Wisconsin banning military vehicles?

[SURPDLR]

Hi
title states will accept current registratons fron non title states as proof of ownership.
Ernie

Except New Jersey............

[scooter007]

I just saw a copy of you posting too. Here is the letter I received today

Scooter007

[creinemann]

As a new resident of WI from Ohio, and successfully registering and titling my 53 M37in WI, these state rejections have me uneasy, especially since I just hauled my sons (who is 16) 1943 MB up from Ohio to Wis. I intend on getting collector plates for it, is the consensus that there will be a problem?

Should we ask the BOD of the MVPA for some input? or some help?

Does this mean we have to worry that the DAF's, the pinzgauers, Unimogs, Jeeps, schwimwagens, kubelwagens, CCKWs will suddenly be denied the right to be operated on the roadways?

Carl

[salt6]

Should start calling you state legislators. There are a lot of antique cars that aren't roadworthy by todays standards, I'd think.

[Fortyeight2A]

Driving on the public roads is a privilege, not a right. Wisconsin apparently doesn't spread out its privileges very freely.

[GI jeeps]

Driving on the public roads is a privilege, not a right. Wisconsin apparently doesn't spread out its privileges very freely.

Equal protection under the law is a right however. Smells like someone up there just doesn't like OD, or took too broad an interpretation of the special classification for HMMWVs sold to the public.

[Derek Eddlestone]

Driving on the public roads is a privilege, not a right. Wisconsin apparently doesn't spread out its privileges very freely.

I may be missing something in this argument but if your mil vehicle is as roadworthy as the vehicle next to you at the lights, you're both on the road by right having paid the same insurances and taxes on your gasoline. If the legislation is saying that a vehicle made in the 40s isn't as safe as a vehicle made in the 00s then how long is it before they say that a vehicle made in the early 00s isn't as safe as a vehicle made in the late 00s.

Derek.

[sergio]

I may be missing something in this argument but if your mil vehicle is as roadworthy as the vehicle next to you at the lights, you're both on the road by right having paid the same insurances and taxes on your gasoline.

You've missed the entire point but don't feel bad, Dirk, some from America's heartland are just as clueless:

Equal protection under the law is a right however. Smells like someone up there just doesn't like OD, or took too broad an interpretation of the special classification for HMMWVs sold to the public.

"Roadworthiness" has nothing to do with a subjective detemination by some DMV wonk as to whether or not your vehicle is safe or has seat belts or whether it can even keep up with traffic. In DMV parlance, "roadworthy" is a term of art with a specific, narrow meaning, not it's meaning in common usage.

Roadworthiness doesn't turn on whether your vehicle stops on a dime, takes two city blocks to stop or whether you drag your feet to stop it like Fred Flintstone. Rather, roadworthiness is predicated on whether your vehicle was built to the applicable Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) specs for its Year of Manufacture (YOM), nothing more, nothing less.

If your vehicle was built before DOT requirements went into effect (1/1/1970, IIRC) it's roadworthy no matter how many safety features it's missing. If it was built and certified to DOT specs for it's YOM, it's still roadworthy no matter how much more stringent the regs have become since then.

There are many, many horribly unsafe vehicles that are "roadworthy" to the DMV while many safer, more modern vehicles including supercars like the Porsche 959 are not. Not only can you be at a red light, stopped right next to a car that is as safe as yours but not roadworthy but you could be driving an absolute road hazard while the guy in the 959 can be prosecuted, jailed, fined and have his vehicle confiscated and exported for driving an amazing, imillion dollar supercar. You can also be in what appear to be identical vehicles while your US version is roadworthy and it's "gray market" twin is not. Most often the gray market car is actually a "better" car, usually lighter and more powerful with ABS brakes and better head and tail lights but the gray market import's more powerful engine hasn't been certified for US emissions, it may not have side impact door beams. Manufacturers were afraid to equip US cars with early ABS systems for fear of Americans tendency to sue everyone for everything. Some of the differences are as minor as different colored tail light lenses.

So, fact is, despite the fact that there's every chance in the world that, while driving your MB, you'll end up in the trunk of some high school chick's Honda with ABS brakes, the MB's "roadworthy" because it predates DOT regs while much better, much safer, much more modern vehicles are not.

JP

P.S. Buying gas and paying Highway Use Tax (HUT) have nothing to do with vesting you with any right to actually use that vehicle on the road. You can buy gas for your lawn mower but it doesn't mean you can drive it to Church.

[Tom Wolboldt]

Hello Group,

I would love to be a fly on the wall of the Governor Office the day after the DMV cancells all Wisconsin titles dated before 1/1/1970 ( No Federal Cerification Label required before this date) because of not having a Federal Cerification Label placed on the Vehicle as listed as the reason for cancelling the title and plates in the above letter.

[DJ]

You've missed the entire point but don't feel bad, Dirk, some from America's heartland are just as clueless:

What are you trying to say about midwest people?

[sergio]

You've missed the entire point but don't feel bad, Dirk, some from America's heartland are just as clueless:

What are you trying to say about midwest people?

That at least one of them is no smarter than an ill, legal immigrant.

JP

[DJ]

To quote David Allen Coe " Be careful of the stones that you throw,unless you have made no mistakes in your life".


By the way it,s spelled illegal, not ill, legal !!

[jagjetta]

Once again, first let me suggest, "STAY CALM." Collect the facts. Then react.

First, what are the facts? Is it licensed as a COLLECTOR vehicle? If not, it is no surprise that Wisconsin yanked the registration. No one ever said nor promised that you could have full driving privilages.

License it as a collector vehicle (which is what it is) and you should have no problems.

John A-G
Iola, WI

[petesilfven]

I get a bit weary of this "driving is a privilege" business. As long as one meets all of the requirements set forth in law, it is mandatory that the state issue him a driver's license. Same goes for vehicles. A driver's license cannot be denied by the whim of some civil servant.

I suspect that there are provisions in Wisconsin law dealing with grandfathering older vehicles just as there are in the rest of the states. Unfortunately, it may take a court hearing to straighten it out. The DMV may think they can make their own rules, but they are probably mistaken.

[mkoloc]

Been following this with a lot of interest as I am working on getting a title thru B-Way Title for my 1943 White Truck (M16A2 MGMC) that I brought back from Horn of Africa... just purchased a house in WI .. But I still have a legal residence in MN... BLUF (Bottom Line Up-front) it seems that WI is okay with licensing and or transferring a title for a vehicle (Collector or other) as long as the paperwork is in order... B-Way Title tells me that their title paperwork is not accepted by the states of WI, IA, MN, IL etc. Have others had an issue with this?

My military roommate just PCS'd to MD... a state that accepts B-Way Titles... Planned on having him get a MD title and then transfer the MD Title to me here as they (MD) are accepted by WI, IA, IL, MN etc.