Wisconsin banning military vehicles?

[Kevin Lockwood]

FYI, Several requests for details on the Kansas victory have been received.
The House bill was HB2882, The Senate bill was SB374.
Many details can be found by searching G503 for Kansas Armor Ban. We used a KISS method and simply amended the Kansas statute (KSA 8-166) that regulates the title / registration / tag procedure. This statute did not ,prior to our amendment, specifically mention HMVs. Of course the DMV director used this and interpreted the lack of HMVs inclusion to imply that they were not able to be titled. Through the transportation committee in our state house we amended KSA 8 - 166 to specifically include all MVs in their original military configuration regardless of size, type, weight or country of origin excepting those that are fully tracked. Google "Kansas Antique Military Vehicles" and "KSA 8-166". you can search www.kslegislature.org search statutes 8-166.
Jeff please forward this to the mil-veh list. I recieve a confirmation email but then always get a page not responding message after clicking on the link.
Advice: Simply amending the Ks statute did not open any law to new argument. Remember that any time you begin anew the bill may change before being adopted. This is not always good. I would encourage those involved to proceed carefully with legal consultation.

[creinemann]

We here in WI will have to be careful if and when we use the "antique" word.

It holds a different definition, an antique vehicle here means anything manufactured prior to 1945. So I think the route to go, is to not enact a new law, but rather, lik Kansas, add the HMV classification to the current law.

341.265(1)
(1) Any person who is a resident of this state and the owner or subsequent transferee of a motor vehicle which has a model year of 1945 or earlier and which has not been altered or modified from the original manufacturer's specifications may upon application register the same as an antique vehicle upon payment of a fee of $5, and be furnished registration plates of a distinctive design, in lieu of the usual registration plates, which shall show in addition to the registration number that the vehicle is an antique. The registration shall be valid while the vehicle is owned by the applicant without the payment of any additional fee. The vehicle shall only be used for special occasions such as display and parade purposes or for necessary testing, maintenance and storage purposes. A motorcycle may be registered as an antique vehicle if all of the requirements for registration specified in this subsection are satisfied.


I would propose the following change to Wisconsin code"

341.266(1)(c)
(c) "Special interest vehicle" means a motor vehicle of any age which has not been altered or modified from original manufacturers specifications and, because of its historic interest, is being preserved by hobbyists.

[i]SUGGESTED CHANGE - A special interest vehicle also includes an historical motor vehicle that was manufactured for military purposes. Upon application for registration under this section and payment of the license fee prescribed in this section, the owner of such an historical military vehicle shall be issued historical military vehicle license plates. 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.


341.266(2)
(2)

341.266(2)(a)
(a) Any person who is the owner of a special interest vehicle that is 20 or more years old at the time of making application for registration or transfer of title of the vehicle and who, unless the owner is an historical society that is exempt from federal income taxes, owns, has registered in this state, and uses for regular transportation at least one vehicle that has regular registration plates may upon application register the vehicle as a special interest vehicle upon payment of a fee under par. (b).


341.266(2)(b)
(b) The fee to register a vehicle under par. (a) is twice the regular annual fee under s. 341.25 for the type of vehicle, except that the fee for a vehicle that has a gross weight of more than 8,000 pounds may be no more than twice the annual fee for a similar vehicle that has a gross weight of not more than 8,000 pounds.


341.266(2)(c)
(c) The department shall furnish the owner of the vehicle with registration plates of a distinctive design in lieu of the usual registration plates, and those plates shall show that the vehicle is a special interest vehicle owned by a Wisconsin collector. Upon application, the owner may reregister the vehicle without the payment of any additional fee.


341.266(2)(d)
(d) Each collector applying for special interest vehicle registration plates will be issued a collector's identification number which will appear on each plate. Second and all subsequent registrations under this section by the same collector will bear the same collector's identification number followed by a suffix letter for vehicle identification.


