Bad News Georgia HMMWV Owners

[Robo McDuff]

I swear I had a post on this written and submitted, but it disappeared? Probably pushed the wrong button, and now Swiss beat me to the punch line.

As Ron said, don't complain if the states follow the rule and expect you TO FOLLOW THE CONTRACT YOU SIGNED even if its the biggest BS imaginable. Suing states or offices will only upset everybody and they might yank the plug on all MVs. So I vote we saddle up Swiss and get some legal procedures going to see if you can change it. I bet Swiss is jumping at the bit anyway and spoiling for another fight.

opcorn: opcorn:

 

[MaverickH1]

I swear I had a post on this written and submitted, but it disappeared? Probably pushed the wrong button, and now Swiss beat me to the punch line.
As Ron said, don't complain if the states follow the rule and expect you TO FOLLOW THE CONTRACT YOU SIGNED even if its the biggest BS imaginable. Suing states or offices will only upset everybody and they might yank the plug on all MVs. So I vote we saddle up Swiss and get some legal procedures going to see if you can change it. I bet Swiss is jumping at the bit anyway and spoiling for another fight.

My post is in no way intended to be disrespectful or written with any type of emotion towards you...

But my opinion is that DMVs who are acting outside of their authority SHOULD be sued. In my short life, I've already been screwed over by the DMV 3 times (this Humvee being the third). Every person has a different story. Every person is completely unaccountable to anything they may have told you. They refuse to put anything definitive in writing. And it's left to the lowly citizen to take them at their word and make the financial and time burden when leaping into the MV world.

In my case, I've likely spent $30,000 and countless hours getting my M1123 to be road legal, fully operational, and back on a known maintenance schedule. None of that was spent without calling the DMV first and getting their word that all would be good to go before I ever bid, yet when I came in to the offices 4 months later with the paperwork they said I needed they did an about face. H*** no. I'm not going to take that lying down. I'm also not going to be disrespectful to the person behind the desk that is just trying to follow orders.

They refused to let me talk to anyone outside the office. They allowed themselves to run with all of their assumptions and continued to block my efforts. I had to take days off of work to go to another DMV to get titled and registered. They have made 2 or 3 rounds of excuses about why they said "no" that do NOT hold up to any law that they can cite.

I am at the end of this tether, and the very next step if they tell me "no" will be two fold:

1) I will go to attorneys and see if they feel I have standing, if they do I will be contacting the DMV and asking them again "If you are sure about your answer, I have an attorney on retainer who is ready to take this case and I will be suing you for damages." And I will absolutely sue them if they do not change their answer.
2) Simultaneously, I will work through my congressmen to get clear cover for MV owners in our VA code.

Option #2 is going to happen regardless of the DMV's answer. But if Option #2 is the only answer, that means my family has a $30,000 ATV which was never in our budget. Option #2 will likely take years. But it's worth working towards, for sure.

 

[Ddk2001]

You will loose any argument stating that " The DMV has to explain, " The DMV does not have to explain to anyone in most cases. They make an interpretation of the law, if you feel otherwise then it is up to you to explain not vice versa. Here is some additional information on the Federal Law that governs this situation. 1.) Military Vehicles in most cases were not submitted for testing by the manufactures as complying with the FMVSS, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The did not need to do this to fulfill a contract for the Military 2.) The Military has its own safety standards that follow the FMVSS, or exceed, but are different 3.) This is a state issue as the states own the vehicle registration process and interpretation/enforcement of the laws Additional clarification below: Key words are as follows: Certify Compliance, if the manufacturer did not go through the process to certify then according to the current law it is not compliant. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a legislative mandate under Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Regulations to which manufacturers of motor vehicle and equipment items must conform and certify compliance. FMVSS 209 was the first standard to become effective on March 1, 1967. A number of FMVSS became effective for vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1968. Subsequently, other FMVSS have been issued. New standards and amendments to existing standards are published in the Federal Register.In order to sell a motor vehicle in the U.S. market, a vehicle manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets performance requirements specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, or FMVSS. The FMVSS are codified at 49 C.F.R. Part 571, and encompass 73 separate standards that generally focus on crash avoidance, crash worthiness, and post-crash survivability. Various safety standards apply to different vehicle types, including motorcycles, low-speed vehicles,passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (such as vans and sport-utility vehicles), trucks, trailers, and buses (including schoolbuses).

Swiss - I don't think you and I are in any significant disagreement. My questions is this - did they certify the H1 in 1992 as complying with the FMVSSs? They absolutely had to do it to sell them to the public - right? If so - what did they change - from the HMMWV to the H1 - to certify them? My understanding is the military and civilian trucks were put together on the same assembly lines. Between the two (HMMWV and H1) - which of the then-enacted FMVSSs did the HMMWV not meet - that somehow making them 12v with nice dashboards cured? Were the initial H1's FMVSS compliant????

 

[Retiredwarhorses]

The only thing your going to do by sueing is get every other owners title revoked...you need to spend your efforts and money getting a bill passed for former military vehicles. That's what other states have done.
I suggest listening to Swiss on this...the states can do WHAT EVER THEY WANT...period.
i have run into the same here in Calif, it's a 50/50 chance on getting title, with or without SF97.
i know folks have just had a bill of sale and walked out with plates and registration.
i do this for a living, I Can tell you every trip to DMV is a new adventure. This unfortunately is just typical govt bureaucracy, this exists at all levels of Govt.
i always try and get historical plates for my trucks, they have limitations, and I'm fine with that.

 

[Recovry4x4]

Until a DMV explains that difference to me in a logical and rational way - I just continue to believe that the refusal to register these trucks is based on a knee-jerk reaction to dealing with a military vehicle. YMMV. -D

Were this the case, just a knee jerk reaction to dealing with an MV, how would one explain all of the other MVs that were titled and registered?

The HMMWV is a fraction of the hobby and the off road stamp was not "Rubber stamped" by some lowly employee who just didn't want to complete paperwork, this was a condition of the sale to the public. Had this stamp not been completed, the entire sale of these trucks wouldn't have happened.

I would not be surprised if this entire thing doesn't blow up in the end. Just stop an think for a second, offroad only stamp was the condition of the sale. I hope it works out for all the HMMWV guys trying to skirt this but I'm not betting my lunch money on it. The whole "I can register this for on road use" mentality has an air of arrogance.

 

[RDUKW]

This is all very interesting . . .

First - a "group" effort will be tough - as this is really a state-by-state issue. Some state's DMV's issue titles and register the trucks - others do not.

The "Off-Road" stamp on the SF-97 is what appears to be causing the confusion and creating the most difficulty for some DMVs. It really shouldn't mean anything. Let's say I sold a 2015 Ford F-150 to my neighbor - but stamped "Off-Road Use Only" on the title. No doubt - the DMV would title and register the truck for on-road use. I think that stamp is a convenient way for folks to refuse to do the hard work. For better or for worse - I think that's the reality.

I also agree with Clinto about vehicles meeting safety standards at the time they're built. The only potential problem I see here is the H1. What makes a 1992 Hummer H1 different from my 1992 HMMWV M998? My understanding is that the H1's and the HMMWV's were actually built on the same assembly line - just sent for finishing in different buildings. Here's some interesting first-year info about the H1's - http://www.lynchhummer.com/Changes/h1.changes/92/92.html. So - the real problem for states that refuse to title / register a HMMWV will be in the justification for treating them different from, say, a '92 H1. I suspect every state will gladly title and register your 1992 H1 - which is missing all of the safety features in many other cars - a tuck that has the same chassis and drive train as the HMMWV. That's really where the refusal starts to fall apart, in my opinion.

Until a DMV explains that difference to me in a logical and rational way - I just continue to believe that the refusal to register these trucks is based on a knee-jerk reaction to dealing with a military vehicle. YMMV. -D

You better get your facts straight. The Hummer does infact meet a federal standard. Does your HMMWV have a collapsing steering colum, dash crash pad, anti hood decapitation brackets, dot lighting, three point seat belts (most don't) or Side impact protection, no it does not and the Hummer does. Granted the standards for a 1.25 ton truck where light back then the Hummer did meet them.

Also in 1992 there was no "H1" only a Hummer. The H1 did not come about till General Motors got the rights and produced a h1, h2 and h3.

All I can say is go educate yourself before you make a a$$ of yourself and the hobby!

 

[Action]

Were this the case, just a knee jerk reaction to dealing with an MV, how would one explain all of the other MVs that were titled and registered?

The HMMWV is a fraction of the hobby and the off road stamp was not "Rubber stamped" by some lowly employee who just didn't want to complete paperwork, this was a condition of the sale to the public. Had this stamp not been completed, the entire sale of these trucks wouldn't have happened.

I would not be surprised if this entire thing doesn't blow up in the end. Just stop an think for a second, offroad only stamp was the condition of the sale. I hope it works out for all the HMMWV guys trying to skirt this but I'm not betting my lunch money on it. The whole "I can register this for on road use" mentality has an air of arrogance.

x2

why compare these to anything? Who cares what safety features you install on the Humvee. You still bought it for off road use only. You seem to be trying to find excuses to let you drive on the road. You can't go to the DMV and say...well the H1 is on the road, so why cant I?. Were the H1s sold by GP?
I see all this just coming from the OFF ROAD USE ONLY. not for bumpers or airbags, or turn signals, or mirrors.
How many of you had intentions of trying to find a way to get a title when you placed your bid?

m1123 is another story.

 

[RDUKW]

x2

why compare these to anything? Who cares what safety features you install on the Humvee. You still bought it for off road use only. You seem to be trying to find excuses to let you drive on the road. You can't go to the DMV and say...well the H1 is on the road, so why cant I?. Were the H1s sold by GP?
I see all this just coming from the OFF ROAD USE ONLY. not for bumpers or airbags, or turn signals, or mirrors.
How many of you had intentions of trying to find a way to get a title when you placed your bid?

m1123 is another story.

Action, you hit the nail right on the head. Thank you

When the Hmmwv's are purchased from GP you agree to some terms, one of those being the "offroad only". By you going and registering the HMMWV you gambled and went against the terms you agreed to and now your bitching because you got caught. Take your losses and move on. By picking a fight you will only cause problems for ALL of the military vehicle collectors out there!

 

[swiss]

Let's not turn this thread into a bitch fest and lecturing podium please


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Retiredwarhorses]

x2

why compare these to anything? Who cares what safety features you install on the Humvee. You still bought it for off road use only. You seem to be trying to find excuses to let you drive on the road. You can't go to the DMV and say...well the H1 is on the road, so why cant I?. Were the H1s sold by GP?
I see all this just coming from the OFF ROAD USE ONLY. not for bumpers or airbags, or turn signals, or mirrors.
How many of you had intentions of trying to find a way to get a title when you placed your bid?

m1123 is another story.

m1123 is no different, all DMV sees is HMMWV AM general, they could care less about the model.
regardless of the off road only crap....I find it funny how folks have just about any former mil vehicle with titles.
thats what needs to be worked on, not the hmmwv, former military vehicles. This is about preserving history.
and I will say again, this is not for the guys who are pimping there rides. Some level of common sense has to be injected.
im not going to get into the fact that GP sells the very truck that was sold at there own auctions with the ORO restriction and are now titled and selling again in there auctions, they are by all accounts being a bit hypocritical.
the fact that m1123's didn't come with the restrictions tells me it's not a US govt edict....but was the contractual agreement made between GP and DLA.
The fact that Hmmwv's are no raod worthy goes back long before GP sold them to the public, it's now rearing its ugly head because every Tom,dick and harry are walking into DMVs across the country and they are doing a WTF?

The MVPA needs to get involved with this issue IMO...

 

[MaverickH1]

The only thing your going to do by sueing is get every other owners title revoked...you need to spend your efforts and money getting a bill passed for former military vehicles. That's what other states have done.
I suggest listening to Swiss on this...the states can do WHAT EVER THEY WANT...period.
i have run into the same here in Calif, it's a 50/50 chance on getting title, with or without SF97.
i know folks have just had a bill of sale and walked out with plates and registration.
i do this for a living, I Can tell you every trip to DMV is a new adventure. This unfortunately is just typical govt bureaucracy, this exists at all levels of Govt.
i always try and get historical plates for my trucks, they have limitations, and I'm fine with that.

How many people do I have to contact at the DMV to feel comfortable I can spend my hard earned money on a vehicle like this? At what point should they share the burden of their incompetence?

Again, the Virginia DMV's titling supervisor told me they were in the process of revoking Humvee plates, so I do not share the opinion that me not suing will hurt Humvee owners here in the state of VA. Also, I don't want to publicly state what I'm doing with this. I still haven't, but there's a strategy involved.

Can you cite a state where MV privileges were revoked in mass after a lawsuit was filed against that state's DMV?

I'd also like to know how states can "do whatever they want". Quite simply, the DMV is given authority through the Virginia Code. They are not allowed to make up new rules outside of the authority inside that code. Just like the ATF, just like the EPA, just like any government agency. My congressman agrees with me. I'd imagine any legal mind would agree with that assessment, except that the departments are given leeway to interpret what the VA Code is specifying.

The only way that states CAN'T do whatever they want is if their hand is slapped when they over reach their authority. That said, I'll be contacting my congressman again soon to see if I can get a bill started.

For those that don't know, my M1123 was NEVER an "Off Road Use Only" truck. My state is trying to treat it that way.

 

[MaverickH1]

m1123 is no different, all DMV sees is HMMWV AM general, they could care less about the model.
regardless of the off road only crap....I find it funny how folks have just about any former mil vehicle with titles.
thats what needs to be worked on, not the hmmwv, former military vehicles. This is about preserving history.
and I will say again, this is not for the guys who are pimping there rides. Some level of common sense has to be injected.
im not going to get into the fact that GP sells the very truck that was sold at there own auctions with the ORO restriction and are now titled and selling again in there auctions, they are by all accounts being a bit hypocritical.
the fact that m1123's didn't come with the restrictions tells me it's not a US govt edict....but was the contractual agreement made between GP and DLA.
The fact that Hmmwv's are no raod worthy goes back long before GP sold them to the public, it's now rearing its ugly head because every Tom,dick and harry are walking into DMVs across the country and they are doing a WTF?

The MVPA needs to get involved with this issue IMO...

The state of VA is defining it as an "Off Road Vehicle" as defined by VA Code by using the "Off Road Use Only" restriction on the auctions as their precedent. They are claiming "see, the government said it was an off road vehicle!"...

So where does that logic leave them with my M1123? Since it never said "Off Road Use Only" on any document ever, it is therefore not an "Off Road Vehicle". If they argue that it still IS an "Off Road Vehicle", then they have to change their reason WHY since they claimed to base it off of the stamp on the SF97.

Still... Cynthia, Employee ID #52-- at the DMV headquarters titling division specifically went through VA Code with me before I bid and proclaimed that it does not meet the definition of an Off Road Vehicle, and bringing in a clear title means getting a clear title and unrestricted tags. Likewise, my audio recording at the local DMV desk says the same thing before I came in with the paperwork they said I needed.

 

[Sintorion]

Action, you hit the nail right on the head. Thank you

When the Hmmwv's are purchased from GP you agree to some terms, one of those being the "offroad only". By you going and registering the HMMWV you gambled and went against the terms you agreed to and now your bitching because you got caught. Take your losses and move on. By picking a fight you will only cause problems for ALL of the military vehicle collectors out there!

I did not agree to any terms saying that I would only use mine off road and that I wouldn't take the necessary steps to legally register it for on road use. You are completely mistaken if you think that those that are selling these have any care or concern about how these are used once sold. They are listed as off road only to protect themselves. Where they not listed as so I am sure there would be people asking for a refund or demanding that DLA and GP assist them in the process. This is no different than buying a golf cart or an off road motor cycle. You can't go down to your local Honda dealer and buy an XR500 and legally drive it on the street. It is sold for off road use only. It is stated very clearly. You can however buy the necessary parts to get it to comply with standards that will allow you to obtain an on road registration.

This whole issue is about what needs to be done to make it legal, not about how it was sold.

 

[Retiredwarhorses]

The state of VA is defining it as an "Off Road Vehicle" as defined by VA Code by using the "Off Road Use Only" restriction on the auctions as their precedent. They are claiming "see, the government said it was an off road vehicle!"...

So where does that logic leave them with my M1123? Since it never said "Off Road Use Only" on any document ever, it is therefore not an "Off Road Vehicle". If they argue that it still IS an "Off Road Vehicle", then they have to change their reason WHY since they claimed to base it off of the stamp on the SF97.

Still... Cynthia, Employee ID #52-- at the DMV headquarters titling division specifically went through VA Code with me before I bid and proclaimed that it does not meet the definition of an Off Road Vehicle, and bringing in a clear title means getting a clear title and unrestricted tags. Likewise, my audio recording at the local DMV desk says the same thing before I came in with the paperwork they said I needed.

im in no way agreeing with what they are doing...I'm speaking of the bureaucracy. Yes, the govt do whatever they want....at least calif does, what they are beting on is no one will challenge them, that's your prerogative.
ive seen no one else post they have had there titles revoked in your state....

 

[clinto]

They are not allowed to make up new rules outside of the authority inside that code. Just like the ATF, just like the EPA, just like any government agency.

My congressman agrees with me. I'd imagine any legal mind would agree with that assessment, except that the departments are given leeway to interpret what the VA Code is specifying.

They aren't making rules up-they're interpreting the rule differently than you'd like or differently than they should.

Don't take that as me agreeing with them or slamming you-I'm just saying that's how they see this issue.

Ask me about the EPA and "state waters". What constitutes state waters and what doesn't.

 

[porkysplace]

Swiss - I don't think you and I are in any significant disagreement. My questions is this - did they certify the H1 in 1992 as complying with the FMVSSs? They absolutely had to do it to sell them to the public - right? If so - what did they change - from the HMMWV to the H1 - to certify them? My understanding is the military and civilian trucks were put together on the same assembly lines. Between the two (HMMWV and H1) - which of the then-enacted FMVSSs did the HMMWV not meet - that somehow making them 12v with nice dashboards cured? Were the initial H1's FMVSS compliant????

Post #30 pretty much explains the difference , but keep in mind International Harvester used to make pick-up's heavy trucks and farm tractors all on the same line at the same time . So just because they were coming off the same assembly line don't mean they are built the same.

 

[ryanruck]

x2

why compare these to anything? Who cares what safety features you install on the Humvee. You still bought it for off road use only. You seem to be trying to find excuses to let you drive on the road. You can't go to the DMV and say...well the H1 is on the road, so why cant I?. Were the H1s sold by GP?
I see all this just coming from the OFF ROAD USE ONLY. not for bumpers or airbags, or turn signals, or mirrors.
How many of you had intentions of trying to find a way to get a title when you placed your bid?

m1123 is another story.

I can't speak for any other GP HMMWV buyers but I most certainly did not buy mine for off road only use. I bought mine with full intention of operating it on road.

Long before I even registered to bid on Gov Planet, I researched Ohio's state laws for some time to ensure Ohio (like a number of states) allowed off road vehicles to be retitled for on road use. I had zero intention of pissing away $10k+ on a trail toy.

No surprise, I did encounter problems despite the letter of the law being on my side but only because the title change process isn't something that the BMV office drones are used to doing regularly. It took some footwork to find a BMV employee at one of the major BMV offices who was knowledgeable on the procedure but, it was done fully above board and with compliance with all state law. And I've helped at least one other local person get an on road title for their truck using the same procedure.

In the state of Ohio I can do the same thing with a dirtbike, a golf cart, or a rail buggy/truggy should I want to.

Did I break my purchase contract with Gov Planet? Maybe... Maybe not. But that's irrelevant since that is a matter for civil/contract law, should Gov Planet decide to pursue it, not a violation of Ohio Revised Code.

Apparently though, GP doesn't consider it a problem or legal risk since they are allowing trucks with "washed" titles to knowingly be sold on their site.

 

[MaverickH1]

They aren't making rules up-they're interpreting the rule differently than you'd like or differently than they should.
Don't take that as me agreeing with them or slamming you-I'm just saying that's how they see this issue.
Ask me about the EPA and "state waters". What constitutes state waters and what doesn't.

That isn't a full description of the problem, but I'm aware that the DMV starts with that assumption that it IS the problem.

If at the beginning of this, before I had bid, if they had said "Humvees are defined as Off Road Use Only regardless of what stamp is on the SF97", then I'd disagree with them but know that my only recourse would be to try to get that changed through my congressman and most importantly, I would not have purchased a Humvee. Instead, they said what I mentioned above. So the problem isn't that I'd LIKE for them to interpret it differently, the problem is that THEY interpreted it differently.

I dotted every I and crossed every T before doing this and went way above and beyond what a reasonable person would do to make sure they were covered. And I think a court would agree with that. When I was saying that someone would agree with me, I was only referring to the notion that the authority of any department of the government is bound by law and their only leeway is in interpretation of that law.

I had a lot more typed up below this, but I'm going to stop here until this is done.

 

[MaverickH1]

im in no way agreeing with what they are doing...I'm speaking of the bureaucracy. Yes, the govt do whatever they want....at least calif does, what they are beting on is no one will challenge them, that's your prerogative.
ive seen no one else post they have had there titles revoked in your state....

I don't disagree with what you're saying. What I was told is that they were getting ready to send letters out and start the process of revoking plates, they were still in the phase of drawing up the letters.

The reason I responded to you is because I value this site and the people on it. Nobody has helped me more than you have with this project. So I'm trying to explain the rationale behind my actions so if I DO cause problems for others, it can be seen that I was definitely not trying to. I don't want to share my full thoughts until this is resolved, though.

 

[Ddk2001]

You better get your facts straight. The Hummer does infact meet a federal standard. Does your HMMWV have a collapsing steering colum, dash crash pad, anti hood decapitation brackets, dot lighting, three point seat belts (most don't) or Side impact protection, no it does not and the Hummer does. Granted the standards for a 1.25 ton truck where light back then the Hummer did meet them.
Also in 1992 there was no "H1" only a Hummer. The H1 did not come about till General Motors got the rights and produced a h1, h2 and h3.
All I can say is go educate yourself before you make a a$$ of yourself and the hobby!

I've read they changed the steering column to a Ford LTD column (I believe) - but have not seen other safety related changes. Yes- I've got 3-point belts at the corners and DOT lighting.

Most things out there refer to the AMG trucks, pre-H2, as the H1. But whatever. You cleary win the Internet tough guy award today.