Colorado Bill SB19-054 RE: (Former) Military Vehicle Motor Vehicle Regulation

[USN_Green_Addict]

According to several DMVs they have said that from the state DMV office no FMVs or HMVs are allowed on the road period. The only way is to lie and get historic plates for a similar non-military vehicle.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

 

[ramack]

Ajax,
That's my point. If it was done on the federal level, that would be effecting ALL states not just Colorado.
Thanks for Dave's info, will do. I don't have any MV vehicles that are title-able, but it's just the principle here.

 

[hndrsonj]

I didn't see anything removing "Historical Military Vehicles" in that signed law. Looks like someone is over-reaching their authority. I'd be making a lot of calls to my representatives if I lived in Colorado.

 

[USN_Green_Addict]

I didn't see anything removing "Historical Military Vehicles" in that signed law. Looks like someone is over-reaching their authority. I'd be making a lot of calls to my representatives if I lived in Colorado.

That was the purpose of the phone call. I explained to them I have. historical Military vehicle and I want to register it. I pointed out on their paper and the law that it said Historical Military Vehicles are exempt. Thats when She said she didn't know and would have to contact the state level supervisor. Then after I got the message.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

 

[undysworld]

Banning any vehicle that was manufactured for the US armed forces will include several "civilian" vehicles, including Dodge pickups and Chevrolet pickups, blazers and impalas, as they were all used by our military.

In fact, an appeal hearing was held in Wisconsin over a 1985 Blazer which WisDOT/DMV refused to register. Unbelievably, we initially lost. However, upon discovering the above mentioned MIL-STD-1180, we got the case reopened and eventually overturned. (See Wis. Dept. of Admin., Div. of Hearings and Appeals case TR-11-0016.)

That was the appeal case that first recognized the significance of the MIL-STD document as proving that vehicles manufactured for the US military are required to meet equipment standards that are identical to FMVSS equipment standards.

From what I read, all these "civilian" vehicles are now prohibited from registration. How does Colorado plan to address this issue?

 

[USN_Green_Addict]

Do you have a link to that document?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

 

[Ajax MD]

Do you have a link to that document?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

That's a good question. I'll contact Mr. Demorrow and see how we can get copies of this. It doesn't easily populate when Google'd.

 

[USN_Green_Addict]

If Dave has it. I can message or call him.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

 

[Ajax MD]

@Taborljoshua Dave just sent it to me in .pdf form.

 

[TMOMW]

hello, have not been here in a few days... wow.
AMVO (on facebook) has tons of documents that can help anyone fight this, we are currently winning in KS, MI, NJ... and have had the rules changed in AK, and other places including on the FED lvl. let us know what you need to fight this... you will need to start now with state house and senate leaders... NOW

 

[USN_Green_Addict]

Im using the Tapatalk app and it says I don't have access to view the pdf

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

 

[Ajax MD]

Im using the Tapatalk app and it says I don't have access to view the pdf

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

PM me an email address that I can send it to.

 

[41cl8m5]

I have some info about this topic, It seems AM General desided to send letters to all the government entities in charge of the States DMV about road worthiness of military vehicles being auctioned off and by other means finding there way into the hands of individuals. That these vehicles were never ment to be used on the highway system and were designed for military duty and use. So in the case of Colorado, the Department of Revenue over sees the State DMV and made the memo that all has seen. Now if the vehicles has a 17 digit vin number that was started around 1984 then you should not have any issues titling or registering like the CUCVs because the 17 digit vin number is standard Highway use for that year from what the Dept. of Rev. told me. Now most other vehicles that were only produced for the military will not have a vin number they have a serial number and the Department knows of this.
Yes, it was a blanket decision. It is sad that this happened. It also looks like California is looking the same way. The Department of Revenue says they are just following what Illinois has done. Kinda sounds like the flu.

 

[undysworld]

Also to answer your question they probably don't plan to address it. In Denver metro, and colorado Springs there are lots of hippies, global warming , and left wing, plus antifa people here. They would rather ban diesel and old vehicles as a whole. This is where we have to fight to say no its not ok to take this away.

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

FYI, I am those people (hippy, climate change believer, left wing, and I don't like racists nor fascists) and I have been fighting to preserve the registration rights for former military vehicles for over a decade now. Google me if you doubt me.

If you decide to make this a one-party fight, fine, but it doesn't help your cause when you insult people.

 

[undysworld]

I have some info about this topic, It seems AM General desided to send letters to all the government entities in charge of the States DMV about road worthiness of military vehicles being auctioned off and by other means finding there way into the hands of individuals. That these vehicles were never ment to be used on the highway system and were designed for military duty and use. So in the case of Colorado, the Department of Revenue over sees the State DMV and made the memo that all has seen. Now if the vehicles has a 17 digit vin number that was started around 1984 then you should not have any issues titling or registering like the CUCVs because the 17 digit vin number is standard Highway use for that year from what the Dept. of Rev. told me. Now most other vehicles that were only produced for the military will not have a vin number they have a serial number and the Department knows of this.
Yes, it was a blanket decision. It is sad that this happened. It also looks like California is looking the same way. The Department of Revenue says they are just following what Illinois has done. Kinda sounds like the flu.

Can anyone here produce such a letter from AM General? I've heard of one for several years, but I'm not sure it actually existed or if it was an assumption.

I have seen letters from various states' agencies (DMV, DOT, Dept. of Revenue, etc.) that referenced a document by Govt. Liquidation (IIRC) that stated the Humvees were not registerable, but that document wasn't from AM General nor was it from the US govt.

Has anybody here ever actually seen the AM General letter? I'd love to get a copy.

 

[98G]

Can anyone here produce such a letter from AM General? I've heard of one for several years, but I'm not sure it actually existed or if it was an assumption.

I have seen letters from various states' agencies (DMV, DOT, Dept. of Revenue, etc.) that referenced a document by Govt. Liquidation (IIRC) that stated the Humvees were not registerable, but that document wasn't from AM General nor was it from the US govt.

Has anybody here ever actually seen the AM General letter? I'd love to get a copy.

It's on here somewhere. I've seen it as an attachment.

 

[USN_Green_Addict]

I just emailed Mr. Dixon head of the Colorado DMV. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/leadership-bios.

According to bio he is a veteran. I hope that perhaps that can result in a common ground so we can discuss how the bill has adverse affects on the state of Colorado, as well as what his views are on the bill. Any suggestions or ideas on going forward with dicussions with him?

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

 

[m1010plowboy]

I'm a green earth lovin' bald, cigarette butt trash pickin', anti-pollution MVironmentalist hippy, fulfilling a societal role, preserving the cultural memories of the very reason this continent exists , mostly, in Freedom today. I can't save the soldiers but I can save a representation of what carried my brothers and sisters, so I, can stand in freedom, on North American soils. We don't promote war. We've lost enough life to war already. We recall war, visually, with hope we never need return, but we can never forget.

One copy of an AM General letter is in this thread. https://www.steelsoldiers.com/threads/mv-illegal-on-highway-in-canada-quebec.190107/

Post 56 on this page. https://www.steelsoldiers.com/threads/mv-illegal-on-highway-in-canada-quebec.190107/page-3

 

[wyowillys46]

Hey all. Never posted on SS before, but I lurk the forums occasionally, know many military vehicle owners, and have been following this issue as it is nearly a "takings" issue in my opinion that amounts to the loss of use of tens of thousands of dollars worth of vehicles.

CO-HB1170 sponsored by Steve Humphrey, Vicki Marble, and others is coming up tomorrow March 4th for a House Transportation & Local Government Hearing in Room LSB-A at 1330. The bill is pretty simple and seems to fix the situation.

SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 42-4-109.7 as follows: 42-4-109.7. Military vehicles A SURPLUS MILITARY VEHICLE OR MILITARY VEHICLE MAY BE DRIVEN ON A ROADWAY.

https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1187054

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020A/bills/2020a_1170_01.pdf

I'm out of town for work and can't be present. I know it's extremely last minute, but I'm hoping at least one person here can. Hopefully we can show some support in person for the committee meetings (are they open meetings?), and keep up with the bills progress to prevent any malicious strikes and/or replacements of wording as with happened with the last bill. I am wondering if it needs an addition to remove SURPLUS MILITARY VEHICLES from the definition (11.5) (b) Off highway vehicle.

For research purposes, you can view the changes to the previous bill SB19-054 below. It's interesting to see how the original bill, which was extremely friendly to FMV owners, was changed in April. Digging through the various changes under the Associated Documents tab, both Crowder and Valdez wrote the original, friendly version, and it was completely and suspiciously changed by April. The original version included what looked like some emissions exemptions, which is what may have caused some head turning.

https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1005117

EDIT. I've found a rough summary of events for the progress of SB19-054 last year. The link below lists each session of each committee in the House and Senate by date and by cross-referencing the steps in the bill tracker above you can access each meeting's documents.

https://leg.colorado.gov/content/committees?field_session_target_id=30

I've reviewed the changes last year. The body of SB19-054 from the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting on March 13th did not get struck and replaced to include SURPLUS MILITARY VEHICLES under the definition of Off highway vehicle until the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting on April 9th. The related amendments on that date, J.002 and L.010 are unavailable on the Committees page here. The only information available is that the motion to adopt the amendments was moved by Moreno.

 

[ramack]

Damn, I didn't see this last post until now.

Was anyone able to attend?