341.266(2)(e)
(e) The vehicle may be used as are other vehicles of the same type except that:


341.266(2)(e)1.
1. Motor vehicles may not transport passengers for hire.


341.266(2)(e)2.
2. Trucks may not haul material weighing more than 500 pounds, not including the weight of a camper, lid or cap that is mounted on the truck or the weight of any persons or pets riding within the driver's compartment.


341.266(2)(e)3.
3. Except as provided in s. 341.09 (7), no special interest vehicle may be operated upon any highway of this state during the month of January unless the owner of the vehicle reregisters the vehicle under s. 341.25 and replaces the distinctive registration plates issued under par. (c) with regular registration plates or transfers regular registration plates to the vehicle.


341.266(2)(f)
(f) Unless inconsistent with this section, the provisions applicable to other vehicles shall apply to special interest vehicles.


341.266(3)
(3) In addition to the fee in sub. (2) (b), there shall be an original (first time only) processing fee of $50 to defray the cost of issuing the original collector's special interest vehicle registration plates and to ensure that each collector will be issued only one collector's identification number.


341.266(4)
(4) A collector may store unlicensed, operable or inoperable, vehicles and parts cars on the collector's property provided the vehicles and parts cars and the outdoor storage area are maintained in such a manner that they do not constitute a health hazard and are screened from ordinary public view by means of a fence, rapidly growing trees, shrubbery or other appropriate means.


341.266(5)
(5) Any person who violates sub. (2) (e) 3. may be required to forfeit not more than $200.


341.266 - ANNOT.
History: 1971 c. 299; 1985 a. 332 s. 251 (4); 1987 a. 349; 1989 a. 137; 1991 a. 81, 316; 1997 a. 126; 2003 a. 321.[/i]

[creinemann]

Pushing the "no license plate" provision may be exessive, but I know at least Ohio and Texas have that ruling

[creinemann]

Pushing the "no license plate" provision may be exessive, but I know at least Ohio and Texas have that ruling

Wisconsin legislators on the MV 'to be contacted' list

Committee on Transportation,
Representatives Petrowski, Chair, Bies vice-chair
Representatives A. Ott, Hahn, Gottlieb, Van Roy, Davis, Steinbrink, Vruwink, Sheridan, Sherman and Garthwaite

[acmack]

Why has the DMV declared ''war" on Pinz's? Was there a series of accidents or deaths? Are they trying to project the flaws of one vehicle on all MV's? I don't own one, just curious? David

[avlon01]

Here is the reply I recived from Rep Rep. Tom Lothian's office:

Hello Mr. Traskaski,

Thank you for contacting our office. I've managed to get in touch with
an individual from the Department of Transportation to discuss your
case.

She stated that you would be able to get your vehicle registered as long
as it passed Federal safety guidelines and you had proof of ownership.
It is my understanding that any military vehicle that was manufactured
in our country should be able to pass these guidelines.

You will need to print out a MV1 form and mail it in. Here is the link
for an online version:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/forms/mv1.pdf

The only problem that may arise is if the vehicle was manufactured
outside of the US. You would then have to have it physically inspected
to ensure it meets the safety guidelines.

Please let me know if you will need additional assistance.

The DMV is telling legislators that there is no ban, and all you have to do is get your vehicle inspected.

I'm going to call back and ask whom they spoke with.

Phil

[tfscobie]

Carl, I like the "amend" approach KS took on this but I agree that there may be some risk with trying to push the "license plate exemption" issue, although I for one would love it. (I am pretty sure we would get some resistance from the law enforcement organizations and they may very well be a valuable ally in this.) Amending the statute is fairly straight forward but it is not without hazards and given the current state of the gubernatorial/legislative relations, we may have to get in line.

I talked to Tom Wolboldt today and have traded emails with John Adams-Graf on this matter. As I understand it, a gentleman from Denmark, WI has offered to point this project. John has his contact info and I will be ringing him up tomorrow evening to chat. Our group here in Chippewa Falls can probably offer any and all legal resources necessary to assist...our members, a number of whom are attorneys and police officers, are very familiar with the State/Fed GOP and Dem hierarchy and have extensive law enforcement affiliations as well.

John did say"I just learned this morning that the legs on which DOT is standing is a 1966 statute... that says, in part, No Military Vehicles will be granted titles in Wisconsin." Apparently, I am not a very good lawyer as I can find no reference to this wording (or anything similar) in any pubilshed Wisconsin legal source. If anyone knows where this comes from, please let me in on it and I will research it further.

Further bulletins as events warrant.

[acmack]

petesilfven wrote:

I didn't notice the Pinz was a '72. The fed cutoff is 1970, I believe. Everything before that is grandfathered

The standard DOT declaration form used for bringing any motor vehicle into the US has a section to check off that states that any motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, more than 25 years old is DOT exempt.
I have imported several MV's (Volvo's) from Sweden and Norway that were 1975 build years and had full exclusion. They were subsequently titled in MA and years later sold to other collectors in several other states who had no problem titiling them in their states.
CA has been revoking titles on MV's and civilian vehicles as well because of new SMOG rules made retroactive to 74' and created big headaches for Pinz owners also. Looks like every state wants to beat up on the Pinz!

[creinemann]

Our group here in Chippewa Falls can probably offer any and all legal resources necessary to assist...our members, a number of whom are attorneys and police officers, are very familiar with the State/Fed GOP and Dem hierarchy and have extensive law enforcement affiliations as well.

John did say"I just learned this morning that the legs on which DOT is standing is a 1966 statute... that says, in part, No Military Vehicles will be granted titles in Wisconsin." Apparently, I am not a very good lawyer as I can find no reference to this wording (or anything similar) in any pubilshed Wisconsin legal source. If anyone knows where this comes from, please let me in on it and I will research it further.

Further bulletins as events warrant.

I am former LE as well, and have had much experience in legislative matters, including testimony, and am more than willing to help out on this.

[tfscobie]

Great...I'll call Jeff today and get back to you off-line. We probably want to keep this string updated on the action plan as well.

Essayons!

[creinemann]

I have been making some calls, and following up on the 20+ emails I have been sending to various members of legislature, here is the first truly positive response. I believe we should have national follow up with Representative Kestell ASAP. This looks very promising.

Carl

Dear Mr. Reinemann,

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the recent DMV ruling that rescinded registration of historic military vehicles. While I am disappointed with the result, the DMV has cited statutory authority in reaching their decision.

My office is in the process of researching various laws in other States and I plan to soon introduce legislation that would restore our citizens ability to legally license historic military vehicles for use on public roadways. Once the legislation is drafted, it will be circulated to all members of the legislature and I will be asking my colleagues to co-sponsor the bill. Support from legislators is obviously important, but support from members of the public will be absolutely critical for us to be successful.

My office will communicate with the historic vehicle community as the process moves forward.

Representative Steve Kestell

[gerrykan]

John did say"I just learned this morning that the legs on which DOT is standing is a 1966 statute... that says, in part, No Military Vehicles will be granted titles in Wisconsin." Apparently, I am not a very good lawyer as I can find no reference to this wording (or anything similar) in any pubilshed Wisconsin legal source. If anyone knows where this comes from, please let me in on it and I will research it further.

When did the US Govt quit selling M151's to the public? Does this have something to do with the Federal ruling?

[tfscobie]

I have been making some calls, and following up on the 20+ emails I have been sending to various members of legislature, here is the first truly positive response. I believe we should have national follow up with Representative Kestell ASAP. This looks very promising.

Carl

Dear Mr. Reinemann,

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the recent DMV ruling that rescinded registration of historic military vehicles. While I am disappointed with the result, the DMV has cited statutory authority in reaching their decision.

My office is in the process of researching various laws in other States and I plan to soon introduce legislation that would restore our citizens ability to legally license historic military vehicles for use on public roadways. Once the legislation is drafted, it will be circulated to all members of the legislature and I will be asking my colleagues to co-sponsor the bill. Support from legislators is obviously important, but support from members of the public will be absolutely critical for us to be successful.

My office will communicate with the historic vehicle community as the process moves forward.

Representative Steve Kestell

Carl, nice job!!!

[lstmate]

For those interested I am going to copy a post from the Steel Soldiers web site what I think for those working on this problem will find interesting and may want to consider taking this gentleman up on his invite. This meeting may be the begining to find the grounds to help all MV owners in Wisconsin.


Hi all, I spoke today with a staffer from Senator Jon Erpenbach's office, Mr. Robert Doeckel, who related to me that they had inquired with the DMV and were told essentially "sorry, too bad". As far as DMV is concerned, ALL em-military vehicles are non-roadworthy. I inquired about the specifics of why my Pinz should not be allowed. He didn't have specific answers. So....
I have an appointment with Mr. Doeckel and "someone from the DMV" on Monday, October 22, 2007 at 10am. Any Wisconsin Pinzgauer owners are invited and requested to attend. I promised to advise them no later than Friday night of a list of attendees. So please call/email me if you can join in. I'm at 608 437-3465 home and 608 333-8383 cell, but I don't answer the cell often. Please leave me a message if I'm not there.
Thanks for everyone's support.
Paul Underwood
Blue Mounds, Wisconsin


The link to this entire thread is:

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/index.php? ... 6f4224a3e5

I do not live in Wisconsin but think that everyone with an MV in that state needs to really join together to fight this. I wish you all luck with your battle.

Garry

[jagjetta]

Greetings,

I thought I would post a quick update as to what is happening here in WI.

A group of about 25 HMV owners met last night in Kaukauna to organize an "action plan." They all agreed it was probably best to approach this as an entity rather than individuals covering the same ground. The group got together because it quickly became apparent that this can't be solved at the DOT level, but rather, through changing existing law. Everyone echoed the same thing when telling of their talks with DOT: "They have their statute and have dug in their heels."

We have worked diligently to gather documents and hard data and to winnow off the hear-say. In doing so, it became obvious that the change in DOT attitude occurred right around December 2006. Creating paper trails on all of the rumors has proved to be challenging! However, we felt we had a really good handle on the facts. The one loose end is the claim that someone actually had a title revoked. We haven't been able to produce documentation on that yet but are tracking down leads. All felt that is was crucial that we have documents to back up any claims we make as we move ahead.

In all, we identified five organized groups or clubs in the state which are pretty well dispersed to represent all of the state. From each group, we established a point-of-contact so that we can avoid copying everyone on emails and try to reduce the amount to redundancy.

The offending statute that DOT hanging their case was identified. We discussed how this statute could be amended to insure registering and titling of historic military vehicles. Our previous discussion with a couple of legislators advised that we becareful with the wording of any proposed ammendment so that it can't be misinterpreted later on.

To that end, I am delighted to report that we have received a very kind offer of services of a law firm (who happens to own a half-track and several HMVs) who are going to help us with wording and moving through legislation. They will be essential in formulating the amendment so that it reads correctly.

The Kansas group has been in touch with us as well and given us copies of how they approached and prevailed in their problems with the same situation in their state. That is going to prove to be a great model to follow.

We encourage any Wisconsin residents to drop me or Jeff Rowsam an email. Jeff is coordinating the effort and serving as our point of contact with the lawyers, the legislators etc. Most of you know Jeff, but if you don't, he is a big-truck guy who dresses up real nice and knows how to deal with bureaucrats. He is a Caterpillar engineer by trade. His email is:
jerowsam@centurytel.net My email is: john.adams-graf@fwpubs.com

Forward!
John A-G