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.
Post Reply
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 » Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:05 pm

This is a followup to a previous thread regarding the recent efforts by WisDOT to outlaw ex-military vehicles: http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=101394" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Briefly, there are currently two bills before the Wis. Legislature which seek to clarify state law concerning the registration of ex-military vehicles.

The bill which is being supported by WisDOT and Jeff Rowsam (Catman), would only allow ex-military vehicles to be registered for Parade use (AB-592). All other uses would be illegal, and DMV would not issue title or registration. I am working to convince lawmakers that this bill should be amended to allow owners to register their ex-military vehicles for either Parade use (Collector or Antique) or other uses if they choose (Light Truck, Farm, RV, etc.).

I am scheduled to meet with Rep. Zigmunt,the bill's author and Rep. Steinbrink, the Assy. Transportation Committee Chairman next week to discuss the matter.

If they agree to amend the bill to also include normal registration of ex-military vehicles, it will be crucial to promptly voice your support of this bill to your Senator and Assy. Rep. Please pass this info along to all Wisconsin ex-military vehicle owners.

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;

Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1554
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 » Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:31 pm

God Bless you Paul
I wish I was able to do more. I still cannot believe that MV magazine and others in Wisconsin are going to let a bunch of appointed bureaucrats ram this down our throats. :evil:
Kevin Lockwood
P.S. I am going to call my MVPA board members and get their take. Then give them mine for whatever that is worth.
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

Cat Man
G-Master Sergeant
G-Master Sergeant
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:45 pm

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

Post by Cat Man » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:54 pm

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. The HMV collectors are not trying to "Ram" anything at anyone. We are working to keep the DOT from using existing Wisconsin law to ban HMVs now and in the future in Wisconsin.

Keep in mind that the WIS DOT is on the far end of this issue and wants NO special vehicles on the highways. On the opposite end is Paul Underwood who is advocating for unrestricted use of any military vehicle for any purpose at anytime by anyone.

There is a great deal more to the HMV hobby than just the imported Pinz or just WWII Jeeps. The HMV clubs and collectors in Wisconsin asked a group of us as experianced owners who have been in the hobby for many years, to work on their behalf for a solution. Working on behalf of the 600+ HMV owners in Wisconsin and representing more than 1500 HMV's we understand the world of negotiated legislation and recognize that the solution is somewhere in-between the two extreme positions.

The assembly bill that we crafted in cooperation with input from collectors, legislators, lawyers and the DOT as AB592 is intended to provide protection for the continued PRESERVATION and USE of ALL wheeled historic military vehicles. I won't get into a tit for tat debate on the internet over items taken out of context.

There are a number of provisions in the bill that will make it easier to register former military vehicles. Even the DOT has stated that they understand our HMV's are mechanical vehicles that require them to be driven to keep them operational. You can still take you Jeep or Dodge or M35 to the DQ for ice cream with the grandkids. Just don't use it as a daily driver, because that is not preservation of a historic vehicle.

If Paul Underwood can get less driving restrictions amended into the bill, great, but don't overlook the many other important features of bill AB592. The competing Senate bill by Senator Erpenbach is well meaning, but was not prepared with input from HMV collectors and does not address the entire range of issues for collectors.

Read the bill. Call your Wisconsin State Senator and Representative and tell them you want long term protection for the HMV hobby.

Cat Man

Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1554
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 » Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:17 pm

Let me start by saying I appreciate all of the folks in Wisconsin engaged in this battle, thank you! Then let me add that while not a resident of Wisconsin I am well aware of what it takes to derail a reckless government agency. Myself and others fought very much the same battle in Kansas. We won!!!!
In reply to catman's post :
First, I did not state that HMV collector's were ramming anything, if you read my post I said bureaucrats were the ones ramming. In Kansas the DMV and state highway patrol thought they could dream up a new set of rules , deny titles, rescind registration, etc.
Second, I find no existing Wisconsin law that specifically denies title to MVs. If we allow them (DOT) to call all MVs off road vehicles that is our mistake. I do not believe all MVs are defined as off road vehicles . Too the contrary most are designed as road vehicles with off road capability. Now called SUVs.
Third, Paul Underwood is accused of advocating for the un-restricted use of MVs. How is that wrong? Shouldn't we all be??? Why are we advocating for anything less?
Fourth, As stated above I am not privy to all of the details but do not assume that I have no knowledge of how to slide legislation through an assembly. Been there done that. Heck we even passed individual machine gun ownership in a state that had not allowed it since Bonnie and Clyde passed through (circa 1920s).
Fifth, While I understand that the art of compromise is all important. I just have not seen the reason that we are co-operating with the enemy (DOT) on this. They must answer to the state lawmakers and until an attempt at including all MVs or maybe compromise and say all pre68 MVs being simply added on to the collector plate (where they have been tagged for the last seventy years) is rejected by lawmakers why rush to get all fuzzy with the DOT?
Sixth, "All Wheeled MVs"?? The old divide and conquer. Our DMV tried that. NO halftracks titled in Wisconsin. I am disturbed that no one is making the DOT prove there case! Why will it be OK for a CJ2a to go to home depot for a bucket of nails but a MB is much too dangerous? Why can a 48 WDX Power Wagon travel over to town for some horse feed but a WC-1 is a threat to motoring safety? This list can go on. Why does the DOT continue to title the Ford Taurus when it alone as been involved in more fatality accidents then all MVs probably combined since the thirties. They will say "Oh we just don't have any records on MVs." Believe me if there ever was a recurrence of fatality accidents involving MVs someone would have noticed.
Seventh, Virtually all other states including Wisconsin has titled MVs since the thirties. Why is the states assembly wasting critical taxpayer time on this issue, better yet why are the DOT bureaucrats wasting everyones time?? Where is the problem?? That is specifically what our Transportation Chairman asked the DMV Director. After she could not respond with a clear answer we as a MV group met only with state legislators and no longer paid any attention to the Director of Division of Motor Vehicles.
Eighth, "Even the DOT has stated that they understand our HMVs are mechanical vehicles...." How gracious of the emperor and troupe to recognize us!
Sorry for the rant.
Just cannot believe we are going to let some appointed bureaucrats RAM this down our throats! :evil:
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Kevin Lockwood

I Honestly Hope you guys in Wisconsin can draft a non-restrictive amendment to your collector vehicle class that would specifically add ALL MVs excepting those fully tracked. Seems simple. We pulled it off in Kansas.
Best to all
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: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by undysworld » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:03 pm

To Reply:

Jeff,

I fully take issue with your comments:
We are working to keep the DOT from using existing Wisconsin law to ban HMVs
There still is no such law which prohibits the reigstration of HMVs in Wisconsin. Let's debate 341.10(6) DOT won't. Do you wanna?
Paul Underwood who is advocating for unrestricted use of any military vehicle for any purpose at anytime by anyone
DO NOT speak for me. Any HMV which does not meet existing Wisconsin Equipment Requirements is already banned from operating on-highway. But trucks which can meet those requirements, including my Pinzgauer, should have every right to register for normal operation.
The assembly bill that we crafted in cooperation with input from collectors, legislators, lawyers and the DOT
Well, the DOT lied to you in that meeting Feb. 8, 2008, apparently. You wrote that Nilsen told you that Pinzgauers were illegal to register, but 4 days earlier, he'd written an opinion stating that they were legal to register. You wrote your notes. I supplied you with his memo. Present during that meeting was Tanya Hein, from Sen. Van Roy's office, so it looks like DOT lied to a legislative aide. Don't you have to wonder why DOT had to resort to lying?
There are a number of provisions in the bill that will make it easier to register former military vehicles.
Name one. The only advantage this gives you is the ability to register a vehicle less than 20 years old as a "historic" vehicle. That and nearly free registration fees. (How will the other Collector vehicle fans see these benefits you're getting? Fairly??) The fact is, HMVs over 20 yrs. old can already register as "Collector" vehicles with very reasonable fees. And how many HMVs are there that are less than 20 yrs. old? Enough to give up somebody else's rights for?
The competing Senate bill by Senator Erpenbach is well meaning, but was not prepared with input from HMV collectors and does not address the entire range of issues for collectors.
Perhaps Senator Erpenbach introduced his bill as a way of trying to get DOT to approach this matter reasonably. DOT apparently refused to even meet with him over my troubles, even after an Administrative Law Judge had ruled in my favor. I'm not sure if Sen. Erpenbach ever intended his bill to solve everybody's concerns. He did it in direct response to the way DOT has treated me. Here's what he wrote:
The need for this bill has come to our attention through our constituent, Paul Underwood of Mount Horeb. Mr. Underwood owns a Pinzgauer, which was licensed by DOT for a number of years. Two years ago DOT refused to re-license his vehicle. Mr. Underwood took his case before an administrative law judge, and won. However, DOT is back to not licensing Pinzgauers as people apply for registration and licensing. It has become clear to us that DOT intends to proceed with it’s plan of outlawing Pinzgauers as a first step of proceeding to remove from the road all historic military vehicles. On behalf of our constituent, we are instigating this legislation to protect his investment and right to use his vehicle. There will be many individuals around the state who will loose the ability to drive their vehicles if DOT plans to take away the ability to license historic military vehicles moves forward.
If Paul Underwood can get less driving restrictions amended into the bill, great
You know what, I might get further if you'd give Rep. Zigmunt a call and tell him that upon further consideration, you think that maybe Underwood guy's right, and the bill needs to include provisions for regular registration in addition to Parade registration. Let's sit down and work out some reasonable details...

Kevin

(In order of your points)
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes
(Ditto what you said)

Cheers,
Paul
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: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by Dave K. » Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:53 pm

Why is it that not licensing Pinz's is the first step to banning all MVs in WI? I go back to my original point in the first thread--if the Pinz's are the issue then we need to separate them from the bill and handle them in a different way. There are a handful of Pinz's in WI but a lot of MBs, Dodges and other US made vehicles which shouldn't be lumped into the foreign made equation and deserve to be separated from the fray surrounding foreign made MVs.

If we have to sacrifice all MVs for the sake of protecting the rights of a few foreign made ones then I'm not on board. The weakness in the case is TWO groups trying to pass two different bills and also trying to push the DMV to accept ALL MVs including foreign ones which were not built to US standards. If we can get acceptance for the majority then THAT should be the priority . . .

I think part of the problem here is the pi$$ing match which has erupted around the Pinz's and we need to make sure this doesn't rob the majority of their rights to owning US-made MVs. They are, after all, the true historic MVs to our country and that's a lot easier to sell to the DMV than a vehicle which has little if any historic significance in our country. Once again, let's separate the issues in order to better work with the DMV and retain the majority's rights.

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 » Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:37 am

Dave,

Hello? I posted this before, but I'll post it again.

This did not begin with Pinzgauers.

Check the dates:

The letter cancelling my Pinz title/registration was dated Sept. 25, 2007.

In a letter dated Sept. 6, 2007, Sen. Mike Ellis wrote to DOT Secretary Frank Busalacchi asking about DMV's refusal to register a '43 Jeep for Steve Bannow of Neenah. The refusal was made during August, 2007. This was the first reported denial/cancellation of ex-military vehicles under s.341.10(6) Wis. Stats. that I have proof of.

Is some of the current fiasco a pi$$ing match? Ask Paul Nilsen of the DOT. If he's mad because he lost an appeal, that's unfortunate.

Perhaps you think that I should just have scrapped my Pinzgauer instead of appealing the cancellation. Let me ask you this, if DOT took away your license plate, and gave you a title marked "NON-ROADWORTHY VEHICLE", and you had a chance to appeal it, wouldn't you?? And if you then won the appeal but it made DOT mad, who's fault would that be?

As for why not licensing Pinzgauers is the first step to banning all MVs, consider this: A 1975 Wis. Supreme Çourt ruling (Schoolways Bus v. DMV) determined that if a Govt. Regulatory Agency (like DOT) has a longstanding practice, the practice can only be changed by a formal rule-making (like a new statute or administrative code). So, if DOT had succeeded in refusing/cancelling registration for Pinzgauers (a form of ex-military vehicle), the practice would have begun. In a year or so, DOT could claim it was a "longstanding" practice, and expand it to effect all U.S. ex-military vehicles. According to witness testimony in my appeal, this is exactly what DOT told us they were doing in a meeting on March 5, 2007 between Paul Nilsen, Christopher Klein (DOT Exec. Asst.), and Jerry DeSchane (lobbyist from Axley Brynelson).

If I had lost that appeal, it is likely that none of you would have titles and license plates on your U.S. ex-military vehicles right now.

DOT would love nothing better than for us to splinter into different factions. Frankly, I'd love nothing better than to be doing something different in my life than tilting at the DOT. If you only want to be able to drive your truck to a parade, then by all means support AB-592 as it's currently written. But remember you'll be squandering a lot of other people's rights too, those of us who actually use our ex-military vehicles to haul the occasional load. (My Farm-plated Duece put on just 126 miles during 2009.)

This is no time for infighting and tossing one group under the bus wheels. It's time we stood together and demand that ex-military vehicles are able to be registered for normal operations OR as collector vehicles. Vehicles which do not meet existing Wis. Vehicle Requirements are not be allowed to operate on-highway, and these laws need to simply be enforced.

Let's not waste time pointing fingers at each other. We're on the same side.
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;

Ben Dover
Gee Addict
Posts: 46845
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 Jan 08, 2010 7:29 am

If one is to fight the Government over a technicality, it is best to put it in the hands of one trusted representitive, instead of having a "point-counterpoint" contest. The loudest squeak does not always get the oil.
Been there before and won.
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

Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1554
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 Jan 08, 2010 8:36 am

Agreed we need a spear point not a hammer. Although sometimes I get greater satisfaction from hammering the H*#$ out of something :D . Mr. Underwood has already won battles against the DOT. He is working within the senate with legislators that understand the DOT is out of control.
I believe that working with the DOT is WRONG. We need to oppose them at every meeting. Make them prove their case. Lets keep this simple.
DOT= classroom bully
MV guys= kid with really great sack lunch
Legislators= teachers who rarely pay attention
I feel like the AB592 biil is the equivalent of the bully saying I take all of your lunch kid and if you don't give it to me I'll pulverize you.
We can roll over and give the bully what he wants or fight back.
I say lets scrap it up a bit!!
Try to get the teachers attention while holding the bully off.
Kevin L.
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
tamnalan
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 6135
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SW Oregon
Contact:

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

Post by tamnalan » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:24 am

Doubt the DOT is a monolithic bunch of bad guys with "evil plan" who unilaterally decided to beat up the HMV folks. They are simply pulled in different directions by different constituencies, and are probably responding to another group of Wisconsin taxpayers who feel that HMV's are too slow and unsafe.

Learn who that group is, and find common ground with them. Problem solved.
Alan W. Johnson
_______________
MB, 201453, "Lt Bob"
M-100, Sep 1951
MB-TD, Mar 2012
Ford 91C, 1939

User avatar
Cobra Doc
G-Lieutenant Colonel
G-Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:26 am
Location: Loveland, Colorado

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

Post by Cobra Doc » Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:36 am

Dave K. wrote:Why is it that not licensing Pinz's is the first step to banning all MVs in WI? I go back to my original point in the first thread--if the Pinz's are the issue then we need to separate them from the bill and handle them in a different way. There are a handful of Pinz's in WI but a lot of MBs, Dodges and other US made vehicles which shouldn't be lumped into the foreign made equation and deserve to be separated from the fray surrounding foreign made MVs.

If we have to sacrifice all MVs for the sake of protecting the rights of a few foreign made ones then I'm not on board. The weakness in the case is TWO groups trying to pass two different bills and also trying to push the DMV to accept ALL MVs including foreign ones which were not built to US standards. If we can get acceptance for the majority then THAT should be the priority . . .

I think part of the problem here is the pi$$ing match which has erupted around the Pinz's and we need to make sure this doesn't rob the majority of their rights to owning US-made MVs. They are, after all, the true historic MVs to our country and that's a lot easier to sell to the DMV than a vehicle which has little if any historic significance in our country. Once again, let's separate the issues in order to better work with the DMV and retain the majority's rights.
A good example is in the gun control debate. (1986)Ban the further production of NFA Machine Guns, many who opposed gun control went along, since they had no interest in machine guns, and they wanted to protect their semi-automatics, handguns, etc. (1994)Clinton's AWB, justified in part by the 1986 ban on machine guns, with the stated goal of banning all non-government owned firearms. The NRA even went along with the ban in order to "protect the rights of the majority of gun owners".

Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1554
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 Jan 08, 2010 10:17 am

tamnalan
I repeatedly said I am not on the ground in Wis. So I am sure I do not have the whole picture. I am basing most of my advice/opinion on past experience when this issue was defeated by us here in Kansas.
In Kansas there was no third party. Simply a DMV director who enlisted the State Highway Patrol and DOT to help her on a witch hunt. In the end the DOT and HP had taken neutral if not supportive positions to the MV owners.
Most seem to agree that in Wis. this has never been a Pinzgauer hunt. It just seems like the Pinz guys have been quicker to recognize the enemy.
No one has refuted Mr. Underwood's document showing a Ford GPW as the first vehicle to feel the wrath.
In Kansas we kept our interaction with the DMV cordial and polite. They laughed and told us all kinds of fuzzy things when in mixed committee but they never followed through on their end of any agreement. Much like the WisDOT, after losing a court decision, has ignored it and continued to refuse title to several MV's. We finally recognized that no good was to come from courting their blessing.
I have stated repeatedly on this board since 2007; The DOT answers to the legislature. Pass an amended classic vehicle statute to specifically included MV's. If not all ,except fully tracked, than at least all, except fully tracked, pre 68. Once this has been done the DOT cannot loosely interpret the omission of "military vehicle" from the current classic statute to mean that MV's are not included. They have been included since c1940.

Cobra Doc
Divide and Conquer
I was proud of all the Kansas MV owners who participated in our DMV battle. When the DMV saw there policy loosing favor they met with and called many jeep and medium truck owners espousing an amended policy to allow their vehicle to be tagged if they would support her policy which would have denied title to any AFV.
I hope gun owners have learned the folly of compromising your rights away. I hope MV owners are quick learners!
Kevin L.
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
DavidA
Equipment Operator, Heavy -2nd Class
Equipment Operator, Heavy -2nd Class
Posts: 6145
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 9:15 am
Location: Millbrae, CA
Contact:

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

Post by DavidA » Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:06 pm

I did some letter writing to a lawyer who was contracted to consult WISDOT (write the bill) in their effort to "ban" military vehicles. I got the run-around and pretty much gave up trying to get a paid representative to understand that it takes evidence to show the whys and whereabouts in the need for a ban. He was adamant that the vehicles that didn't meet NHTSB requirements for safety devices and design in vehicles were the targets. He did offer the alternative pre-'68 vehicles being exempted.

I don't get it. Is this some sort of whacky attempt by the left to stimulate the economy by removing any existing farm, industry or pleasure vehicle that happens to have a military past? Yes, I think it is. Once out of the picture, you can go buy that JD Gator or the Hondas that have gobbled up most of the off road industry. WISDOT has no evidence that Military Vehicles of any type are any more unsafe than the standard Highway Patrol Car or County Ambulance. Which one caused more injuries and deaths on Wisconsin highways would be my question. This is an absurd attempt by WISDOT to remove the collectors rights.

If in their blind effort to address safety on Wisconsin highways, I suggest that all military vehicles be plated (with a waving American flag background) Historic Military Vehicle license plate. These plates would be without any bans, additional fees or restrictions for a minimum five years and let the statistics speak for themselves. They already track the number of accidents and injuries by the type of plate but they don't look at Miltary vehicles as a whole. This would give them real data to support their agenda.

Again, I say, "when they take the buggies of the Amish off the road, they can start addressing the motorized vehicles."

Where is the MVPA on this? What is the MVPA? I thought they were here to lobby for us.

Wisconsin today...your state tomorrow! :|

I wish all who are fighting this absurdity the best in their efforts.
David Aro - USN SEABEES '66-'70
1941 Ford GP-9244
1941 WILLYS MB-104354
1942 WILLYS MB-131350
[/url]

Kevin Lockwood
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1554
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 Jan 08, 2010 1:32 pm

David et al,
If you guys feel this is a national issue (like I do) than contact the BoD MVPA. Let them know that compromise SUCKS.
I fought this battle in Kansas once and I do not want the DMV director to use WisDOTs success as a catalyst for bringing her push, to remove MVs from Kansas roads, back this session.
No other state I can find relegates MVs to parade/pleasure use only. Many folks who own MVS bought the M37, M715, etc. because they could use it in daily chores plus become a MV enthusiast. They could have just as easily bought a used chevy pickup but wanted the MV experience.
I have spoke with several BoD members and will try to speak with all by the weekend. Also remember Kevin Kronlund was just elected to the BoD and resides in Wisconsin.
I believe the MVPA needs to watch this issue closely. The big void for me is why is MV magazine (based in Wisconsin) so low key on this issue???? Anyone know of their efforts in defeating this boondoggle?
Kevin L.
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: WisDOT ban on Ex-Mil Veh. (AB-592) (TRANS-123)

Post by undysworld » Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:10 pm

David,
Amen Brother about the Amish buggies. As it turns out, my neighbor's son just died 1 1/2 years ago when he hit a buggy on his motorcycle. Nearly a dozen Amish folk were injured, some severely and one horse died. It was his fault, no dispute, and it's an awful thing. But my point is that the buggy offered ZERO protection from another vehicle.
EXCELLENT suggestion about the flag-waving license plates!! I hope you don't mind if I pass that one along?
Thanks for your support and comments.

Kevin,
Thanks for any input you make. Understand that it is a Wisconsin issue however. So remember that out of state comments to our lawmakers only confuse them. But everybody knows people who know people, etc. and the more Wisconsin folks that are made aware of the issue, the better. That way, assuming we can get a bill written which addresses our needs fairly, we can raise the public support necessary, by Wisconsin citizens contacting their Senator and Assemby Representatives and asking for a positive vote.
That said, any help is most welcomed.
If any of the people you guys speak with would like to discuss this, you are free to refer them to me. I've kind of been ground-zero for this for some time, and I've done quite a bit of research on it. If I can be of help, just ask.

Paul
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 27 guests