taboo to talk

[doghead]

its important to note the tense of the verbage. "the Humvee (sic) is not roadworthy, and the Humvee (sic) is for off highway use only" This is a current tense, and not a future tense. It relates to the current state of the vehicle not a future state. These lawyers knew exactly what they were crafting.

Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. ... If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".

 

[jeffy777]

its important to note the tense of the verbage. "the Humvee (sic) is not roadworthy, and the Humvee (sic) is for off highway use only" This is a current tense, and not a future tense. It relates to the current state of the vehicle not a future state. These lawyers knew exactly what they were crafting.

And if they wanted they could for no money they put verbiage on their agreement that say "the Humvee is not roadworthy and never can become; and the Humvee is for off highway use only and can never be made useful for the highway" ... but they never said that. I deal with lawyers every day. And they state stuff normally two ways and set all tense and term limits. It was not done therefore they simply are making sure not to falsely represent the product they are selling; it comes to the buyer to make roadworthy and able to meet highway standards. It is up to the buyer therefore to get it to meet those codes in the states they are in.

I studied these laws and asked my attorney if my tactics were lawful to get plates. He stated that as long as (speaking for Virginia but probably exactly the same in every state) I do not misrepresent the vehicle in any way that when or if the state gave you plates you are lawful. Then he said, as far as he knows any state can change there mind and request the plates back if they feel it is a problem. He said he does not think that will happen.

 

[Behr]

I completely agree. I deal with legal language all day for work. Legal language can be very specific or very vague. I belive the lauguage is vague on purpose to give the states and local authority the power to enforce in any way they feel. Remember all legal language is interpreted in its "broadest reasonable interpretation". What this means is that you don't read things into the language that are not there. The word mean what they mean as broadly as you can interpret them as long as you are reasonably defining the words as their accepted meaning.

 

[98G]

And if they wanted they could for no money they put verbiage on their agreement that say "the Humvee is not roadworthy and never can become; and the Humvee is for off highway use only and can never be made useful for the highway" ... but they never said that. I deal with lawyers every day. And they state stuff normally two ways and set all tense and term limits. It was not done therefore they simply are making sure not to falsely represent the product they are selling; it comes to the buyer to make roadworthy and able to meet highway standards. It is up to the buyer therefore to get it to meet those codes in the states they are in.

I studied these laws and asked my attorney if my tactics were lawful to get plates. He stated that as long as (speaking for Virginia but probably exactly the same in every state) I do not misrepresent the vehicle in any way that when or if the state gave you plates you are lawful. Then he said, as far as he knows any state can change there mind and request the plates back if they feel it is a problem. He said he does not think that will happen.

But that has happened. Idaho, for example, revoked plates and titles that had been issued to GP hmmwvs. In some instances, the vehicles had been transferred a couple of times since titling, and the 3rd or 4th owner , who had bought the vehicle as an on-road hmmwv at a much higher price, found themselves with a non driveable vehicle.

What we have now can't possibly work - identical vehicles are sometimes OK for on road use, and sometimes not. How can poor LEO be expected to differentiate? I predict we'll see a blanket ruling one way or the other. I'm holding off on a hmmwv until that happens as I don't want to be stuck with something I can't drive...

 

[porkysplace]

But that has happened. Idaho, for example, revoked plates and titles that had been issued to GP hmmwvs. In some instances, the vehicles had been transferred a couple of times since titling, and the 3rd or 4th owner , who had bought the vehicle as an on-road hmmwv at a much higher price, found themselves with a non driveable vehicle.

What we have now can't possibly work - identical vehicles are sometimes OK for on road use, and sometimes not. How can poor LEO be expected to differentiate? I predict we'll see a blanket ruling one way or the other. I'm holding off on a hmmwv until that happens as I don't want to be stuck with something I can't drive...

Michigan is revolking titles and plates HWWMV's as well including ones sold in the 1999 sale .

 

[Ddk2001]

But that has happened. Idaho, for example, revoked plates and titles that had been issued to GP hmmwvs. In some instances, the vehicles had been transferred a couple of times since titling, and the 3rd or 4th owner , who had bought the vehicle as an on-road hmmwv at a much higher price, found themselves with a non driveable vehicle.

Has this been documented anywhere? I've searched for stories about title and registration "revocations" and can't find anything on the interweb. Not saying it hasn't happened - I'm wondering whether this is more folklore than reality . . . My HMMWV is titled and registered/plated - and insured through a major nationwide insurance company.

 

[Behr]

If it has happened I don't understand why the state isn't tied up in lawsuits forever costing them tons of money. If the state tries to take my registration and plates away without a very solid reasoning and without the ability for me to bring my vehicle up to their standards. I will sue them and bring this as far up as I can in the courts.

 

[Behr]

Remember, the state works for us. Can't see how they have a case to restrict the hmmwv and not other vehices. Once again how is a hmmwv less safe than a motorcyle, golf cart, roadster ect. Also, I can understand emmissions, but then I should be able to fix this.

 

[porkysplace]

If it has happened I don't understand why the state isn't tied up in lawsuits forever costing them tons of money. If the state tries to take my registration and plates away without a very solid reasoning and without the ability for me to bring my vehicle up to their standards. I will sue them and bring this as far up as I can in the courts.

Read this ;
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Humvee_Info_Letter_526983_7.pdf

[h=1]SF-97 Gov Planet to stop providing them ?[/h]

 

[ke5eua]

Read this ;
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Humvee_Info_Letter_526983_7.pdf

The date on that is 2016. It also states the site as ironplanet.

If they are revoking registration from the '99 sale then a lawsuit can be made as this only applies to the current sale.


Also kind of irks me that the put humvee instead of the actual nomenclature hmmwv that's shown on the sf-97.

Also if someone comes in that got one from the '99 sale that wants too transfer the title because they moved, and Michigan revokes an on road title and forces them to an off road title based on the current sale restrictions then how is that legal?

Say you registered and titled the vehicle before the date on this memo. You come up for renewal and they revoke it. How is that legal based on you titled and registered it before this memo came out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rhurey]

I don't see how it would be any different than all these golf carts, side by sides etc getting tagged.
Like 1 Partiot-of-many stated my insurance company requires pics & they KNOW what they are insuring.

Weight. WA would tag it if it was under 2K lbs. Off-road with occasional on-road use is fine, but the laws around it put a weight cap.

 

[Tornadogt]

The Michigan memo says quote "
The principal reason the federal government limits ex-military Humvees for off-road use only is because they are not street legal due to not being manufactured to U.S. EPA emissions standards and U.S. DOT standards for on-road use in the United States. "
End quote.

Wouldn't it be easy enough to address both these issues. Get the truck Emission tested (and passes) then go through a DOT full inspection (and passes). At that point Michigan should no longer have any objection to this trucks and a Michigan resident will be doing his civic duties by addressing and complying with his/hers states laws. If there are any kind of letters of denial or rejections must be accompanied by a valid reason for the denial. A responsible owner will do what is necessary to address the valid reason or site why the reason is not valid.

 

[Behr]

That's exactly what CO told me. So what did I do, I took it and passed an emissions test. Not the visual one either. I found a shop that had equipment to handle my hmmwv, took some calling around but found one. Once I had this the state really had no reason to reject me. Took some polite arguing but I took all their reasoning away for them to reject me. I also told them I would not stop climbing the chain of command until I had to take it to court, because I respectively disagreed with their position on the manner. What happend... I got registered.

 

[doghead]

So, you guys have collapsible steering columns, reflective marker and taillights that are dot approved? Crash rated bumpers? Crumple zones that meet fed standards? Side door bracing for side impact collisions? Pass rollover tests?

The list goes on...

Just because some guy says it's ok, does not make it right.

https://icsw.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/

 

[ryanruck]

So, you guys have collapsible steering columns, reflective marker and taillights that are dot approved? Crash rated bumpers? Crumple zones that meet fed standards? Side door bracing for side impact collisions? Pass rollover tests?

The list goes on...

Just because some guy says it's ok, does not make it right.

Do any of the vehicles in your signature have said equipment and test certifications?

3-car Crash Kills St. George Man Driving Surplus Military Truck



(And yes, I know the victim was a member here. RIP )


ETA: And since you edited to add the link to FMVSS, we've already established in this thread that military vehicles are exempt from FMVSS and are not required to be brought up to FMVSS standards. I think you know this though and are being antagonistic on purpose.

 

[Behr]

Does my 1965 chevy have those features? My harley? My roadster I build in my shop.. the list goes on.

 

[tomelroy]

Exempt after 25 years on the epa and dot requirements

 

[ke5eua]

Do any of the vehicles in your signature have said equipment and test certifications?

3-car Crash Kills St. George Man Driving Surplus Military Truck

(And yes, I know the victim was a member here. RIP )

Pretty petty using someone's death to try and make your point.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Behr]

Big brother should not dictate our lives. Freedom brother

 

[doghead]

This discussion is solely about the humvee.

Stay on track.

And just because I have them in my sigline does not mean I drive them on the road.