-248; s. 45, ch. 2000-152; s. 3, ch. 2005-47.


And then we don't have to use the windshield...

316.2952 Windshields; requirements; restrictions.--

(1) A windshield in a fixed and upright position, which windshield is equipped with safety glazing as required by federal safety-glazing material standards, is required on every motor vehicle which is operated on the public highways, roads, and streets, except on a motorcycle or implement of husbandry.

(2) A person shall not operate any motor vehicle on any public highway, road, or street with any sign, sunscreening material, product, or covering attached to, or located in or upon, the windshield, except the following:

(a) A certificate or other paper required to be displayed by law.

(b) Sunscreening material along a strip at the top of the windshield, so long as such material is transparent and does not encroach upon the driver's direct forward viewing area as more particularly described and defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 205 as the AS/1 portion of the windshield.

(c) A device, issued by a governmental entity as defined in s. 334.03, or its designee, for the purpose of electronic toll payments.

(3) The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.

(4) Every windshield wiper upon a motor vehicle shall be maintained in good working order.

(5) Grove equipment, including "goats," "highlift-goats," grove chemical supply tanks, fertilizer distributors, fruit-loading equipment, and electric-powered vehicles regulated under the provisions of s. 316.267, are exempt from the requirements of this section. However, such electric-powered vehicles shall have a windscreen approved by the department sufficient to give protection from wind, rain, or insects, and such windscreen shall be in place whenever the vehicle is operated on the public roads and highways.

(6) A former military vehicle is exempt from the requirements of this section if the department determines that the exemption is necessary to maintain the vehicle's accurate military design and markings. However, whenever the vehicle is operating on the public roads and highways, the operator and passengers must wear eye-protective devices approved by the department. For purposes of this subsection, "former military vehicle" means a vehicle, including a trailer, regardless of the vehicle's size, weight, or year of manufacture, that was manufactured for use in any country's military forces and is maintained to represent its military design and markings accurately.

(7) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.

History.--s. 1, ch. 84-296; s. 15, ch. 93-164; s. 208, ch. 99-248; s. 1, ch. 2003-286; s. 1, ch. 2005-47.

§ 501.035[0]. CERTIFICATE[0] OF TITLE[0] FOR FORMER MILITARY
VEHICLE. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the department shall
issue a certificate[0] of title[0] for a former military vehicle that is
not registered under the laws of this state if all other
requirements for issuance of a certificate[0] of title[0] are met.
(b) In this section, "former military vehicle" has the
meaning assigned by Section 502.275(o).

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.40(a), eff. Sept. 1,
1997.



§ 504.502[0]. CERTAIN EXHIBITION VEHICLES; OFFENSE.
(a) The department shall issue specialty license plates for a
passenger car, truck, motorcycle, or former military vehicle that:
(1) is at least 25 years old, if the vehicle is a
passenger car, truck, or motorcycle;
(2) is a collector's item;
(3) is used exclusively for exhibitions, club
activities, parades, and other functions of public interest and is
not used for regular transportation; and
(4) does not carry advertising.
(b) The license plates must include the words "Antique
Auto," "Antique Truck," "Antique Motorcycle," or "Military
Vehicle," as appropriate.
(c) A person eligible for the license plates may instead use
license plates issued by this state in the same year as the model
year of the vehicle and approved by the department, provided that a
passenger car must bear passenger car or truck license plates and a
truck must bear passenger car or truck license plates. The
department may require attachment of a registration insignia to the
license plate in a manner that does not affect the display of
information originally on the license plate.
(d) License plates issued or approved under this section
expire on the fifth anniversary of the date of issuance or approval.
(e) The fee for issuance or approval of license plates under
this section is:
(1) $10 for each year or portion of a year remaining in
the five-year registration period if the vehicle was manufactured
in 1921 or later; or
(2) $8 for each year or portion of a year remaining in
the five-year registration period if the vehicle was manufactured
before 1921.
(f) The department may exempt a former military vehicle from
the requirement to display a license plate or registration insignia
if the exemption is necessary to maintain the vehicle's accurate
military markings. The department may approve an alternative
registration insignia that is compatible with the vehicle's
original markings.
(g) A person entitled to specialty license plates or to
department approval under this section may register the vehicle
without payment of any fees paid for or at the time of registration
except the fee for the license plate. An owner of a vehicle
registered under this subsection who violates this section commits
an offense. An offense under this section is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not less than $5 or more than $200.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a vehicle
issued license plates under Subsection (a) shall be required to
attach and display only one license plate on the rear of the
vehicle.
(i) In this section, "former military vehicle" means a
vehicle, including a trailer, regardless of the vehicle's size,
weight, or year of manufacture, that:
(1) was manufactured for use in any country's military
forces; and
(2) is maintained to represent its military design and
markings accurately.
(j) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution of an
offense under this section that at the time of the offense the
vehicle was en route to or from a location for the purpose of
routine maintenance of the vehicle.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1320, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1318, § 1, eff. September 1,
2005.
Last edited by JAB on Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Jeff

GR8GPN2U!!!

Image

Image

User avatar
creinemann
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:42 am
Location: Johnson Creek, WI
Contact:

Thanks for the udate

Post by creinemann » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:53 am

Thanks for the update, looking forward to some positive responses soon, can't wait to register my MB

Carl
Carl Reinemann
Wisconsin
1953 Dodge M37 & M101 and Military Radio Pages at

http://dodgem37.com

User avatar
JAB
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:25 pm
Location: under the jeep in North Prairie, WI

Post by JAB » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:08 pm

Here's the latest;


I have the following from Jeff and Bob who met with Rep Van Roy and others on this issue.

Please read the whole document. there was apparently a lot of misunderstaning by all parties on this issue.

I know nothing more than what is contained in this document. SO don't ask me. I am just being the postman.

Bottom line is still wait until this issue gets a bit further down the road for us to do any grass roots letter writting or calling.

As Jeff mentioned.. in the meantime.. drive save out there.

Regards,

Daryl

Wisconsin Historic Military Vehicle Title and Registration Issue


Summary of legislative meeting Feb 8, 2008

A small group meeting was held at the WI State Capital in Madison to better understand the MV title issue and discuss possible solutions thru the legislative process.

Meeting was held in Rep Karl Van Roy’s offices. Rep Van Roy from Green Bay, serves on the transportation committee and has expressed interest in supporting legislation to allow use of Historic Military Vehicles in WI.

Attending the meeting:
Tanya Hein – Legislative Aide, Representing Rep. Karl Van Roy
Paul Nilsen – Assistant General Counsel, Wis DOT
Jeff Rowsam – representing the interest of Wis HMV collectors
Robt Anderson - representing the interest of Wis HMV collectors
A representative from the legislative drafting office
A representative aid from Senator Erpinbach’s office (Interested constituents)

The meeting lasted from 1:30 PM thru 4:00 PM

Rowsam and Anderson explained the collector hobby and addressed the concerns of HMV collectors. An inquiry was made about the DOT position on titling and registration of former military vehicles by private individuals in WI.

Paul Nilsen provided information that provides a better understanding of the situation from the DOT view.

We learned the following:

The WI DOT position is a concern about public highway safety. The DOT intends to insure that ALL vehicles operated on WI roadways and were built after Jan 1, 1968, meet the federal safety law requirements mandated by the National Highway Transportation Safety Act of 1966. (Details are in Title 49 US Code Chapter 301).

The act established a national law that incorporates specific safety features in on-highway vehicles. The safety features are updated as new technology is developed. Previously we understood that the DOT was sighting WI Statute 341.10(6) because the vehicle was “designed for off road”. This is not correct. The second line of the WI statute is the issue. “unless the vehicle meets the provisions of s114 of the national traffic and motor vehicle safety act of 1966”

After passage, the effective date for the 1966 act began with 1968 mfg.
Meeting Notes Page 2

Military tactical vehicles manufactured from Jan 1, 1968 and after, have a federal waiver or exemption of the safety requirement and do not have to comply with NHTSA standard. Newer Mil vehicles meet some but not all the requirements.

The WI DOT has not targeting military vehicles as a specific group. They are targeting any vehicle that does not meet the federal safety standard.

The DOT was surprised to learn that surplus US military vehicles are regularly sold to the public. The DOT has the impression from other government sources that the US government does not sell surplus vehicles and only exports them to friendly foreign allies. The DOT believed that the only source for US HMV’s was thru re-importing them back to the US from a foreign source.

We explained that their information was not correct. Provided examples.

We discussed the automotive collector concerns for vehicles built prior to 1968, including HMV’s. While the DOT is not happy about having the earlier vehicles on the road, they acknowledge that there is no national standard that can be applied. Collector cars built prior to Jan 1, 1968 are not affected and can operate under WI Regular or Collector plate as they are now.

DOT is concerned about owners of mid 1980’s vintage auto’s that have a longer life span are again being incorrectly operating as “daily drivers” with collector plates. Since there is no mileage restriction on vehicles with collector plates, they raise concern about owners of former military vehicles wanting to operate “unrestricted” using a collector plate.

The DOT indicated that they had “not rejected titles or registrations for military vehicles built prior the 1968”. We corrected him on this issue. The dept has in fact taken that action. He acknowledged that their offices should not be rejecting applications simply because it is a “Military Vehicle”.

He explained that the daily high volume of applications for WI titles and registrations for vehicles (cars and light trucks) assembled from mixed components by hobby builders, off road builders and others, causes them to often question the safety aspect of a vehicle application since they can’t identify what year it is and so what standard is to be applied. The key here is the 1968 date.

DOT clerks can spend only minutes, not hours evaluating your application. HMV applications would do better, not to detail that your WWII Jeep is a Ford GPW frame with Willys engine or body. Too much detail will likely cause rejection. Keep it simple.

Meeting Notes Page 3

DOT application of current regulation is far from uniform. The DOT needs to work on better education of the DMV offices to provide uniform coverage. We agree.

The root issue for the DOT is weather a 1968 or later vehicle conforms to the NHTSA laws. The 1968 or later date is the “trip wire” for rejection of registration.

This is where the issue of foreign imported vehicles enters the issue. The DOT has become concerned with a rising number of imported vehicles arriving in WI that do not meet US NHTSA safety standards. Post 1968 foreign cars and trucks including former military vehicles such as Pinzgauers, Unimogs and Land Rovers among others are all considered non conforming.

The DOT incorrectly granted title and registration to 30 Pinsguars in WI. When the DOT realized the Pinzgauer's do not meet the 1966 NHTSA standards, the DOT canceled the titles and registrations. Not because they were military but because they do not meet the requirements of NHTSA. This caused wide spread calls that the WI DOT was “banning” military vehicles. It could have been a fleet of non conforming Japanese civilian mini cargo trucks and would have resulted in the same cancellation of registration.

Since US Military vehicles built after 1968 are not built to conform to the 1966 NHTSA act, they are viewed by the WI DOT is the same light as Non-Conforming foreign vehicles.

It was explained that there are FOUR (4) ways to allow foreign imported vehicles to qualify to operate on WI roads.

(and also post 1968 US Military Vehicles)

1) Confirm it is a conforming Vehicle – has a certification tag on the vehicle that it meets US NHTSA requirements
2) Have an importer who is qualified by NHTSA inspect the US or Foreign vehicle and certify that a vehicle meets NHTSA
3) The foreign vehicle is listed by NHTSA as “substantially similar” with another similar conforming US model
a. Foreign cars sold in US and of the same design sold with different model name overseas are an example.
4) The non conforming vehicle has equipment added or upgraded to comply with NHTSA





Meeting Notes Page 4

What followed was a discussion of possible statute changes that would allow HMV’s to be operated in a historic vehicle role with limitation.

The DOT is concerned with non conforming post 1968 vehicles
(Including Military) being operated outside the limits of a collector license by operators unfamiliar or untrained with foreign or military vehicle features. That this will pose a safety risk to the public and will result in injury or fatality. The DOT is firm on their stand for uniform public safety measures. It is US FEDERAL LAW.

We discussed with the legislative aids, legal drafter/writer and DOT counsel several possible solutions.

We introduced copies of HMV specific legislation from TEXAS, KANSAS, MISSISSIPPI and OHIO that addresses HMV use for parades, displays, education and veteran’s events.

Three options resulted from the discussion. These will be considered for Wisconsin HMV’s.

1) If the HMV was built before 1968 it is outside the NHTSA of 1966 and can be operated under the current collector license. The DOT would like to see a change from unlimited use to some limit of on-road use. They do not want to add administrative burden (NO mandatory owners odometer reports or other added paper -Too much burden on owners and DOT)

Currently titled and collector licensed post 1968 HMV’s were discussed as to weather they could remain “as is” under some type of “grandfather” conditions? Research required. May or may not be allowed.

2) If an HMV owner with a vehicle built after Jan 1 1968 wants to operate it unrestricted in WI they would have to prove it is a conforming vehicle. To verify safety conformity, the vehicle could be inspected by an authorized importer who has the documentation to determine conformity just as they would for an imported foreign vehicle. Would likely require upgrades to a US Military Vehicle.

3) Create a statute change that would provide a new definition of a Historic Military Vehicle in WI that would allow former Military Vehicle (US or Foreign) to be titled and licensed under the current WI Antique Vehicle license. This limits the vehicle use to operation for historic events and is limited to no more than 1500 road miles per year. Currently the WI Antique License is only for vehicles 1945 and older. Registration of any age HMV would require a change to add a sub group under Antique Vehicle.
Meeting Notes Page 5

The third option would be much easier than creating a new classification and category for “Historic Vehicles” .

The HMV legislation passed by other states is similar. The DOT would likely agree to Non Conforming HMV use under these limitations.

What constitutes travel to an “event” will be an issue. How to enforce? Operation for short trip pleasure rides was not discussed.

Again the DOT issue is for on highway safety. They understand the HMV issue and are sympathetic to historic preservation. Their concern is more about people operating non conforming vehicles without restriction for commercial, farm, or hobby use including hauling cargo on the roads. Even under current Collector Plate use, that limits trucks to not carry more than 500 Lbs.

What happens next?

Rep Van Roy’s office will work with the draft writers to develop a proposal to amend the antique category. With the current work load, this will likely not be completed before the end of the current legislative session. The draft would likely be completed around June 2008.

We will have an opportunity to review the proposal and suggest changes.

The proposal will then be sponsored by Rep Van Roy and introduced for consideration in the transportation committee. There will be a public hearing for comment probably early in 2009.

It would then likely be brought to the floor in the 2009 legislative session for action by the legislature. Hopefully with passage and would move to the governor for signature in 2009.

End Meeting Notes

Jeff Rowsam

Green Bay WI
-Jeff

GR8GPN2U!!!

Image

Image

Ernie Baals
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 3726
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:27 am
Location: Southern New Jersey

Wisc

Post by Ernie Baals » Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:06 pm

Hi
And thanks for the update.
After a quick reading, it still seems that the DOT has its head in a dark less than pleasant smelling place..
Are we expected to believe that nobody in the entire Wisc DOT knew that the US Gov sells vehicles to individuals??
Wisconson was one of the first states to get surplus vehicles when Berg sold GPs to Wisc farmers in 1943.

Thanks again for all the hard work and good luck.
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”

mdhitt2000
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:02 pm
Location: Marietta,Ga.
Contact:

Post by mdhitt2000 » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:06 pm

It appears the current Wisconsin DOT employees need some retraining. The dates 1941 thru 1945 may not have any meaning to them and just the word "Military" sits wrong with someone.
Michael Hitt---Cold War Veteran---2nd Inf.Div.
GPW 67835 "Lulu Belle" 9/24/42 Dallas,TX

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Bring them home WHEN THE JOB IS DONE!

Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 25853
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Novato, CA

DOT battle

Post by Chuck Lutz » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:43 am

Just be d*mn sure you have your best lawyer who really KNOWS the "Robert's Rules" so that when the committee reads into the minutes THEIR version of this and tries to ram the legislation through without a proper review for you guys to respond to, that you your guy can come up with something. A lawyer with excellent Parlimentarian knowledge can slow up, trip, stop and put off them from ramming home a decision without your opportunity to review, respond and reject it.

Good Luck....remember they will try to cover their stupidity with a quickly drafted and passed "law" more often than realize and admit they were full of crap with dumb legislation!
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.)

Locked

Return to “Legislative Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests