Bad News Georgia HMMWV Owners

[jeffy777]

The "Waiver and hold harmless agreement" states
Does not say: unless made road worthy or street legal or something like "agrees that Humvee in its current condition is for off-highway use only
It states
agrees that Humvee is for off-highway use only.
How I read this is that it is for off-road use only, period.
The rest of the form is bla bla that no matter what happens, how it happened, or how good or bad the vehicle is, by signing this agreement the buyer accepts the vehicle "as is" and from hereon forward nobody except the buyer is responsible for anything that happens.

It would be better if they would have split the first point into two separate points but I am not sure if legally it would make much difference.
So some lucky early people legally for high $$$ bought an Humvee that could be titled for on-road, the rest seems to be limited to off-road unless:
- the law changes
- they do some fancy footwork
- through whatever fluke they did not sign any form that includes the "off-road" statement.
According his remarks, Maverick seems to be in the last category.
Other question from a thread from 2011 on this topic. One point is that to make it street legal, any Humvee made after 1997 has to have approved airbags. Don't know what other and older requirements there are, but installing an approved system of airbags seems like a difficult and expensive exercise to me.

Wow ... I did not know that any HMMWV had airbags. Wow... Because it does not say it could be made road worthy means it can never be. So don't eat. Don't drink. There are bunches of laws saying don't eat or drink this or that there is not a single law telling anyone to eat or drink. We here in America are suppose to be free. This means that the laws work the same across the board. It does not mean that you get to extrapolate a hold harmless agreement into a law. It is not a law it is as it is stated 'Hold Harmless Agreement' or for those who don't get it means 'you can't blame me for selling you this crap agreement'.

If I bought a car from a junk yard they probably would say it was salvage, I know someone who did that. The junk yard said it was not road-worthy, made him sign a hold harmless. It was up to him to make it road worthy and the junk yard wanted to held harmless, saying the car was crap. So to your point of view then every car show on TV where they buy and fix up salvage is wrong to do so unless they get written permission that the crap they bought was roadworthy before it was roadworthy. And to your thinking, you also think they need to add airbags(that would be stupid and very dangerous). After a while no one could buy and fix up anything without permission of YOU or maybe presidential permission maybe?

Good luck to you but you could not be more wrong.

 

[Retiredwarhorses]

This entire thread has turned into a rehash of everyone's prior statements.

 

[tomelroy]

The way the HH reads, agreeing that the Humvee is for off-highway use only had a condition precedent: Buyer acknowledges that the Humvee is "not roadworthy".

 

[AdamC2017]

Hi all,
New guy here. You all are way more knowledgeable and experienced in this than I, but I wanted to share my experience so far and see what you all think.

I bought my truck from a person that can buy directly from the gov, so my truck never went through the auction. I did not get a SF97, and never signed a HH. Not sure if the original buyer did or not, but from what I understand and from what has been stated so far, that agreement is between the two individuals involved in that original transaction, therefore I currently own the truck and have in no way agreed to keep it off-road only in any way. I received a bill of sale only when I purchased and was able to get a registration from another state. (Won't go into specifics as I'm not sure if that's allowed or not...).

Anyway, when I took my proof of ownership and current on-road tags/registration to convert them to Michigan where I now reside, they told me there is a "Federal Mandate" restricting any state from registering for on-road use "any prior military hmmwv, regardless of age, model, condition, safety features, etc.". They said if any state has done so in error, they are to notify that state, at which time that state is to rescind the erroneously issued registration.

The way they stated it was basically as if their hands were tied and it was a federal matter they had to follow no matter what.

When I told them mine was not "off-road only" as I never saw that or agreed to it in any way, they simply stated that if it's a hmmwv and was ever owned by the military, it could not be registered for on road use.

Sorry for such a long post...

 

[patracy]

I would like to just say to my fellow Steel Soldiers please quit talking down or negative to our other brothers who are trying to enjoy their MV's legally. Take a breath and see where you can stand behind them. The final outcome of all of this should help all MV owners.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I have cleaned up the thread and removed the needless comments/pictures/exc. I'd ask that the thread moving forward stay to the facts and not emotion/I told you so remarks.

 

[MaverickH1]

Hi all,
New guy here. You all are way more knowledgeable and experienced in this than I, but I wanted to share my experience so far and see what you all think.

I bought my truck from a person that can buy directly from the gov, so my truck never went through the auction. I did not get a SF97, and never signed a HH. Not sure if the original buyer did or not, but from what I understand and from what has been stated so far, that agreement is between the two individuals involved in that original transaction, therefore I currently own the truck and have in no way agreed to keep it off-road only in any way. I received a bill of sale only when I purchased and was able to get a registration from another state. (Won't go into specifics as I'm not sure if that's allowed or not...).

Anyway, when I took my proof of ownership and current on-road tags/registration to convert them to Michigan where I now reside, they told me there is a "Federal Mandate" restricting any state from registering for on-road use "any prior military hmmwv, regardless of age, model, condition, safety features, etc.". They said if any state has done so in error, they are to notify that state, at which time that state is to rescind the erroneously issued registration.

The way they stated it was basically as if their hands were tied and it was a federal matter they had to follow no matter what.

When I told them mine was not "off-road only" as I never saw that or agreed to it in any way, they simply stated that if it's a hmmwv and was ever owned by the military, it could not be registered for on road use.

Sorry for such a long post...

It's likely that the person you spoke with is not a lawyer, and chose words that were not crafted particularly well. The local DMVs absolutely believe that the "Off Road Use Only" stamp on the SF97 is a decree from the Feds. Heck, the letter in my possession from the commissioner of the VA DMV to an ORUO HMMWV owner is evidence of that.

Even if you call GovPlanet, the customer service rep will tell you that all HMMWVs sold are ORUO. Literally every time I called, I had to get the person on the other end to talk to someone higher up about the M1123 trucks to get on the same page that NOT all of them are ORUO.

If the DMV can't provide an actual letter or legal code or something of that nature, I'd challenge that until you get the actual answer. They ALWAYS want to say their hands are tied. It makes it easier.

Just my opinion.

 

[Sintorion]

The "Waiver and hold harmless agreement" states



Does not say: unless made road worthy or street legal or something like "agrees that Humvee in its current condition is for off-highway use only

It states
agrees that Humvee is for off-highway use only.

How I read this is that it is for off-road use only, period.

The rest of the form is bla bla that no matter what happens, how it happened, or how good or bad the vehicle is, by signing this agreement the buyer accepts the vehicle "as is" and from hereon forward nobody except the buyer is responsible for anything that happens.

It would be better if they would have split the first point into two separate points but I am not sure if legally it would make much difference.

So some lucky early people legally for high $$$ bought an Humvee that could be titled for on-road, the rest seems to be limited to off-road unless:
- the law changes
- they do some fancy footwork
- through whatever fluke they did not sign any form that includes the "off-road" statement.

According his remarks, Maverick seems to be in the last category.

Other question from a thread from 2011 on this topic. One point is that to make it street legal, any Humvee made after 1997 has to have approved airbags. Don't know what other and older requirements there are, but installing an approved system of airbags seems like a difficult and expensive exercise to me.

In case you haven't noticed no one at all has said there is any issue between the purchaser and GP. Not one. Why do you keep bringing the HH up? I suggest you read up on the purpose of a HH. It is simply to protect the seller and nothing more. There is no reason to split anything up in the HH because as you should realize it's purpose isn't to serve for anything more than it does and that is to protect them from someone that isn't happy with their purchase. There is no reason for them to put any kind of condition for use because that is not the purpose. The seller has absolutely nothing to do with registering a vehicle.

 

[Al Harvey]

Okay while I would love to own a HMMWV, I'll probably never be able to afford one. But I see many good points from both sides. There is on big thing that has not been brought up and I think is a major factor in this discussion. Everyone is talking about the Hold Harmless agreement between the buyer and seller, but that only protects the seller from the buyer. Not the other parties that are involved.

Basically the state has to side on the err of caution. If you bring in paperwork stating that a vehicle is for off road use only. They have to assume it is not safe for on road use. If they then give you a title and registration to drive it on the road, they can be held liable if you hit and injure or heaven forbid kill someone. Because many lawyers today, when taking on "accident" cases will sue every possible person then can. If they find that a state issued a title for a vehicle that said "off road use only" then the state condoned you to use that vehicle on the highway and that lead to the injury or death. Yes the states love the money from registration, but the number of HMMWVs being registered per state would not cover the losses if found guilty in a civil case.

Now before everyone jumps on home built and gold carts. That shows a way to get by this. Come up with a process for the state to have a HMMWV checked for safe operation and then there is a process to protect the state. They can then say, this vehicle meet the same requirements we use for x, y, and z. That would then solve most of the issues that being raised here. Though this probably would require some bureaucratic action, we have plenty here who are familiar with this type of action and could help.

 

[MaverickH1]

Okay while I would love to own a HMMWV, I'll probably never be able to afford one. But I see many good points from both sides. There is on big thing that has not been brought up and I think is a major factor in this discussion. Everyone is talking about the Hold Harmless agreement between the buyer and seller, but that only protects the seller from the buyer. Not the other parties that are involved.

Basically the state has to side on the err of caution. If you bring in paperwork stating that a vehicle is for off road use only. They have to assume it is not safe for on road use. If they then give you a title and registration to drive it on the road, they can be held liable if you hit and injure or heaven forbid kill someone. Because many lawyers today, when taking on "accident" cases will sue every possible person then can. If they find that a state issued a title for a vehicle that said "off road use only" then the state condoned you to use that vehicle on the highway and that lead to the injury or death. Yes the states love the money from registration, but the number of HMMWVs being registered per state would not cover the losses if found guilty in a civil case.

Now before everyone jumps on home built and gold carts. That shows a way to get by this. Come up with a process for the state to have a HMMWV checked for safe operation and then there is a process to protect the state. They can then say, this vehicle meet the same requirements we use for x, y, and z. That would then solve most of the issues that being raised here. Though this probably would require some bureaucratic action, we have plenty here who are familiar with this type of action and could help.

And this is the confusing part to me in Virginia's case. If they're saying it's an unsafe vehicle, then they're in effect telling me that the Virginia Safety Inspection is not adequate, even for a home built truck. The vehicle already passed the required inspection.

To me, it simply comes down to: "Was the HMMWV designed for road use?" And the answer is simply a "yes". It makes no sense that an LMTV is more road worthy than a HMMWV. It makes no sense that a deuce and a half is more road worthy than a HMMWV.

To put it plainly, if people trying to register their HMMWVs is enough of a force to tip the scales to make the government anti-MV, then MVs are on their way out anyway. The only way this gets fixed is if more people get into the MV world. That's it. In this age of padded dashboards, safety labels on 5 gallon buckets, signs that say they have sharp edges, and so on, the MV days are numbered unless code dictates otherwise.

So I'll start (or perhaps continue)... who has a Federal bill that supports military vehicles in their entirety? There might NEVER be a legislative and executive branch more friendly to our cause than the one we have right now. Let's get the ball rolling. Does anyone have something?

I'm heading to this thread --> http://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthread.php?86308-We-need-a-unified-voice

 

[porkysplace]

Hi all,
New guy here. You all are way more knowledgeable and experienced in this than I, but I wanted to share my experience so far and see what you all think.

I bought my truck from a person that can buy directly from the gov, so my truck never went through the auction. I did not get a SF97, and never signed a HH. Not sure if the original buyer did or not, but from what I understand and from what has been stated so far, that agreement is between the two individuals involved in that original transaction, therefore I currently own the truck and have in no way agreed to keep it off-road only in any way. I received a bill of sale only when I purchased and was able to get a registration from another state. (Won't go into specifics as I'm not sure if that's allowed or not...).

Anyway, when I took my proof of ownership and current on-road tags/registration to convert them to Michigan where I now reside, they told me there is a "Federal Mandate" restricting any state from registering for on-road use "any prior military hmmwv, regardless of age, model, condition, safety features, etc.". They said if any state has done so in error, they are to notify that state, at which time that state is to rescind the erroneously issued registration.

The way they stated it was basically as if their hands were tied and it was a federal matter they had to follow no matter what.

When I told them mine was not "off-road only" as I never saw that or agreed to it in any way, they simply stated that if it's a hmmwv and was ever owned by the military, it could not be registered for on road use.

Sorry for such a long post...

Michigan began this last year and rescinded titles and plates from HMMWV's including trucks sold in the late 90's also. Michigan limits the width of ORV's on state trails to 50 inches in width . On a county by county basis ORV's can be driven on the shoulder of local roads but are banned from any M roads (state hi-ways).

 

[Chief_919]

And this is the confusing part to me in Virginia's case. If they're saying it's an unsafe vehicle, then they're in effect telling me that the Virginia Safety Inspection is not adequate, even for a home built truck. The vehicle already passed the required inspection.

To me, it simply comes down to: "Was the HMMWV designed for road use?" And the answer is simply a "yes". It makes no sense that an LMTV is more road worthy than a HMMWV. It makes no sense that a deuce and a half is more road worthy than a HMMWV.

To put it plainly, if people trying to register their HMMWVs is enough of a force to tip the scales to make the government anti-MV, then MVs are on their way out anyway. The only way this gets fixed is if more people get into the MV world. That's it. In this age of padded dashboards, safety labels on 5 gallon buckets, signs that say they have sharp edges, and so on, the MV days are numbered unless code dictates otherwise.

So I'll start (or perhaps continue)... who has a Federal bill that supports military vehicles in their entirety? There might NEVER be a legislative and executive branch more friendly to our cause than the one we have right now. Let's get the ball rolling. Does anyone have something?

Much of this traces its origins to the fact that AM General got their panties in a wad when the first surplus trucks were sold in the 1990's and sent a letter to every states DMV stating that the military HMMWV series vehicles were never made to meet federal safety standards and were never intended to be licensed and drive by civilian operators, and it told them to not license them.

That put HMMWV's on thier radar.

 

[AdamC2017]

Al Harvey,
I agree with your suggested course of action going forward. If there really is a federal mandate or some type of legal guidance from the federal gov prohibiting the states from registering, we need to find out what it is exactly and who we need to contact to get it overturned. I think your idea of coming up with a process the states could use to protect themselves legally going forward is a great idea as well. Just as with any law, I believe if there are enough citizens in agreement and working toward something that can be logically explained, we can be successful.

 

[AdamC2017]

Chief 919,
I heard this as well - that the whole issue is basically a "non-compete" agreement so the civilian hummers could still bring $$$$$...

 

[Terrh]

All other issues aside, I really don't see how anyone can say that any ex-military vehicles is unsafe for road use when nobody bats an eye about motorcycles that are obviously less safe than anything else. Especially in states that don't require helmets.

Or how a hmmwv can be unsafe, but if you (hypothetically) put the time and effort into making an exact replica of it, titled as a kit car, that would be suddenly be safe enough to use now.

I guess the issue here is that I'm assuming the government will operate with logic, which we all know is not the case. Still, it's frustrating.

(Also not a fan of them being sold in such a manner that special businesses in canada can freely import them to here, but private individuals can't).

Still, an off-road non titleable hmmwv is a whole lot better than nothing at all, even if it's a pain to tow anywhere etc. And if you purchased it knowing that that would be the condition of sale, then you knew it going in and can't really be upset about it after.

On the topic of legality, I should mention in case it isn't known in here, but anything over 21 years old is EPA exempt and anything over 25 years old is FMVSS exempt as well, at least when it comes to vehicles being imported, which is how RHD cars from japan are starting to show up in the USA now.

 

[doghead]

Why is it legal to ride a horse down the road?

No insurance required

No registration needed

No fuel tax

No safety equipment at all.

No lights

No Helmet required

No operator training

No issues with leaving emissions on the road

No federal crash tests

No license required.

 

[Csm Davis]

Hi all,
New guy here. You all are way more knowledgeable and experienced in this than I, but I wanted to share my experience so far and see what you all think.

I bought my truck from a person that can buy directly from the gov, so my truck never went through the auction. I did not get a SF97, and never signed a HH. Not sure if the original buyer did or not, but from what I understand and from what has been stated so far, that agreement is between the two individuals involved in that original transaction, therefore I currently own the truck and have in no way agreed to keep it off-road only in any way. I received a bill of sale only when I purchased and was able to get a registration from another state. (Won't go into specifics as I'm not sure if that's allowed or not...).

Anyway, when I took my proof of ownership and current on-road tags/registration to convert them to Michigan where I now reside, they told me there is a "Federal Mandate" restricting any state from registering for on-road use "any prior military hmmwv, regardless of age, model, condition, safety features, etc.". They said if any state has done so in error, they are to notify that state, at which time that state is to rescind the erroneously issued registration.

The way they stated it was basically as if their hands were tied and it was a federal matter they had to follow no matter what.

When I told them mine was not "off-road only" as I never saw that or agreed to it in any way, they simply stated that if it's a hmmwv and was ever owned by the military, it could not be registered for on road use.

Sorry for such a long post...

Would you please go ask for a copy of said federal mandate and post it here? That's a new one.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[MaverickH1]

Why is it legal to ride a horse down the road?

No insurance required

No registration needed

No fuel tax

No safety equipment at all.

No lights

No Helmet required

No operator training

No issues with leaving emissions on the road

No federal crash tests

No license required.

Because horses were common. And a politician who advocated for restricting the free use of horses would have been drawn and quartered by said horses. But... AUTOMOBILES were owned by the 1%. So it was easy to tax them. Register them. Etc, etc. Divide and conquer is what politicians do best.

You see it at work even in this thread where all people interested in the MV community are picking sides. "Let them screw you over, not me". You see it in the gun industry all over the place.

History repeats itself over and over in all kinds of subtle and not so subtle ways:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

[porkysplace]

Would you please go ask for a copy of said federal mandate and post it here? That's a new one.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

With the Michigan Secratary of State he will most likely need to file FOIA request to get the information and will have to pay for it.

 

[Csm Davis]

With the Michigan Secratary of State he will most likely need to file FOIA request to get the information and will have to pay for it.

He should be given a copy for free if that is what they are citing as reason to not title. And if he ask nice. If they make him pay i will spot him a few bucks

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[swiss]

Gentlemen we need facts and official documents, any other post in this thread is opinion or rambling. I had to give up reading as it was getting bad.

Would love to see official documentation. Letters of denial, federal rulings, state law etc.

If you were denied something ,you have the right in most cases to get in writing from the ruling party, an official answer. It will require the request in most cases in writing.

We were able to change the laws of Georgia by getting the problem in writing.

Way to much opinion in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk