Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

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
User avatar
rondo
LTC, U.S. Army
LTC, U.S. Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:07 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

Post by rondo » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:08 am

from a letter signed by Alberto Gonzales, Idaho DMV administrator dated Nov 16th 2017

"Idaho will not title nor register any domestic FMVSS-era (196 model year or newer) military vehicle, including those over 25 years old (as was done in the past) without proper legislative change. The 25 year FMVSS exemption only pertains to grey market (imported) vehicles. "

Several of our members and non members have addressed their concerns with our state legislators, although it has not been a coordinated effort. As President of the IMVPA, I addressed a letter to our representative who sits on the armed forces committee and addressed several issues. these include economic, patriotic, and historical.

The position of the Idaho Military Vehicle Preservation Assoc. is that this is an issue that must be addressed now, as it will cause severe damage to our hobby. As we recruit the younger generations, we noticed they are drawn to more modern military vehicles than just the Korean War and WW2 variety.
42 GPW; 41WC6
"moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men"

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

Re: Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

Post by undysworld » Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:11 pm

Rondo,

I can't help you much, at least from Wisconsin. However I've been in contact with a guy from Idaho who's already working on this. If you want to pm me your contact info, I'd forward it to him.

There's a thread on this issue on Steel Soldiers: https://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthrea ... tle-change!!!!!

For sure, you guys all need to be working together to resolve this.
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
rondo
LTC, U.S. Army
LTC, U.S. Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:07 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

Post by rondo » Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:11 am

thanks for the link. interesting reading.

when you say "you guys all need to" well yeah that would be ideal wouldn't it but people do what they want its a free country

is the IMVPA working on this...yes. Do we have command authority over our members? No. Do people write their elected officials without going thru us? Yes. Do they need to go thru us? No. Should they? yes it would be helpful. is it a terrible thing that our officials are getting traffic from different people? no i'd argue its still a good thing.
42 GPW; 41WC6
"moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men"

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

Re: Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

Post by undysworld » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:22 am

rondo wrote:
Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:11 am
when you say "you guys all need to" well yeah that would be ideal wouldn't it but people do what they want its a free country

is the IMVPA working on this...yes. Do we have command authority over our members? No. Do people write their elected officials without going thru us? Yes. Do they need to go thru us? No. Should they? yes it would be helpful. is it a terrible thing that our officials are getting traffic from different people? no i'd argue its still a good thing.
Sorry, perhaps I put that wrong? IMHO, a unified and (at least semi-) organized effort will have the best chances of success.

When the military vehicle poop hit the fan here, there were two groups; those who had already lost their titles & registration (like me), and those who DOT had threatened. By owners not being united, two bills were enacted, the first of which restricted former military vehicles to parades and car shows only. (Around here, lots of surplus vehicles were used for farms, construction, logging etc., and those guys were screwed.) The second bill granted only four specific vehicles complete operational privileges, including my Pinzgauer. (Regrettably, this left most of the U.S. stuff restricted.)

It took four more years to get things fixed. To do this, we talked with literally hundreds of collectors of all sorts - exotics, imports, hot-rods, etc., and formed a loose coalition. We showed them how a threat to one segment of the hobby is a threat to us all, and that we needed to stay united to prevail. We created a group email list (still in use today), encompassing as many car clubs as we could find and any individuals who wanted to be included, which we used to notify our supporters of any actions we recommended they take.

Of course they only act on their own volition. But they did act. When we put out an alert for them to contact their legislators, and the next day we visited each capitol office, most of the offices had already heard from our group. When we asked them to sign up in support of a bill, we garnered over 1,300 signatures "in favor". We passed two more bills.

Ironically, I was once told by another collector that I was "breaking rank" by pushing for more operating rights than just parades and car shows for military vehicles. Maybe, but somebody had to lead.

Please, you guys do as you please. It's not my place to tell you what you need to do. I'm only tossing out suggestions because what we did here worked. Feel free to ignore them. But I do recommend that you all work together.
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
rondo
LTC, U.S. Army
LTC, U.S. Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:07 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

Post by rondo » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:18 am

thank you for the suggestions. keep them coming as they are important. this is not an attack on you or your suggestions.
there are several folks here that choose to approach this on their own without attempting to organize or go thru the IMVPA. its not like we like that approach. That is what I mean when I say people do what they want. there are many who own MVs, that are interested and invested in the hobby, but are not part of the IVMPA or MVPA. that is also a frustration.
Yes we will be working hard to get this rule changed.
I don't see how the classic car guys have a dog in the fight. This rule doesn't affect them. I mean really all cars and bikes can get a title. Just not MVs :roll:
42 GPW; 41WC6
"moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men"


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

Re: Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

Post by undysworld » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:34 pm

rondo wrote:
Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:18 am
I don't see how the classic car guys have a dog in the fight. This rule doesn't affect them. I mean really all cars and bikes can get a title. Just not MVs :roll:
Fair question.

Idaho DMV can only administer Idaho laws. (U.S.DOT/NHTSA administers federal laws.) The DMV Administrator can't just make up a new "rule" (although they can go through formal rule-making to make changes to the law).

I find Idaho transportation law in Section 49 Idaho Statutes and IDAPA-39 Idaho Administrative Code. I'll bet it's 49-402(10): "Any vehicle that does not meet federal motor vehicle safety standards shall not be registered and shall not be permitted to operate on public highways of the state, as defined in section 40-117 Idaho Code, unless otherwise specified by law."

The first FMVSS requirements took effect in 1967, but most were implemented in 1968, and the FMVSS-Compliance Certification Label requirement began in 1969. Looking admittedly briefly through Idaho statutes, I did not find anything "otherwise specified" to exempt pre-'67 vehicles from 49-402(10). So unless I missed something, all vehicles manufactured prior to 1967 never met any FMVSS and are at similar risk. (Can you tell me if you know whether they are somehow exempted?)

I think these guys would be your target group.
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: Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

Post by undysworld » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:44 pm

Rondo,
Sorry this is out of order. I keep looking this over and seeing things.
rondo wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:08 am
The 25 year FMVSS exemption only pertains to grey market (imported) vehicles. "
This is wrong.

The exemption is found in Title49USC Sec. 30112. Prohibitions on manufacturing, selling, and importing noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment. Part b is Nonapplication: This section does not apply to --- Part 9 is: a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old.

That's it. It says NOTHING about imported vehicles.
FMVSS requirements do not apply to ANY vehicle 25 years old.

Nothing stops the DMV Administrator from interpreting the code as they wish, but a court will rule on the word or intent of the law.
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
rondo
LTC, U.S. Army
LTC, U.S. Army
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:07 am
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

Post by rondo » Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:00 am

House bill 506 is on our governor's desk. After much work and testimony, and revision, it has passed so far. If this is signed then Idaho will allow Military vehicles to get a title and be driven on Idaho roads. We had experts and business owners testifying on behalf of this bill and some of our members provided real leadership on this matter. I anticipate a great victory.
42 GPW; 41WC6
"moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men"

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

Re: Idaho no longer titles a MV 1967 and newer

Post by undysworld » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:25 am

Rondo,
I sure wish you well!! Awesome to see progress being made there. Congratulations to all you folks who have helped accomplish this.
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

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

Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest