Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

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

Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:55 am

For those of you who've followed the topic of WisDOT trying to remove HMVs from the highways:

Short notice here, but there is a public hearing scheduled at our state capitol for this Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009 in the GAR Hall (Rm. 417 north).

This is a hearing about AB-592, a bill proposed by Rep. Ted Zigmunt, which "clarifies" whether historic ex-military vehicles can be registered in Wisconsin, and for what purposes.

Here is a link to the bill: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB592hst.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Essentially, this bill would restrict the use of HMVs to parades and display only.

As many of you know already, I oppose the restriction of HMVs to display only. That's just my opinion however. In response to the hassle I've had over my Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer, my senator, Jon Erpenbach has also introduced a competing bill which also seeks to ensure that our trucks aren't outlawed. Neither bill is perfect. But at least we've got the opportunity to give our opinions about this one.

Please read up and inform yourselves, and then if possible, show up.

This bill is not a done deal. There is still time for our elected officials to amend this bill and create some legislation which allows us to use our vehicles, as well as display them.

Whether you only want a display truck or need to use it to move cow feed, we need to stand united and resist WisDOT's attempt to outlaw these vehicles. Defend 'em.

Paul U
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;

Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1568
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:13 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by Kevin Lockwood » Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:30 am

Paul,
Thanks for keeping the G members informed. Is there any progrees on the Erpanbach bill?
Why is it that the MV magazine based in Wisconsin is not heard from more?? I am shocked that the zig bill is the best we can do.
Deo Vindice
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

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

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:28 am

No one should accept that Zigmunt's bill is the best that can be accomplished.

Senator Erpenbach's bill is not dead. Here's a recap on the two bills:

Sen. Erpenbach's proposal is Legislative Reference Bureau # LRB-3562/1
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gatewa ... =3562&jd=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Referred to committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources in the Senate on November 18, 2009 as SB 392.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB392hst.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Referred to committee on Transportation in the Assembly on November 18, 2009 as AB 589.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB589hst.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Rep. Zigmunt's proposal is Legislative Reference Bureau # LRB-3284/4
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gatewa ... =3562&jd=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Referred to the committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources in the Senate on November 18, 2009 as SB 404.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB404hst.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Referred to committee on Transportation in the Assembly on November 20, 2009 as AB 592.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB592hst.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Public Hearing 12/3/09 10:15am Rm. 417 N. (GAR Hall) State Capitol

As I see it, the LRB numbers show that Zigmunt's bill was initiated earlier, and is now in it's 4th version. I don't believe that Sen. Erpenbach's bill is perfect, it also includes a requirement for original markings and design. But either bill can still be amended. The Zigmunt bill with all it's restrictions is simply not acceptable. If it cannot addresss a reasonable solution, it must be opposed.

Flat out, any vehicle,which U.S. DOT/NHTSA deems a "Motor Vehicle", and which is exempted from FMVSS (safety standards) requirements by either the U.S.Code or the Code of Federal Regulations, and which satisfies Wis. Admin. Code Ch. 305 (equipment requirements), must be able to be registered according to the vehicle's design and intended use.

For instance: A 25-yr. old U.S.-market pickup truck can be registered as a "Light Truck", or a "Farm" truck if appropriate. But strap a pickup camper on the back, and it can be alternatively be registered as a "Recreational Vehicle". Vehicles which are maintained to accurately represent their historical condition should be able to be registered as a "Collector, and enjoy the one-time registration fee in exchange for the standard restrictions on use (payload less than 500# and no operation in January). The same should hold true for ex-military vehicles which meet Ch. 305.

I believe that Sen. Erpenbach introduced his bill in the hopes that DOT would be willing to be reasonable. I believe that he would be willing to continue his efforts, should the Zigmunt bill remain unworkable.
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;

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

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by Dave K. » Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:11 pm

Supporters of Zigmunt in the MMVA believe that Erpenbach's bill doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck of getting through so they are pushing Zig even though it effectively neuters everyone and makes their vehicles lawn ornaments--why do you (Paul) think Erp can make it through? I'm just trying to get a clearer picture of things.

Personally I think we're screwed either way--support Zig, we have nothing, support Erp and it doesn't get through. Either way I will likely be out of the hobby if one or the other situations comes to pass. It's a shame everyone couldn't agree and ralley forces on an acceptable version of something. I would never support Zigmunt only because I drive some of my vehicles to more than just parades--if I can't do it then adios folks, been good knowing you.

The other issue is foreign MVs. This seems to have really worked up the DOT--if this is really what got up their craw why should everyone suffer? The vast majority of people in the MV hobby in WI have US made vehicles so this should be consdered if, indeed, the thing that really puckered them up against us was the fight and win by the Pinz folks.

I hope Erpenbach makes it through otherwise you can all stop by Dave's Used MV lot in Milwaukee--plenty of other hobbies and vehicles, I'm just not up for a non-unified fight on behalf of the MMVA and whatever the club up north is called (I really don't know, please excuse) and that's what we have. We have doves and hawks which will be descending on Madison this week and it sounds like neither has the winning plan based on what I'm hearing.

User avatar
TopKick
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5664
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:34 am
Location: Olathe, KS.

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by TopKick » Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:45 pm

Have you guys even looked at our bill here in Kansas? Get a copy, and stand up on your hind legs. Don't settle for second best. You need to muster all the support you can get and be there for the proceedings. Be prepared to speak and defend your rights. Kevin and I both testified before our house Transportation Committee in Topeka, Kansas. We got our bill passed!
"Keep 'Em Rolling"
TopKick

"Until it's melted down and turned into something else, or blown to Smitherines, it's restorable"!


User avatar
gerrykan
G-General
G-General
Posts: 9218
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:37 am
Location: Ozark Mountains, USA

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by gerrykan » Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:26 pm

halftrackm2a1 wrote:Why is it that the MV magazine based in Wisconsin is not heard from more??
Has it been heard from at all?
Roy

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

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by Dave K. » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:09 pm

Good questions from both Top and Gerrykan. I'm puzzled as to why we are dividing our forces here between two bills at the end of the day. It's ineffecient and weakens us in the eyes of the DOT. I applaud the efforts of the people fighting for the MV rights--just wish the division didn't exist as it should have been shaken out before any bill was presented.

What about the business owners in Wisconsin that sell surplus US vehicles? How are they involved? I agree, the MV magazine should be leading this fight along with the others involved. I know articles have been written . . . .

How is the national involved? Any other car clubs coming forward to assist?

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

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:11 pm

Dave, I sympathize with you. (But that don't get ya far.)

DOT has been, for some 2 years or so, working "with" Jeff Rowsam to write up the Zigmunt bill. I don't know if all Jeff's interested in is parades and such, but that's not for everyone obviously. But DOT screwed up, in that they started to enforce the law before it was passed. That's what happened in '07 to the '43 Jeep owner, and also to our Pinzgauers. THEN they (DOT) started trying to get the legislation passed to authorize it. ?? Sound screwed up. That's my opinion.

DOT flat out misled Jeff Rowsam in a Feb. 8, 2008 meeting regarding legislation of HMVs, including Pinzgauers. According to Jeff, DOT atty Nilsen told the meeting that Pinzgauers could not legally be registered in Wisconsin. BUT I have proof that four days earlier, Nilsen had written a legal opinion which stated that Pinzgauers could legally be registered. Rep. Karl Van Roy's asst. Tanya Hein was present at the meeting, so DOT also misled another govt. official.

And yeah, Atty Nilsen is very angry that I prevailed in my DOA appeal. But what should I have done? Let them make a bunch of trucks into junk? Sorry, I just didn't see that as an option.

So, what to do about this current bill? Well, if people decide that it'll help their cause to throw the foreign HMVs to the wolf, I guess they do. I think we do need to remain united, and demand that our elected officials pass a bill that reasonably protects the public from accidents and injuries, just like the Highway Safety Act of 1966 calls for. Until a bill gets written that does that, they should toss it out.

I don't believe that it matters who wrote the bill, as long as it is (at this point) amended sufficiently before passage. I think Rep. Zigmunt, like Jeff, is believing DOT when they tell them that such a bill could never pass. But let me ask you this: who writes the laws up anyway in this country? The governmental regulatory agencies?, or the elected officials? As I understand things, our elected officials still get to draft and pass the bills, then the governor gets to sign it, and THEN regulatory agencies (like the DOT) administer and enforce those laws fairly. DOT doesn't get to write up the laws.

At least we get the opportunity here to voice our opinions. So let's do it.

The WisDOT has recently gotten into hot water for spending taxpayer money on unwisely. http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2009/09/3 ... -pm-93009/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remind your representatives of how much money DOT has spent since 2006 trying to make HMVs illegal. How much of our lawmaker's time do you suppose DOT has taken up over this? This entire DOT administration ought to get sent packing.
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;

User avatar
DaninNM
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 10:29 am
Location: sunny SW
Contact:

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by DaninNM » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:31 pm

other reasons to drive MV in other than parades

create and foster patriotism for our military veterens, disabled, and retired, and schools children on what their elders did.
generate $$$ by MV shows, parts sales, used car dealers, etc.
restored MVs are driven slow and more deliberately and rarely could even go the speed limit in many cases
restored MV are too valuable to drive fast and carelessly.
the hobby is dominated by us older dudes :shock: that drive slower and more carefully - the hobby demographic :shock: 8)
MV are likely safer than Model A and Model Ts that are licensed.
Call Haggerty, Geico, Travellers, and others and get older vehicle and older driver statistics - that'll kill their safety
arguements.
They have to have a reasonable and articulable rationale to stand judicial scrutiny and if they act in the face of the facts
that you generated above and put into the record in testimony you have created a good court basis for arbitrary and
capricious action on the DMVs part. Sue 'em to overturn the reg.
Get some old car insurnace agents to testify on your behalf....if old cars go away so does their $$$ for insurnace
coverage :shock:

My nickel's worth
reenacting and WWII history

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

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:48 pm

Topkick,
I'm embarrassed to say, no, I haven't actually read the KS statute. I was aware early on that something had gotten ironed out, IIRC over a Ferret? This whole thing has been like loading frogs into a wheelbarrow: everytime you tried to pin down DOT's concern and offer a rebuttal, they change their complaint. Got a link to the legislation?

Dave,

Any and all help by MV mag would be great in sorting all this out.

You might find this illustrative. The DOT atty. Nilsen has recently sent out emails urging lawmakers to oppose the Erpenbach bill. Here is the first one:


I saw a draft of Senator Erpenbach's military vehicle bill. Your circulation memo discusses Pinzgauers, but your bill applies to all military vehicles. Your bill will allow any of these to be driven on road, including by any newly-licensed 16-year old through school zones:

<< OLE Object: Microsoft Photo Editor 3.0 Picture >>

Every vehicle on this website could bear Wisconsin plates and be operated lawfully on Wisconsin roads:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/6- ... hicles.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, your bill does not exempt military vehicles from vehicle equipment standards, and could result in licensing of vehicles that cannot be operated due to failure to meet equipment standards. Please consider amending s. 347.02 if you wish to allow OEM military vehicles to be operated in our neighborhoods.

__________________

Paul E. Nilsen

Assistant General Counsel

Wisconsin Department of Transportation


I don't think the picture comes through, but it was, at least then, showing a Stryker. Here was his latest:


Coincidentally, I found this website showing a similar vehicle in a collision with a pickup truck. The military vehicle was driven by the military (not by a civilian) and I have no idea what caused the accident (might have been the pickup truck). What interests me is the disparity in damage resulting from collision. Check out the slideshow, especially frames 8 and 9. The pickup driver was killed, the 4 passengers in the military vehicle “were unhurt”. http://www.kirotv.com/news/19122058/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


__________________

Paul E. Nilsen

Okay, let's talk reality here. Nilsen's claim that any 16 yr. old could legally drive one is highly unlikely. To begin with, the 16 year old would need a CDL, as the vehicle weighs 36,000 pounds. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; They'd also need a summer job, since the cost of a Stryker is in excess of $3million each. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... of_war.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Of course, they might be cheaper surplus.) Next, they'd need to make sure that the school zone did not have any local ordinance (not ordnance, dummy!) restrictions against trucks over 10,000 lbs. Oh, but wait, the bumper's over 30" from the ground, so it would be illegal to operate on Wisconsin highways already, under Wis. Admin. Code Ch. 305.

So. DOT Atty. Nilsen is stretching the facts a little, again. I'll give him chops for trying. But remind me again, why do we need some new law to save us all? Shouldn't they just enforce the existing laws?

And if he wants to play the morbid card, lets also talk about NHTSA-certified mini-vans and fatalities: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11 ... ss&emc=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Good folks die in them too. Anyone??
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;

Chuck W.
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5288
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 1:00 pm

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by Chuck W. » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:08 pm

The bill also prohibits DOT from registering any vehicle that was
manufactured for use in any country’s military forces and that does not meet federal
motor vehicle safety standards.
Looks to me like this bill still prohibits registering military vehicles
North Alabama

User avatar
TopKick
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5664
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:34 am
Location: Olathe, KS.

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by TopKick » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:24 am

Undy,
Search Kansas legislature for HB 2882 2006. There are also a couple of amendment notes. This is for all but fully tracked HMV's.
"Keep 'Em Rolling"
TopKick

"Until it's melted down and turned into something else, or blown to Smitherines, it's restorable"!

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

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:14 am

Chuck,
If you read "section 4" carefully, I believe it states that DMV shall not register a foreign HMV, unless it qualifies for registration under 341.269, which limits it to parades (except for municipalities - they can still use them for utility purposes).

Topkick,
I got the statute. If I understand this correctly, you can only register HMVs over 35 yrs. old. Is this correct? If so, what about HMVs less than 35 yrs. old. Can they still be registered, and as what type of registration?
Despite my question, the KS legislation seems a lot more straightforward than the gobbledegook that WisDOT wrote up.
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;

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

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:35 am

Food for thought:

Near-complete restriction on ex-military vehicle use is unreasonable.
This is probably the biggest problem for me directly. I bought my two ex-military trucks to use them. This restriction on the use of a privately-owned ex-military vehicle to only display, parade, and maintenance use will relegate these vehicles to no more than yard ornaments for most owners. Most ex-military vehicle owners rely on them for some level of general utility use, in addition to the occasional parade or car show.

Section 3 & 4 effectively allow the general utility use of ex-military vehicles by a county or municipality, but disallows such private use. (Please check with Dane Co. Dept. of Public Works at 608 266-4990 (Mike DeMaggio) for their experiences with ex-military trucks in their fleet.) How does a privately owned ex-military vehicle pose any more of a threat than a municipally-owned ex-military vehicle operating on a regular basis? It does not. Your average ex-military vehicle owner, like your average collector car owner, care a great deal about their "baby", and take extraordinarily good care of it. As an indication, please compare the cost for comprehensive insurance policies for collector cars as compared with similar coverage for your average daily driver. The collector car policies are drastically less expensive, and the reason is that they just aren't in many accidents.

The proposed 341.269(3) specifies that ex-military vehicles are to be used only for "special occasions such as display and parade purposes...". Given that many of these vehicles can easily satisfy Wisconsin Admin. Code Ch. Trans 305, which specifies Wisconsin's standards for vehicle equipment, there is no reason for all these vehicles to be limited to such uses.

It is reasonable that ex-military vehicles which cannot satisfy Trans 305 should be restricted to use for "special occasions...". However, ex-military vehicles, both foreign and domestic, which can satisfy Wis. Admin. Code Ch. Trans 305 should be allowed to register according to the owner's uses, ie. "light truck", "farm", etc., just like other vehicles.

For instance: A 25-yr. old U.S.-market pickup truck can be registered as a "Light Truck", or a "Farm" truck if appropriate. But strap a pickup camper on the back, and it can be alternatively be registered as a "Recreational Vehicle". Or if you want to avoid the annual registration and are willing to accept some slight operating restrictions, it could be registered as a "Collector" vehicle.
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;

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

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:36 am

Here's another opinion:

Ambiguity over "military design and markings" leaves too much open to individual DOT employee discretion.
341.269(1) seems unfair, but also contrary to actual safety concerns. The phrase "accurately represent its military design and markings" is unworkable. (This phrase is even a problem with Sen. Erpenbach's proposed bill, but in other ways, that bill is still better overall.)

From a safety standpoint, almost any color is more visible than olive drab. (That's why they call it camouflage.) But leaving it up to the discretion of a DOT employee to determine whether a particular truck bears the correct "markings" is unimaginable. Would they know whether that truck was supposed to have desert camouflage, or jungle-like stripes? What if the truck's painted in gloss instead of matte paint? Does it have the correct size star? The phrase is too ambiguous, and leaves the door open for the same sort of shenanigans that some DOT employee used to arbitrarily rescind my (and other's) Pinzgauer title and license in 2007.


The design concern is somewhat understandable, but remember that changing the entire box of a civilian pickup truck is allowable. Many large trucks are purchased from the manufacturer without any box at all, just a bare frame. The box which is attached is suited to the uses of the vehicle. The safety aspects of most trucks are built into the cab and chassis, not what's mounted on the bed. Remember, lots of ex-military trucks are used by municipalities and are routinely altered to suit their new uses, ie. rescue, brush fire trucks, etc. Should there be an inspection if you change the design? Perhaps. But I'd still suggest that this "design" clause in unnecessary, since any vehicle which has been altered "to such an extent that it no longer resembles the original manufactured vehicle" already must be registered as a "reconstructed vehicle", per s.341.268(1)(d), Wis. Stats. As such, current law requires that it must be inspected by the DOT as per Wis. Admin. Code Trans 305.065(1). This statute/code could simply be enforced.

Expecting DOT employees to be able to fairly and accurately enforce this section, as written, is unlikely. This phrase should be struck from the bill.
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;

Locked

Return to “Legislative Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests