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

[undysworld]

The reason I chose the cutoff of 15,000 was to at least try and include the deuces in the "small" group.

The legislative session is ending around the end of March. It's now, or next year...

Why are they trying to change anything?

WisDOT suddenly changed their policy, with no change in state statutes, in Dec. '06. The first cancellation was Aug. '07.

Is the current legislation failing to protect the community or causing problems?

The current legislation is A) to provide DOT with statutory authority to do what they've already begun doing: (cancel us) or B) to protect us from the DOT (depending on which bill you're talking about.

Is the current legislation failing to protect the community or causing problems?

Failing to protect. Read above about DOT's actions.

Just another beatup by someone with a personal agenda, no doubt.

Yes, and his name is Paul Nilsen, WisDOT Asst. Gen. Counsel, for one. I think you would also include Lynn Judd, DMV Admin., and a few others there. Watch the hearing video, and then sit back and enjoy the comments made by the Senate Trans. Comm. Chair and other Senators. "A chip on your shoulders" was how Sen. Holperin stated it. (It's nice not to have to say it myself.)

Get the elected representatives to throw the whole lot out.... why compromise?

I don't know if this is possible. But I agree, FWIW.

[undysworld]

An update on the two bills' progress:

A meeting was held at the State Capitol today by the Senate Trans. Comm. Chair, Sen. Holperin.

The bottom line is that both bills will likely advance toward Sen. Trans. Comm. votes.

SB-404 (this is AB-592) appears to be likely unchanged. It is supported by the WisDOT. When I can do so, I will post a link to the actual final document. Here is the current version: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB-404.pdf

SB-392 will be amended so as to effect Pinzgauers only. It is not supported by the WisDOT. Again, I will post a link to the actual finall document. It will change.

Both bills must also gain Assembly passage to advance.

They then must also get Gov. Doyle's signature to become law.

More comments to come I'm sure. Dad duties required for now.

Paul

[Kevin Lockwood]

SB404........ SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Where's McCauliffe when we need him? Somebody in Wisconsin needs to tell these %^&#@*s NUTS!!!!!!!

[gerrykan]

SB404........ SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Where's McCauliffe when we need him? Somebody in Wisconsin needs to tell these %^&#@*s NUTS!!!!!!!

Agreed!
I don't see how the MVPA or Military Vehicles Magazine could support this bill.
This hobby is a lot more than just maintaining museum pieces.

[Cat Man]

OK, I gotta push back here.

After spending the last two and half years working on this issue, day and night. I'd like it wish that each and everyone of you big talkers someday have the same oppertunity. Posting on the internet is easy. Pounding the halls of the state capitol and lobbying for a change in state law is not.

You'll find out just how the whole thing works. And we'll see if you're still talking so big then. Did I see you at the public hearings?

By the way. The last time I looked, MVPA stands for Military Vehicle PRESERVATION Association. Not the association of military daily drivers and not the association of commercial military truck operators.

It seems lost on people here, that we are not giving up anything. We are working to gain legal protection by changing state law. No easy task.

The key is the fact that in Wisconsin there has been a LAW on the books for many years that can and is now being used to prevent military vehicles from being registered. We have been lucky for many years. The dumb ass people who build a motorized bar stool, drive it down the street - drunk and crash into a light post caused the DOT to start cracking down on all vehicles.

We have more work to do. Yes the Assembly bills AB592 and SB404 are not perfect and do have restriction. The legislature is giving use two years under the bills (if passed) to demonstrate that the vehicles are safe. We will have to show them and then lobby for less restriction in the future.

I was asked by the MVPA and MV Magazine and the MV clubs in WI to spearhead the effort. I'm committed to that cause.

For the members from Wisconsin, not supporting the current bills means do nothing and supports the DOT banning MV's. If the bills are not passed by March , they die and it will be two years until the committee will hear new legislation. In that time your registration could be canceled. So which side are you really on?

Cat Man

[Kevin Lockwood]

Just for the record,
NO big talk here, I and others including topkick, WON this battle in Kansas. We preserved the right of MV owners to do what MV owners have done for eighty years, WORK their MVs. I know some folks are content to blow the dust off their MV but I didn't buy mine to dress it up as a parade queen. This weekend I am using the M3 halftrack winch to pull some old car bodies out of the neighbor's creek. My WC54 has hauled my wife's fancy parlor furniture. On a monthly basis I call on my best customers driving a 42 GPW (well in fair weather anyway).
To me MVPA means more than preserving vehicles as monuments. Fact is if these vehicles, past and present, had not been valuable as WORK vehicles we as MV owners would have very very few MVs to preserve. Ninety-nine percent of MVs were NOT purchased initially as collector vehicles. Laws such as what this bill might become will discourage any future purchase of MVs. If this had been in place in 1930?? Perish the thought.
In Kansas we have walked the halls. We met with the DMV and initially tried to teach them that restrictions were not necessary. In the end they were recognized as the enemy. We beat them, beat them good. Here's hoping that a loss in Wisconsin will not empower other state's directors to attempt draconian policies such as this.
This all said I am not bashing you personally. I recognize that I am not there. I, as well as topkick and other Kansan's, would loved to have helped. We may have not been able to do any better.
BUT this bill still SUCKS!!!!! no matter who was involved.

Kevin Lockwood

[artificer]

The legislature is giving use two years under the bills (if passed) to demonstrate that the vehicles are safe. We will have to show them and then lobby for less restriction in the future.

Shouldn't it be up to the legislature to prove the vehicles are dangerous....not the other way round. Most vehicles which have been previously registered can be re-registered in most civilized states

[Kevin Lockwood]

You are right on target John. I have been saying this for months. There is no problem . There is no data to support the problem that does not exist. This is a overstep by a director. Make them prove the case. The same attempt was made in Kansas and we continually asked them to define, demonstrate or specify what the issue/problem was. One of the high spots was during a committee meeting the Chairman of Transportation State Representative asked the director exactly that. She had no clear response and he informed her that she was wasting alot of taxpayer time/resources by pursuing unfounded and non-existant problems.
Kevin Lockwood

[gerrykan]

After spending the last two and half years working on this issue, day and night. I'd like it wish that each and everyone of you big talkers someday have the same oppertunity. Posting on the internet is easy. Pounding the halls of the state capitol and lobbying for a change in state law is not.

Yes, talking on the internet is easy. Not being a Wisconsin resident precludes me from any influence on the WI legislators, and that is frustrating. I make sure my elected officials know where I stand on critical issues.

By the way. The last time I looked, MVPA stands for Military Vehicle PRESERVATION Association. Not the association of military daily drivers and not the association of commercial military truck operators.

The last time I looked VEHICLE stands for:
1. any means in or by which someone travels or something is carried or conveyed; a means of conveyance or transport: a motor vehicle; space vehicles.
2. a conveyance moving on wheels, runners, tracks, or the like, as a cart, sled, automobile, or tractor. ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vehicle )

It seems lost on people here, that we are not giving up anything. We are working to gain legal protection by changing state law. No easy task.
The key is the fact that in Wisconsin there has been a LAW on the books for many years that can and is now being used to prevent military vehicles from being registered. We have been lucky for many years. The dumb ass people who build a motorized bar stool, drive it down the street - drunk and crash into a light post caused the DOT to start cracking down on all vehicles.

The same rules apply as in gun rights, just because someone builds an illegal machine gun, you do not lay down and give up your legal semiautomatic rifle.

The legislature is giving use two years under the bills (if passed) to demonstrate that the vehicles are safe. We will have to show them and then lobby for less restriction in the future.

Show them what? That a vehicle that is rarely allowed to leave its garage is not a menace to society?

I was asked by the MVPA and MV Magazine and the MV clubs in WI to spearhead the effort. I'm committed to that cause.

Speaking as an MVPA member: "I am not impressed by your actions."

For the members from Wisconsin, not supporting the current bills means do nothing and supports the DOT banning MV's. If the bills are not passed by March , they die and it will be two years until the committee will hear new legislation. In that time your registration could be canceled. So which side are you really on?

I agree with you totally. Stand up and be counted or don't bitch about losing the ability to enjoy DRIVNG your vehicle in the future.

[Cobra Doc]

It seems lost on people here, that we are not giving up anything. We are working to gain legal protection by changing state law. No easy task.
The key is the fact that in Wisconsin there has been a LAW on the books for many years that can and is now being used to prevent military vehicles from being registered. We have been lucky for many years. The dumb ass people who build a motorized bar stool, drive it down the street - drunk and crash into a light post caused the DOT to start cracking down on all vehicles.

The same rules apply as in gun rights, just because someone builds an illegal machine gun, you do not lay down and give up your legal semiautomatic rifle.

The issue is the same, people who don't like something, or are afraid of it, want to deprive the many people who like and want those items, and use them, on a regular basis, safely and without criminal or terrorist intent or outcome. The want to limit the use and availability, drive the price up to where only the Rich Elite or museums can afford to own them, and then ban them outright for the common citizen. I tried to make that point earlier, that the HMV banners are using the EXACT SAME tactic the gun banners have been using, and if all don't stand together those Military Vehicles which we all strongly believe that we should have the ability to register and drive on public roads, regardless of where we live, will slowly be restricted out of existence, just as is the goal of gun control.

The legislature is giving use two years under the bills (if passed) to demonstrate that the vehicles are safe. We will have to show them and then lobby for less restriction in the future.

Show them what? That a vehicle that is rarely allowed to leave its garage is not a menace to society?

How did that work with Machine Guns, (NFA Definition)? For 50 YEARS it was demonstrated that legally owned machine guns are safe. The results? The 1986 ban on Machine Guns, leaving only those currently registered to be legal to own/transfer.

There are some who will not see the similarity between the issues of guns, ("no other use than to make it easier to kill people"), and Military Vehicles, ("vehicles designed for war are meant for only one purpose, to facilitate killing while protecting those doing the killing") (Controller quotes.)

[Kevin Lockwood]

Paul, Jeff, John, Roy, Cobradoc
All of us want to preserve our ability to enjoy MVs. Preserve apparently means different things to some of us.
Kansan's have fought this fight and won it. I am proud of the fact we are unrestricted in our use of MVs.
I have added more than my two cents to these WisDOT discussions and acknowledge that I am not from Wisconsin. My suggestion to those from Wis. that truly want to further the preservation of MVs is this.
Best Choice:
Admit that SB404 is the enemies sanctioned plan. Oppose it. See if we can work with Sen Erpanbach and push his bill as it is already on the legislative calendar. A divided front has cost us greatly in this fight.

Second Choice:
Abandon SB404 and hope it dies a withering death on a committee table. I know DOT has threatened they will discontinue registering MVs. Well I understand that we already have a favorable ruling against DOT actions. If they pursue this threat than take the case back to the judge and have him force them to comply with his ruling.
During the interim draft our own bill favorable to us. I know this will not make the DOT happy. Then push it through next session.

If we allow SB404 to become law we are allowing DOT to set several dangerous precedents.
First they are using a law that effects off-road vehicles which MVs are NOT. If we allow them to class us as off-road that is BAD. Second we are being culled from the herd of other motor vehicles and separated as a special class. NOT GOOD. Cobradoc has it right these are tactics of the anti-gunners.
I closed with this earlier.
Gun owners have painfully learned the folly of compromise. I hope MV owners are fast learners.
Kevin Lockwood

[Cobra Doc]

I'm not asking anyone to oppose gun control, just look at what has happened and realize that the controller faction is using the same tactics used by the controller faction in the gun-control arena, and fight it before it goes as far as gun control has.

[undysworld]

A public hearing was held by the Assembly Transportation Committee today to hear comments about SB-392/AB404 (Sen. Erpenbach's bill).

Rep. Pope-Roberts introduced amendment #1, to narrow the scope of the bill to Pinzgauers only. The #2 amendment, to also include Kayser M715 Jeeps was not introduced at this time. (?)

The DOT's Carson Frazier presented the department's opposition, which sounded pretty lame to be honest. When asked, she was unable to provide any accident statistics. She also was unable to answer whether any other US states are currently pursuing such restrictions. When asked whether DOT was following some federal directive, she answered no, not in either direction. No federal mandate to either keep or remove milvehs from US highways.

She pointed to the recent news of the snows out east, and the fact that the Natl. Guard was using Humvees to get around, since nothing else could, as proof that Humvees were not fit to be on the roads.

Rep. Petrowski pointed out that he had a 4x4 pickup with big tires so he could get around anywhere. What was the matter with that? IIRC, Petrowski listed off at least Jeeps, pickups, Humvees, and Pinzgauers as vehicles which are small enough that he saw no reason why they should be limited to parade-only registration.

It was a bad day to be the DOT point-girl.

To my surprise, the only person (besides the DOT) to speak against this bill was Jeff Rowsam. Hopefully he will weigh in here with his thoughts.

I remember that one of Jeff's concerns was the "slippery slope" of having some sort of "approved" list. Personally, I think an approved list is far from ideal, but still lots better than having all milvehs restricted to parade, etc. uses.

I suggest that the precedent of having some milvehs allowed unrestricted operation is a better precedent to set than that of having all milvehs limited to parade functions.

In either case, it appears as if both bills will be up for further debate and review before the full houses. They will change, at least some.

Hey you guys in WISCONSIN!! If you don't get up off your butts, don't expect any great changes to occur.

I've pushed again as hard as I can. There is a lot of interest and support right now in our legislature for a positive change.

Call Jeff Rowsam, if he represents your collector group, and tell him if you support his position, or tell him if you disagree.

Call your elected representatives. If you're reading this, you can Google them too. If you still have trouble finding them, call the FBI (no, just joking there, call me, if you have to). VISIT your Senator and Assembly Rep. and tell them what you think.

Paul

[Ben Dover]

The Wisconsin collectors have a good representative in Jeff Rowsam, he focused on the overall topic and not the hype. The problem appears that the Legislature and those State of Wisconsin Departments are not all on the same page.

[undysworld]

Hey! A THIRD amendment has been introduced to the Erpenbach bill (SB-392/AB-589), so the bill now includes Pinzgauers, Kaiser M715 Jeeps, and Humvees (over 22 years old).

Here's the link to the amendment: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB392-SA3.pdf

Some thoughts:

Again, an "approved list" is not an ideal situation, but if that's what it takes in order to allow at least some milvehs to be operated for normal private uses, that's better than being "parade-only", IMHO. Then it's a matter of adding other deserving vehicles to the list, and that's already happened.

This bill does not further support DOT's (mis-)interpretation of 341.10(6) Wis. Stats., as Sen. Zigmunt's bill does (SB-404/AB-592). (This absurd interpretation is the crux of everyone's problem, and needs to be clarified, with help of a judge if necessary.)

This bill, with the amendments, is reportedly also supported now by the Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Decker. This has some substantial legislative support.

For those of us who want to be able to LEGALLY take our trucks to the lumber yard, or a drive-in, or to go camping, this bill is way better than 404/592. For owners who only drive their trucks for parades, etc., I'm glad you've gotten 404/592 so far.

But whether your milveh is listed under SB-392/AB-589 or not, your opinion matters. Please do not oppose this bill. It would be great if you supported it, and I'd suggest that there are several good reasons to do this. But at a minimum, don't register your opposition to this.

If we aren't going to kill both of the bills, and fight this out with DOT in court, then let's at least try our best to secure the least restrictive options for as many milveh owners as we can. If it ends up being only the 3 listed on this bill, for now, then so be it. Let's get what we can.

But let's also get organized for the next legislative session next year, and see what we can accomplish then...

Paul